MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
Show HN: Axiom – C++ tensor library with NumPys API, optimized for Apple Silicon
by noahkay13 | 2026-02-06 09:41:12+00:00
I kept hitting the same wall: prototype something in NumPy or PyTorch,
then rewrite it in C++ for edge deployment. The rewrite always took
longer than the original work. Eigen's fixed-size matrix API doesn't
map to tensor workloads, xtensor is CPU-only with compile-time templated
types that produce unreadable errors, and none of them have GPU support
on Mac. Worse, Eigen was often slower than the Python version because
PyTorch bundles optimized BLAS while Eigen uses its own limited
implementation.

So I built Axiom to make that rewrite mechanical. The API mirrors
NumPy/PyTorch as closely as I could — same method names, broadcasting
rules, operator overloading, dynamic shapes, runtime dtypes. Code that
looks like this in PyTorch:

scores = Q.matmul(K.transpose(-2, -1)) / math.sqrt(64)
output = scores.softmax(-1).matmul(V)

looks like this in Axiom:

auto scores = Q.matmul(K.transpose(-2, -1)) / std::sqrt(64.0f);
auto output = scores.softmax(-1).matmul(V);

No mental translation. No debugging subtle API differences.

What's in the box (28k LOC):

- 100+ operations: arithmetic, reductions, activations (relu, gelu, silu,
softmax), pooling, FFT, full LAPACK linear algebra (SVD, QR, Cholesky,
eigendecomposition, solvers)
- Metal GPU via MPSGraph — all ops run on GPU, not just matmul. Compiled
graphs are cached by (shape, dtype) to avoid recompilation
- Seamless CPU ↔ GPU: `auto g = tensor.gpu();` — unified memory on Apple
Silicon avoids copies entirely
- Built-in einops: `tensor.rearrange("b h w c -> b c h w")`
- Highway SIMD across architectures (NEON, AVX2, AVX-512, SSE, WASM, RISC-V)
- Runtime dtypes via variant (readable errors, not template explosions)
- Row-major default, column-major supported via as_f_contiguous()
- Works on macOS, Linux, Windows, and WebAssembly

Performance on M4 Pro (vs Eigen with OpenBLAS, PyTorch, NumPy):

- Matmul 2048×2048: 3,196 GFLOPS (Eigen 2,911 / PyTorch 2,433)
- ReLU 4096×4096: 123 GB/s (Eigen 117 / PyTorch 70)
- FFT2 2048×2048: 14.9ms (PyTorch 27.6ms / NumPy 63.5ms)

To try it:

git clone https://github.com/frikallo/axiom.git
cd axiom && make release

Or add to your CMake project via FetchContent. Example files in examples/.

Happy to answer questions about the internals or take feedback on the API.
by pja | 2026-02-06 09:41:21+00:00
There are plenty of people on HN who could re-implement a C compiler this bad in less than three months. Algorithmically compilers like this are a solved problem that has been very well documented over the last sixty or seventy years. Implementing a small compiler is a typical MSc project that you might carry out in a couple of months alongside a taught masters.

This compiler is both slower than gcc even when optimising (you can’t actually turn optimisation off) & doesn’t reject type incorrect code so will happily accept illegal C code. It’s also apparently very brittle - what happens if you feed it the Linux kernel sources v. 6.10 instead of 6.9? - presumably it fails.

All of the above make it simultaneously 1) really, really impressive and 2) completely useless in the real world. Great for creating discussion though!
by raphman | 2026-02-06 09:41:44+00:00
a) As an outside observer, I would find such a lawsuit very interesting/valuable. But I guess the financial risk of taking on OpenAI or Anthropic is quite high.

b) If you don't want bots scraping your content and DDOSing you, there are self-hosted alternatives to Cloudflare. The simplest one that I found is https://github.com/splitbrain/botcheck - visitors just need to press a button and get a cookie that lets them through to the website. No proof-of-work or smart heuristics.
by bestham | 2026-02-06 09:42:47+00:00
The definition of a complex system is the qualifier for the quote. Many systems that are designed, implemented and found working are not complex systems. They may be complicated systems. To paraphrase Dr. Richard I. Cook’s ”How Complex Systems Fail” where he claims that complex systems are inherently hazardous, operate near the edge of failure and cannot be understood by analyzing individual components. These systems are not just complicated (like a machine with fixed parts) but dynamic, constantly evolving, and prone to multiple, coincidental failures.

A system of services that interact, where many of them are depending on each other in informal ways may be a complex system. Especially if humans are also involved.

Such a system is not something you design. You just happen to find yourself in it. Like the road to hell, the road to a complex system is paved with good intentions.
by myrmidon | 2026-02-06 09:44:17+00:00
I do agree with this. If you followed this approach consistently, you would need back pressure against individual and company wealth growth.

This could be quite good for competition, but would probably hurt sectors a lot that have high fixed costs/barriers of entry and need to compete with (foreign) unlimited-size companies.

I do think that this could fix or at least vastly improve some really difficult problems: The whole judiciary is IMO blatantly unjust right now, because higher wealth can basically buy you better outcomes, democratic representation is flawed because wealth/donations buy you access to politicians (or allows you to enter politics yourself) and even national public opinion on anything is essentially for sale to a degree via profit-driven media.

Such wealth-gap limiting could be possibly achieved by progressive taxation that rises logarithmically with revenue for companies and individual wealth (giving a strong incentive to split up wealth, and no leeway via declaring zero profits): Think 1% of revenue under 1M, 2% under 10M, ...

I'm very curious how a nation that made strong efforts in that direction would fare.
by int_19h | 2026-02-06 09:44:18+00:00
Codex 5.3 seems to be a lot chattier. As in, it comments in the chat about things it has done or is about to do. They don't show up as "thinking" CoT blocks, but as regular outputs, but overall the experience is somewhat more like Claude is in that you can spot the problems in model's reasoning much earlier if you keep an eye on it as it works, and steer it away.
by aanh09 | 2026-02-06 09:45:29+00:00
Location: US (anywhere)

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies: React, TypeScript, AWS, GCP, Supabase,
Huggingface, ML Libraries

Resume: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X0Ha-Mls5LIZO06wRmErWcSKP0W...

Email: anhtngo109@gmail.com

Highlights:

- prev frontend @Wayfair (summer'25)

- incoming infra @LinkedIn (summer'26)

- incoming cloud @Semgrep (fall'26)

On the lookout for spring'27 internships and summer'27 full-time roles
by Twisell | 2026-02-06 09:46:12+00:00
No it's a core misunderstanding of the commenters (and AI ads placement). The quote is biased because it miss the next part of Asimov's essay.

> Orwell was unable to conceive of computers or robots, or he would have
placed everyone under non-human surveillance. Our own computers to some
extent do this in the IRS, in credit files, and so on, but that does not
take us towards 1984, except in fevered imaginations. Computers and tyranny
do not necessarily go hand in hand. Tyrannies have worked very well without
computers (consider the Nazis) and the most computerised nations in today's
world are also the least tyrannical.

Ok for that last sentence guess we'll have to check if what was true in 1980 still is in 2020's.
by kreco | 2026-02-06 09:46:54+00:00
I'm not sure I agree with "impossible to change".

It's 2026, to this date I cannot use standard library/api, to open a file with utf-8 filename without a null terminating string.

When you want to talk to the OS you constantly face the need to had unnecessary overhead (allocation due to string convertion, strlen).

The OS itself does not prevent anything from having those standard "no overhead" API.

However, it's pretty clear that nobody cares to define some new sane interface and nobody care to deprecate old ones.

That would include both API and ABI.
by bananapub | 2026-02-06 09:47:02+00:00
which won't be surprising if you think about a little bit - 8.8.0/24 is anycasted, which just means that multiple independent locations around the world announce the IP range, so that your requests broadly go to a nearby instance of it. that's great for your inbound requests, but if it originated it's own DNS queries from that IP, then the replies would also get attracted to whatever instance of 8.8.8.0/24 is near the authoritative DNS server it just queried, not the instance of 8.8.8.0/24 that sent them.

also, even aside from that, having some large fraction of the entire world's DNS requests coming from one IP address would trigger everyone's anti-DOS filters and probably lead to some extremely funny router catastrophes as all traffic hashes to one bucket or whatever.
by Robbedoes | 2026-02-06 09:47:54+00:00
Good suggestion. To be honest, Cgo was the easiest for me to implement, as I originally wrote the tool in a different language. Also, most of the documentation for Netfilter and SO_ORIGINAL_DST is in C.

As for results: I’m seeing about one 'hit' per second on a standard VPS. It's a constant stream of bots looking for exploitable systems and probes from scanners like Shodan and Censys. It’s actually surprising how quickly a new IP gets picked up by these crawlers.
by blueblisters | 2026-02-06 09:48:04+00:00
I know most people feel 5.2 is a better coding model but Opus has come in handy several times when 5.2 was stuck, especially for more "weird" tasks like debugging a VIO algorithm.

5.2 (and presumably 5.3) is really smart though and feels like it has higher "raw" intelligence.

Opus feels like a better model to talk to, and does a much better job at non-coding tasks especially in the Claude Desktop app.

Here's an example prompt where Opus in Claude put in a lot more effort and did a better job than GPT5.2 Thinking in ChatGPT:

`find all the pure software / saas stocks on the nyse/nasdaq with at least $10B of market cap. and give me a breakdown of their performance over the last 2 years, 1 year and 6 months. Also find their TTM and forward PE`

Opus usage limits are a bummer though and I am conditioned to reach for Codex/ChatGPT for most trivial stuff.

Works out in Anthropic's favor, as long as I'm subscribed to them.
by vee-kay | 2026-02-06 09:48:14+00:00
Evil is, as evil does.

Bill Gates and his Foundation have a bad rep long before his Epstein link came into the news.

Who better to collude with a known child trafficker/molester, than one who has no qualms in killing children via illegal vaccines/drugs to help his nexus with Big Pharma.

Bill & Melinda Gates' Foundation's evil illegal "vaccine trials" on tribal children (especially girls) in India (without the consent of them and their parents) directly caused the deaths of several children, hospitalizations of scores of such innocent victims, and it was a huge conspiracy and controversy that was uncovered during investigations by Supreme Court and police.

https://m.economictimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/heal...

The Gates Foundation operates like a monopolistic unethical pharmaceutical company (as a weapon and Think Tank of Big Pharma) under the guise of a charitable NGO or grantmaker.

https://capitalresearch.org/article/bill-gates-big-philanthr...
by whywhywhywhy | 2026-02-06 09:51:00+00:00
> Authors would solve a problem in a way that ignored existing patterns

if you’re not writing your code why do you expect people to read it and follow your lead for whatever your preference is for a convention.

I get people who hand write being fussy about this but you start the article off devaluing coding entirely then pivot to how your codebase is written having value that needs to be followed.

It’s either low value or it isn’t but you can’t approach it as worthless then complain when others view your code as worthless and not worth reading too
by alexfernandez | 2026-02-06 09:51:29+00:00
At really high altitudes air density goes down quickly; this is good for planes but bad for airships because payloads are reduced. Plus, as you say, winds are really really strong: over 200 km/h. https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/o...

I have seen many high altitude airship studies trying to hover around, but none have been viable in the end. To go around the world it seems better to just float, as in the comment above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46881679.
by int_19h | 2026-02-06 09:51:38+00:00
I'd say that GPT 5.2 did slightly better on the stuff that I'm working on currently compared to Opus 4.5, but it's rather niche - a fancy Lojban parser in Haskell). However Opus is much easier to steer interactively because you can see what it's doing in more detail (although 5.3 is much improved in that regard!). I wouldn't feel empty-handed with either model, and both wrote large chunks of code for this project.

All that said, the single biggest reason why I use Codex a lot more is because the $200 plan for it is so much more generous. With Claude, I very quickly burn through the quota and then have to wait for several days or else buy more credit. With Codex, running in High reasoning mode as standard with occasional use of XHigh to write specs or debug gnarly issues, and having agents run almost around the clock in the background, I have hit the limit exactly once so far.
by gucci-on-fleek | 2026-02-06 09:51:54+00:00
XPS [0] seems to meet these criteria. It supports most of the features of PDF, is an "official" standard, has decent software support (including lots of open source programs), and uses a standard file format (XML). But the tooling is quite a bit worse than it is for PDF, and the file format is still complex enough that redaction would probably be just as hard.

DjVu [1] would be another option. It has really good open source tooling available, but it supports substantially less features than PDF, making it not really suitable as a drop-in replacement. The format is relatively simple though, so redaction should be fairly doable.

TIFF [2] is already occasionally used for government documents, but it's arguably more complex than PDF, so probably not a good choice for this.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_XML_Paper_Specification

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DjVu

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIFF
by planckscnst | 2026-02-06 09:52:14+00:00
I've found this orchestrator+reviewer+judge setup to yield much better results than anything else I've tried. And it's such a simple setup - a few markdown files.

I'm also creating one that is similar, but purpose-built for making the plans that this setup can orchestrate. It still needs some tweaking to get agents to follow it better - it still takes additional prompting to nudge it down the proper path. But I've had similar benefits - sending plans through this adversarial review loop has yielded significant improvements in final output.

https://github.com/Vibecodelicious/llm-conductor/blob/main/p...
by grey-area | 2026-02-06 09:52:31+00:00
Surely the corpus Opus 4.6 ingested would include whatever reference you used to check the spells were there. I mean, there are probably dozens of pages on the internet like this:

https://www.wizardemporium.com/blog/complete-list-of-harry-p...

Why is this impressive?

Do you think it's actually ingesting the books and only using those as a reference? Is that how LLMs work at all? It seems more likely it's predicting these spell names from all the other references it has found on the internet, including lists of spells.
How defensible is Gmail's position today?
by p_zuckerman | 2026-02-06 09:52:46+00:00
Gmail’s dominance seems driven by deliverability, spam filtering, reliability, and ecosystem integration.

Encrypted providers like ProtonMail offer different tradeoffs, but haven’t seen mainstream adoption.

Curious how much of Gmail’s advantage is technical vs defaults and lock-in, and whether encrypted email could realistically compete at similar scale in the near future.
by dns_snek | 2026-02-06 09:53:03+00:00
Can anyone rationalize this decision? Sure technically this is outside the stated scope however the severity of this vulnerability is immediately obvious, which should trigger some alarm bells that the scope needs to be reconsidered.

If they lose just one customer over this they're losing more than the minimum $500 bounty. They also signal to the world that they care more about some scope document than actually improving security, discouraging future hackers from engaging with their program.

What's the business case for screwing someone out of a bounty on a technicality?
by radarsat1 | 2026-02-06 09:53:10+00:00
> The ai tooling reverses this where the thinking is outsourced to the machine and the user is borderline nothing more than a spectator, an observer and a rubber stamp on top.

I find it a bit rare that this is the case though. Usually I have to carefully review what it's doing and guide it. Either by specific suggestions, or by specific tests, etc. I treat it as a "code writer" that doesn't necessarily understand the big picture. So I expect it to fuck up, and correcting it feels far less frustrating if you consider it a tool you are driving rather than letting it drive you. It's great when it gets things right but even then it's you that is confirming this.
by jbstack | 2026-02-06 09:54:36+00:00
I don't buy it. It makes sense for a small company where the cost of fixing it might be noticed. But AMD generates some ~$30bn in annual revenues. How much of a developer's time does it take to change the code to use HTTPS? $1000? $5000? Let's be extreme and call it $10,000. That's 0.00003% of AMD's annual revenue. It's barely even a rounding error on their accounts.
by ben_w | 2026-02-06 09:55:05+00:00
Those are things we do while asleep, but do not explain why we sleep. Why did evolution settle on that path, with all the dangers of being unconscious for 4-20 hours a day depending on species? Evolution clearly can get around this, dolphins have a trick that lets them (air-breathing mammals living in water) be alert 24/7, so why didn't every other creature get that?
by leoff | 2026-02-06 09:55:06+00:00
>In a sense, it is the difference between the way an entrepreneur might approach doing a startup versus how we build modern skyscrapers. Evolution versus Engineering.

There are core differences in software engineering that, unlike in construction work:

- making changes is often cheaper

- we might not know beforehand everything that is needed to be built, especially unknown unknowns

I would still agree that the truth is somewhere in between, but I would argue that, for software, it's closer to the evolutionary approach.
by bsgeraci | 2026-02-06 09:56:12+00:00
Claude is... unfortunetly... that much better. They really know how to use the tools that integrate into CLI that just makes the flow so much better.

The only extra stuff I am doing now is beads. https://github.com/steveyegge/beads

I was using speckit and ralph-loop but think anthropic baked in that ralph-loop. Basically a dumb while true until you break with the condition.
by pintxo | 2026-02-06 09:56:18+00:00
> But at the same time, the budget for justice system needs to increase. It should be most probably the strongest branch of the government. Delayed justice is one of the most common ways of injustice.

The judical branch should very much NOT be a part of the government itself, but a fully separate branch.

> Corruption within private companies is irrelevant, as the main ones to suffer from it are usually shareholders.

As we have seen in the past, we have the same, if not worse, power imbalances in private companies as in the public sector. I would therefore not call it irrelevant, but agree that the Justice system can help here if appropriatly staffed.

> Monopolies are not always a negative outcome on a free market if the company in Monopoly situation reaches that position by offering better products within the law. However they can be specially dangerous when they're artificially created by the Government (e.g. allocation of a common resource to a specific company --> corruption almost always follows).

Do you have a single example for a company who did not over time monetized its monopoly power to the detriment of the customer?
by codeflo | 2026-02-06 09:56:45+00:00
Then what precisely is the definition of complex? If "complex" just means "not designed", then the original quote that complex systems can't be designed is true but circular.

If the definition of "complex" is instead something more like "a system of services that interact", "prone to multiple, coincidental failures", then I don't think it's impossible to design them. It's just very hard. Manufacturing lines would be examples, they are certainly designed.
by int_19h | 2026-02-06 09:57:03+00:00
Given how much you can use Codex on their $200 plan, I'm virtually certain that it's subsidized.

As to why, I think in part it is because people who are willing to pay that much per month are much more likely to be using it heavily on "serious" tasks, which is, of course, a goldmine for training data - even if you can't use the inputs directly for training, just looking at various real world issues and how agents handle them (or not) is valuable, especially when all the low-hanging fruit have already been picked.

I wouldn't even be surprised if the $20 users are actually subsidizing the $200 users.
by cscazorla | 2026-02-06 09:57:36+00:00
Speedrun: burning through 1,000 Netlify build credits in under 12 hours. One rebuild every 15 minutes seemed like a great idea — until it wasn't.

Lesson learned. Moved the scheduled builds to GitHub Actions (every hour) and now Netlify just serves the static files as it should.

emergencias.live is back online. You learn from mistakes (and from invoices too).
by disgruntledphd2 | 2026-02-06 09:57:49+00:00
> The democrats turned against big tech and new tech.

While I didn't agree with a lot of the governmental responses to ChatGPT (the bowlderising of the EU AI act is my personal lowlight), I think that a lot of what the Biden admin was against was monopolies, which I entirely agree with.

It's super dangerous (as an example) that basically 3 companies now control all online advertising, and another 3 have a monopoly on renting servers. This is bad for markets and society so I was mostly onboard with a lot of what they did (and am very disappointed in the results of the trials, particularly the Google ones).

I don't think this is anti-tech, it's anti-monopoly which I think is really good for basically everyone here over the longer term.

That being said, a16z were totally just trying to make sure they had time to unload all their crypto "investments" to another sucker.
by Ronsenshi | 2026-02-06 09:57:59+00:00
This is really questionable outcome. So you'll have your own custom OS riddled with holes that AI won't be capable of fixing because the context and complexity became so high that running any small bug fix would cost thousands of dollars in tokens.

Is this how tech field ends? Overengineered brittle black-box monstrosities that nobody understands because important thing for business was "it does A, B, and C" and it doesn't matter how.
by bsgeraci | 2026-02-06 09:58:20+00:00
I have had claude go back and forth with codesimplifier agent (they developed) and a security agent.

I think adding this to your workflow helps but you have to make sure to have end to end testing on the mind. Because some changes can break things real fast.

My process is pretty plain outside of paying anthropic too much money a month. Only thing extra I am using is the beads currently. I was using speckit and ralph-loop but as of last week it does not seem to be needed. THink anthropic is baking some of thes tools into claude code.