MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
Show HN: Turkish Sieve Engine – GPU-Accelerated Prime Number Generator
by bilgisoft | 2026-01-18 04:43:37+00:00
Hi everyone!

I am excited to share a project I’ve been developing as part of my academic research: The Turkish Sieve Engine (TSE v1.0.0).

This engine is an implementation of the N/6 Bit Methodology, a novel approach designed to minimize memory footprint while maximizing throughput for prime number generation.

Whether you are a math enthusiast, a cryptography researcher, or a high-performance computing (HPC) geek, I’d love to get your feedback!

Hi everyone,

I've been working on optimizing prime number sieving, specifically focusing on reducing the memory footprint without sacrificing throughput. I've developed a methodology called N/6 Bit and implemented it into a tool called the Turkish Sieve Engine (TSE).

The project is now open-source, and I'm looking for feedback from the community regarding the implementation and performance.

Technical Overview:

Methodology: N/6 Bit structure (explained in the linked paper).

Implementation: Hybrid parallelism using NVIDIA CUDA and OpenMP.

Goal: Maximizing efficiency on modern hardware.

I've provided the pre-compiled binaries for those interested in benchmarking or code review.

GitHub: [https://github.com/bilgisofttr/turkishsieve]

Zenodo (Academic Paper): [https://zenodo.org/records/18038661]

I would love to hear your thoughts on the memory management or if you have results from different GPU architectures.
by Fh_ | 2026-01-18 04:43:58+00:00
I recently launched Hadaa Ai Landscaper which was inspired by my tough experience using advanced landscaping tools with no prior experience.

Eventually, it has evolved into what looks like a very basic Photoshop Studio but with Ai landscaping features like Automated issue detections and auto fix, masking, applying landscape presets and augmented prompt editing.

I hope users keep finding value in this.
by roenxi | 2026-01-18 04:44:57+00:00
> The idea that a medieval peasant would be envious of our standard of living is doing nothing to further the point you are trying to make.

It is a fair chunk of the point I'm making - you still have the option of living like a medieval peasant if that is important to you. The option never went away. It is still on the table. People could have kept doing what they did before and maintained the lifestyle that they were used to. It is more that people choose not to do that and I've been saying a variant of that in every comment in this thread so far. The only people who chose to do it that way wouldn't have if they'd had any alternatives because the lifestyle it enabled was terrible.

Having better options available doesn't mean the old option isn't available, more that someone'd need to be either a bit stupid or very motivated to live a particular lifestyle to choose it. it has been a lousy option that led to a mean existence for all of human history. It still does. But in absolute terms, it would be a better option in the modern economy than the ancient one.
by throwaway13337 | 2026-01-18 04:45:25+00:00
It's about control.

Our tools are an extension of us as humans. When someone else is in control of those tools, it is alienating.

Modern software is built to make us not masters of our own tools. Like your hand sometimes works for a corporation against your will. I guess that same pattern is also called a job. But the worst kind of job. The one you do without choice.

A happier future is one with humans in control over their own tools and their own livelihoods. That's software with the user's choice at the center and independent work that connects us to eachother by being in genuine service to one another.

I think this manifesto is getting to this idea but from a different angle.

It's the extractive rent seeking monopoly playbook that seeks to undermine it. Only in captive, monopolized markets are companies able to force the use of tools we don't control.
by bvisness | 2026-01-18 04:46:48+00:00
I think it's easier to write than React! (And remember, I did React professionally for many years.)

People assume that surely the pile of high-level languages and frameworks will actually result in a better experience. But Dear Imgui or Clay are genuinely easier to use, easier to iterate in, and faster too. This is why I think it's so unhelpful to focus on the position in the stack: Dear Imgui is a better high level tool than React, despite being "low level" by modern expectations!
by greyface- | 2026-01-18 04:47:32+00:00
Judgment: https://torrentfreak.com/images/anna-oclc-default-judgment.p...

Disappointing in particular to see the court validate a ToS "browsewrap agreement", admitting that OCLC provided no evidence that Anna's Archive was aware of the agreement, but still finding the fact that "Defendant is a sophisticated party that scraped data from Plaintiffs website daily" as sufficient to bind them to it.
by taurath | 2026-01-18 04:48:28+00:00
That’s more about the idea that it’s helpful to think of ourselves as made of parts, as a way to describe both our various roles in life (employee, spouse, friend, learner, etc) and also how we can interact with parts that we’ve exiled away, or hold experiences we have hangups about.

What I’m mostly talking about is that transformation happens through life’s journeys! Requires much less commitment to the idea, as it’s pretty universally understood.
by QuantumNomad_ | 2026-01-18 04:48:42+00:00
I use macOS and have done so for several years. But I had to look up this app icon to know what app it was. It’s the Pages app, which I don’t use and don’t keep in my dock. Looking at only the leftmost icon, I was thinking it might be the Notes app or the Freeform app, both of which might conceivably also be represented by what to me looks like an Apple Pencil for iPad.

Looking at the reminder of the icons, I recognize that it’s not the Notes app because although I no longer use that one I have in the past so I remember that it has looked like a notepad with some lines and some yellow on it. But the leftmost one might as well have been a newer version of Notes than the one I last used.
by Alejandro9R | 2026-01-18 04:50:30+00:00
I mean, if you have a modern digital display you might be able to change the brightness through the DDC/CI protocol and a simple app or extension, available in every much every OS. With a keyboard shortcut or two clicks you change it. Fiddle with monitor settings is painful, but that protocol is a godsend. Even one of my cheapest 13 years old monitor supports it.
by counters | 2026-01-18 04:51:45+00:00
Some things to consider.

First, what is "too quickly" with reference to CO2 removal from the atmosphere? At present, human civilization emits over 40 gigatons - or 40 trillion kilograms - of CO2 per year. And that increases the atmospheric burden by about 2.5 parts per million per year. So today, before you even start _reducing_ atmospheric CO2, you need to be sucking down at least 40 trillion kilograms of CO2. I struggle to imagine a scenario outside of total science fiction where that would be remotely possible.

Second, the equilibrium climate response to changes in greenhouse gas forcing take on the order of decades or centuries to realize. This is because the dynamics of the climate system are heavily buffered. For example, the ocean acts as a giant heat capacitor that slowly interchanges with the atmosphere. Were you to instantaneously halve the CO2 in the atmosphere, you'd likely see a pretty classic exponential decay in global average temperature (and other more nuanced responses); in the present climate, it's not clear we have already passed specific "tipping points" that would induce that hysteresis I described in the previous comment (in fact - one could read "climate tipping point" as a synonym for dynamical system hysteresis). Theoretically, one could try to "dial in" some particular equilibrium climate state, but it's not obvious over what timescale you'd have to intervene and what the cost of such an intervention would be.

The cool thing is none of this needs to be purely "theoretical." You could simulate all of this _today_ if you had a setup to run a global climate model. A "4X CO2" experiment where you branch from an equilibrium spin-up climate state and immediately apply a global quadrupling of CO2 has been a completely standard experiment as part of CMIP for over two decades. The opposite experiment is an established protocol for both the Carbon Dioxide Removal Intercomparison Project [1], which features an annual ramp down of CO2 at a 1% per year rate, and the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project [2], which features a more direct counterpart, with an abrupt decrease of atmospheric CO2 by 50%. There is a large body of literature discussing the results of these classes of experiments, but this is outside of my primary research focus and I can't turn you to particularly good papers off-hand. But they're easy enough to find.

[1]: https://www.geomar.de/en/cdrmip
[2]: https://www.cfmip.org/experiments/cfmip3cmip6
by cyber_kinetist | 2026-01-18 04:52:10+00:00
I think as typical niche Internet "communities" do, the most vocal will naturally be snobby elitists who deride at anything that doesn't fit in their narrow worldview, and that mob will naturally represent the "community". (I also think Jon Blow has his part in enabling that, but oh well.)

But I'm still impressed what Casey was able to organize during the past few years, it's clear that what he's published as educational material (Handmade Hero, Computer: Enhance) has invigorated interest in low-level programming. Even though there might not be immediate results, I think this will matter later on when the people who grew up with these materials will now build new infrastructure for the post-Web era.
by pessimist | 2026-01-18 04:52:17+00:00
From Terry Tao's comments in the thread:

"Very nice! ... actually the thing that impresses me more than the proof method is the avoidance of errors, such as making mistakes with interchanges of limits or quantifiers (which is the main pitfall to avoid here). Previous generations of LLMs would almost certainly have fumbled these delicate issues.

...

I am going ahead and placing this result on the wiki as a Section 1 result (perhaps the most unambiguous instance of such, to date)"

The pace of change in math is going to be something to watch closely. Many minor theorems will fall. Next major milestone: Can LLMs generate useful abstractions?
by futhsyb | 2026-01-18 04:52:47+00:00
I guess you’ve never experienced asking, and then having the person(s) act out from turning up the volume, aggression, following you on you hike or off the bus. All these things have happened around me or to me. I’ve stopped asking. It’s not worth the risk.

People doing these kinds of things don’t give a F about anyone else. They’re terrible “humans” and should be treated as such.
by greatgib | 2026-01-18 04:53:05+00:00
Just my point of view but I like the vibe of the htmx creator but think that htmx sucks to use it more than for a demo case.

If the guy was not cool and posting fun memes, no one would even look at that.

You go backward in term of performance by forcing a constant stream of heavy content between the app and the backend, state is hard to manage, The backend would have again to take charge of the CPU intensive part of the app for users. The framework is limiting by trying to be very simple, fitting tags and hiding the complexity to the dev (in an "automagic" way). But that is the worse as, as soon you want to deviate from the main documented highway case, it will become nightmarish.
by kmaitreys | 2026-01-18 04:54:14+00:00
Thanks for more context. Yeah the article seems very neutered (I think it's fair to say lying by omission, especially to me who just learn about the incident through this thread/this article). I think that's the whole argument. Wikipedia is not news and you cannot get first hand full context picture from it.

Instead, like everything else, it's another opinionated aggregator of information.
by orbital-decay | 2026-01-18 04:56:48+00:00
Anyone experienced remembers that any 60Hz CRT is a flickering mess, especially computer monitors that used shorter-lived phosphors, and any old TV had terrible burn-in. That's why you want to reduce the amount of bright pixels on it. That's not a legibility thing.

A display is not a light bulb if you aren't specifically making it a light bulb against the poorly lit environment. There's no difference between reflected and emitted light, what you actually need is much better lighting in the room, so your display doesn't stand out when used on a brightness level that provides sufficient contrast (and just because working in a poorly lit room is unhealthy).

Moreover, a light scheme in a well-lit environment is less eye-straining, because your pupils contract and adapt to the light. If you're using a dark display against a dark background, your eyes adapt to the dark and then you're hit with the bright text. If you want to display more than just text, dark mode becomes a problem because most of the content (e.g. pictures, videos) is not largely dark.

tl;dr avoid excessive contrast and flickering. Everything else is individual eyesight differences, opinions, and snake oil.
by chongli | 2026-01-18 04:58:39+00:00
The best icon is the original MacWrite icon by Susan Kare [1]. No superfluous details, simple, and communicates the act of writing perfectly.

Susan’s suite of original icons for the Macintosh set a high watermark for legibility, usability, and comforting design. We really haven’t returned to that level of ease of use ever since.

[1] https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XLfMbsAfWqc/Vtae74eUHmI/AAAAAAAAH... (bottom row, 3rd from right)
by foltik | 2026-01-18 04:59:16+00:00
I disagree with this framing that people who tinker are unproductive, and that people who don’t care about their tools or OS are only focused on productivity. Perhaps you just fall in the latter camp and feel that way about tinkerers?

In reality I think depth of tinkering and productivity are two separate axes. I’ve seen plenty of examples of all combinations of each extreme.
Cursor AI refusing $20 refund after 3 days of broken service
by Waldopro | 2026-01-18 04:59:30+00:00
I paid $20 for Cursor Pro on Jan 14. After 3 days, tokens were exhausted and performance became unusable. I requested a refund on Jan 17 (within 7 days). Their AI bot "Sam" denied multiple times, then human "Charlene" denied saying "reflects usage" for 3/30 days. Now they've kicked me back to the AI bot.

Is this normal SaaS practice now? 3 days = no refund for full month?

Transaction: #395540957397
by christophilus | 2026-01-18 05:00:54+00:00
I once wrote software that had to manage the traffic coming into a major shipping terminal- OCR, gate arms, signage, cameras for inspecting chassis and containers, SIP audio comms, RFID readers, all of which needed to be reasoned about in a state machine, none of which were reliable. It required a lot of on the ground testing and observation and tweaking along with human interventions when things went wrong. I’d guess LLMs would have been good at subsets of that project, but the entire thing would still require a team of humans to build again today.
by K0balt | 2026-01-18 05:01:03+00:00
I mean, it is kind of a bit, in a way, but I really did announce to my social group my resolution, about 40 years ago, and I’ve been ratcheting it up gradually ever since. I have kept my public and official New Year’s resolutions for 37 years running. I’m up to “intentional and senseless acts of violence that end in the injury of innocents“.

You may scoff, but senselessness is highly contextually dependent and can easily apply to something that seemed rational under the fog of circumstance. Thats actually not that easy to promise without forsaking the option of violence altogether, which I am not at liberty to do, since I have a family to protect.

It’s a slow, intentional process. I don’t want to risk overreaching. Still, they are worthwhile goals. Low-hanging fruit is still fruit.

The useful thing to me has been to expect little from people and life in general, but a lot of myself. Then be delighted when things go as they should, or when people come through. It’s a contagious positivity masquerading as cynicism, or maybe the other way around, I’m not sure… but it allows me to focus on my role in things, my choices, my actions, and reactions to the external world. It is stoicism adjacent.

The New Year’s resolutions are mostly an advertising campaign for the overall philosophy, really, by promising people easy success in something that is often a struggle, and illuminating the fact that we choose our successes and failures by how we view external circumstances, not so much by the circumstances themselves.
by kmaitreys | 2026-01-18 05:01:43+00:00
I got some additional context from another reply. Your replies are vague and don't clear things for me. Just like the article.

In your earlier reply you said relevancy of something was subjective. No. Inference of facts from given information by each person may be subjective. But the information itself, must never be influenced by the subjectivity stemming from the information provider.

I get that revealing some information which maybe considered sensitive will be used by awful people. But that doesn't apply here. You cannot withhold information on the pretense that it will be used maliciously. Otherwise it's no different that dystopian stories of catching criminals before they commit crime.
by NihilDigit | 2026-01-18 05:01:46+00:00
I wanted to monitor my Claude Code and Codex limits on Waybar, but public APIs don't expose these specific web-tier quotas (like the rolling 5-hour window).

Since the data is available on the dashboard, I wrote a tool to extract it directly.

It uses browser_cookie3 to read the active session from the local browser and curl_cffi to bypass Cloudflare/WAF protections. It effectively treats the web dashboard as an API endpoint.

The tool includes a setup command (waybar-ai-usage setup) that automatically injects the module and styles into your Waybar config (creating a backup first), so no manual JSON editing is required.

I also packaged the dependencies on AUR to make it a one-liner install for Arch users.
by Joel_Mckay | 2026-01-18 05:01:47+00:00
The best business plans:

1. do not require secrecy

2. do not require external funding to enter a profit mode

3. do not quire some fancy specialized team labor skills

4. do not operate like they have a $10B market cap with financial and legal teams

5. produce products that are unique, have actual utility, and have perceived scarcity in the market

One often will keep more money with a smaller firm in a niche, than competing with irrational groups with practically unlimited hype investment capital. Most truly successful people I know do not hang out on social media goading competitors and cons. =3
by ethbr1 | 2026-01-18 05:04:58+00:00
Comparing that study to how any classroom works, from kindergarten through high school, is ridiculous.

What grade school classes have you ever been in where the teacher said "Okay, get to it" and then ignored the class until the task was completed?

I'm not saying it's not a Scotsman: I'm saying you grabbed an orange in your rush to refute apples.
by acheong08 | 2026-01-18 05:05:03+00:00
For me, it's a nice way to keep up with what's happening without going through the effort of following the right people in the right places. It's a stretch to call it a community though, although perhaps my definition may be a bit old fashioned. Anonymity just doesn't really fit.
I do like seeing the diversity of opinion though. It's rare in real life to have people verbalize their disagreements, much less in a well researched manner.
Ask HN: Is repalcing an enterprise product with LLMs a realistic strategy?
by chandmk | 2026-01-18 05:05:24+00:00
I’m looking for perspectives from people who have actually built or operated long-lived enterprise software.

Context (kept intentionally generic):

We have a mature, revenue-generating enterprise application that’s been in production for years.

Semi-technical leadership (with no engineering background) is aggressively considering spinning up a new product, built using LLM-driven tools (AI code generation, rapid prototyping, etc.), with the belief that:

modern AI tooling dramatically reduces build cost, LLMs are going to improve in the future

the new system is an attempt to replicate most of what an established competitor built over ~10 years

customers can optionally migrate over time (old system remains supported)

software-only product that aims to replace all of the current application's operational complexity with a goal to make it resellable product.

early vibe coded demos created with LLM tools are a good proxy for eventual production readiness

The pitch to ownership is that this can be done much faster and cheaper than historically required, largely because “AI changes the economics of building software.”

I’m not anti-LLM — I use them daily and see real productivity gains. My concern is more structural:

LLMs seem great at accelerating scaffolding and iteration, but unclear how much they reduce:

operational complexity

data correctness issues

migration risk

long-tail customer edge cases

support and accountability costs

Demos look convincing, but they don’t surface failure modes

It feels like we’re comparing the end state of a mature competitor to the initial build cost of a greenfield system

I’m trying to sanity-check my thinking.

Questions for the community:

Have you seen LLM-first rebuilds of enterprise products succeed in practice?

Where does the “cheap and fast” narrative usually break down?

Does AI materially change the long-term cost curve, or mostly the early velocity?

If you were advising non-technical owners, what risks would you insist they explicitly acknowledge?

Is there a principled way to argue for or against this strategy without sounding like “the legacy pessimist”?

I’m especially interested in answers from:

people who have owned production systems at scale

founders who attempted full or partial rewrites

engineers who joined AI-first greenfield efforts after demos were already sold

Appreciate any real-world experiences, success stories, or cautionary tales.
by sequin | 2026-01-18 05:05:41+00:00
FWIW, I just gave Deepseek the same prompt and it solved it too (much faster than the 41m of ChatGPT). I then gave both proofs to Opus and it confirmed their equivalence.

The answer is yes. Assume, for the sake of contradiction, that there exists an \(\epsilon > 0\) such that for every \(k\), there exists a choice of congruence classes \(a_1^{(k)}, \dots, a_k^{(k)}\) for which the set of integers not covered by the first \(k\) congruences has density at least \(\epsilon\).

For each \(k\), let \(F_k\) be the set of all infinite sequences of residues \((a_i)_{i=1}^\infty\) such that the uncovered set from the first \(k\) congruences has density at least \(\epsilon\). Each \(F_k\) is nonempty (by assumption) and closed in the product topology (since it depends only on the first \(k\) coordinates). Moreover, \(F_{k+1} \subseteq F_k\) because adding a congruence can only reduce the uncovered set. By the compactness of the product of finite sets, \(\bigcap_{k \ge 1} F_k\) is nonempty.

Choose an infinite sequence \((a_i) \in \bigcap_{k \ge 1} F_k\). For this sequence, let \(U_k\) be the set of integers not covered by the first \(k\) congruences, and let \(d_k\) be the density of \(U_k\). Then \(d_k \ge \epsilon\) for all \(k\). Since \(U_{k+1} \subseteq U_k\), the sets \(U_k\) are decreasing and periodic, and their intersection \(U = \bigcap_{k \ge 1} U_k\) has density \(d = \lim_{k \to \infty} d_k \ge \epsilon\). However, by hypothesis, for any choice of residues, the uncovered set has density \(0\), a contradiction.

Therefore, for every \(\epsilon > 0\), there exists a \(k\) such that for every choice of congruence classes \(a_i\), the density of integers not covered by the first \(k\) congruences is less than \(\epsilon\).

\boxed{\text{Yes}}