MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by elvismdev | 2026-02-19 19:37:40+00:00
Author here. I built this because Claude Code's built-in memory (CLAUDE.md, Auto Memory, Session Memory) works well for static rules and compressed summaries, but loses the detailed reasoning behind decisions between sessions.

The server uses mem0ai as a library, Qdrant for vector storage, and Ollama for local embeddings (bge-m3, 1024 dims). Optional Neo4j adds a knowledge graph. Everything including the LLM fact extraction step can run locally.

A few engineering decisions worth mentioning:

- Zero-config auth: reads your existing OAT token from ~/.claude/.credentials.json instead of requiring a separate API key. 3-tier fallback chain (env var → credentials file → API key).

- If you enable the graph layer, each add_memory triggers 3 extra LLM calls. To avoid burning your Claude subscription quota on entity extraction, you can route those to a local Ollama model (Qwen3:14b at Q4_K_M gets 0.971 tool-calling F1).

I patched mem0 upstream to support OAT token reuse (PR #4035). Their official MCP server is cloud-only, which is why I built this local version.

Happy to discuss the architecture or tradeoffs.

Full writeup with setup guide: https://dev.to/n3rdh4ck3r/how-to-give-claude-code-persistent...
by dnautics | 2026-02-19 19:38:52+00:00
why? I suspect that writing code itself is extremely token efficient (unless like your keywords happen to be silly, super-long alien text).

Like which do you think is more token-efficient?

1)

<tool-call write_code "my_function(my_variable)"/>

2)

<tool-call available_functions/>

resp:
<option> my_function </option>
<option> your_function </option>
<option> some_other_function </option>
<option> kernel_function1 </option>
<option> kernel_function2 </option>
<option> imported_function1 </option>
<option> imported_function2 </option>
<option> ... </option>
<tool-call write_function_call "my_function"/>
resp:
<option> my_variable </option>
<option> other_variable_of_same_type </option>
<tool-call write_variable "my_variable"/>
by Borealid | 2026-02-19 19:39:31+00:00
Care to explain what you think is correct, if that is incorrect?

CIA is about security. It's not about some kind of operational best practices.

Supporting example: creating a system where someone failing to enter their password correctly one time locks them out for a day is problematic, because that system can be made unavailable by an attacker. This is not an Available system, and thus not as secure as one that has a more flexible lockout policy.

Supporting example: creating a system where an application is only available from one IP address is problematic, because an attacker can take out one ISP and knock that IP address off the Internet. Making the system more Available by allowing users to access it from other IPs improves the overall security posture.
by yongjik | 2026-02-19 19:39:42+00:00
I can't believe I'm defending Yoon, but this was one issue where Yoon identified the correct problem, and all those doctors were clearly in the wrong. But because there are so few doctors, things like emergency rooms were always overfull, and doctors who worked there were always overworked, and when they said no there was nothing the rest of the country could do. So the doctors basically had the rest of the country by its balls, so to speak.

It will forever grate me that those assholes of Korean Medical Association could say "You see how hard we're working for all of you guys? That's why there should be no more doctors!" with a straight face and will never face any consequences for that.

(Of course, it didn't help Yoon that he attacked this problem with the finesse of a bulldozer, with disastrous consequences. But still.)
by hamedmp | 2026-02-19 19:40:45+00:00
super valid concerns, but i believe all of them fixable.

true that llms are stochastic by nature, but with models like opus 4.5/4.6, the quality is just another magnitude. and all these can have live tests, giving feedback for the code written.

the "kernel" here is merely an analogy, just like how we don't care about lsp and all the details in old ide's, and just use claude code and such, the ai native os will abstract away all these details, like kernel, ...

the failure rate will depend on what type of projects you're asking and how much you're customizing your os. here is where the tests needs to be in place (and the healer jumps to fix the config format,...)
by insane_dreamer | 2026-02-19 19:40:45+00:00
Future humans (if we survive) will look back at climate denialists (or who agree it exists but don't want to do anything about it or refuse to believe it's accelerated by CO2 emissions or burning fossil fuels), the same way we look back at the Catholic Church during the inquisition era who stupidly refused to accept a heliocentric world (and imprisoned and sometimes burned at the stake those who did).

Except that today's denialists, and the politicians/governments who enact their policies, are much much stupider, and dangerously so, because 1) we have much more evidence than the Church had, and 2) while there was relatively little harm in believing the Earth was the center of the solar system, there is great harm in believing that burning more fossil fuels doesn't accelerate global warming.
by willquack | 2026-02-19 19:40:47+00:00
> you can run an initial VDiff, and then resume that one as you get closer to the cutover point.

VDiff (v2) only compares the source and destination at a specific point in time with resume only comparing rows with PK higher than the last one compared before it was paused. I assume this means:

1. VDiff doesn't catch updates to rows with PK lower than the point it was paused which could have become corrupt, and

2. VDiff doesn't continuously validate cdc changes meaning (unless you enforce extra downtime to run / resume a vdiff) you can never be 100% sure if your data is valid before SwitchTraffic

I'm curious if this is something customers even care about, or is point in time data validation sufficient enough to catch any issues that could occur during migrations?
by ByThyGrace | 2026-02-19 19:40:53+00:00
I've read opinions in the same vein of what you said, except painting this as a good outcome. The gist of the argument is why spend time looking for the right tool and effort learning its uses when you can tell an agent to work out the "problem" for you and spit out a tailored solution.

It's about being oblivious, I suppose. Not too different to claiming there will be no need to write new fiction when an LLM will write the work you want to read by request.
by spwa4 | 2026-02-19 19:41:11+00:00
That's going to be another big problem with AI. The same problem they have with developers.

Management: "We need to do X"

AI does X

Management: "It's not working"

AI: what do you mean? It does exactly what you asked.

Management: "I wanted it to do Y, and that's how you do it" (with Y having nothing to do with X whatsoever)

AI: ...

Management: I'm hiring the developers back ...
by Gormo | 2026-02-19 19:41:27+00:00
> this feels like a false equivalence and slippery slope fallacy.

The slippery slope fallacy is purely a logical fallacy, meaning that it's fallacious to argue that any movement in one direction logically entails further movements in the same direction. Arguing that a slippery slope empirically exists -- i.e. that observable forces in the world are affecting things such that movement in one direction does manifestly make further movement in that direction more likely -- is absolutely not an instance of the slippery slope fallacy.

A concrete instance of the metaphor itself makes this clear: if you grease up an inclined plane, then an object dropped at the top of it will slide to the bottom. Similarly, if you put in place legal precedents and establish the enforcement apparatus for a novel state intervention then you are making further interventions in that direction more likely. This is especially true in a political climate where factional interest that actually are pushing for more extreme forms of intervention manifestly are operating. Political slippery slopes are a very observable phenomenon, and it is not a fallacy to point them out.

> Whether or not social media does produce that measurable harm is not my area of expertise, but that doesn't mean we can't study it and figure it out.

It's true that the fact that it isn't your area of expertise doesn't mean we can't study it and figure it out.

Rather the thing that does mean that we can't study it and figure it out is that what constitute "harm" is a normative question, not an empirical one, and the extent to which there is widespread consensus on that question is a bounded one -- the more distant we get from evaluating physical, quantifiable impacts, and the more we progress into the intangible and subjective, the less agreement there is.

And where there is agreement in modern American society, it tends in the opposite direction of what you're implying here: apart from very narrow categories, most people would not consider mere exposure to information or non-physical social interactions to be things that can inflict harm, at least not to a level sufficient to justify preemptive intervention.
by throwawayq3423 | 2026-02-19 19:42:33+00:00
> Huh? ICE is targeting illegal aliens.

Overstaying your visa is a civil offense. Kidnapping and assaulting people who haven't even committed a misdemeanor is illegal and unconstitutional.

> Protesters try to interfere ICE targeting illegal aliens

Well in that case you could declare all protests as "interfering with police operations" thereby making illegal all protests and ohhhhh ok I get it.

You're not a "both sides" guy. You actively support this admin attacking the constitution and you're trying to make it look better by creating false equivalences instead of just owning what you support.

I'd have at least a little respect for you if you just owned it.

We're done here.
by ben_w | 2026-02-19 19:42:52+00:00
> Why on earth would it be 10% of their world wide income and not their UK-based income? These politicians really think they have more power than they really do.

Because fines are not a tax, they exist as a punishment for bad behaviour, so the question should really be "why not 100% of worldwide income?" (Or 200%, because a year of income is arbitrary; or "why not enough to bankrupt the company?" because profit, income, and bank balance are all different things, etc.)

The reason for only 10% is that this is to signal "we're still playing cooperate" in game theory, just with a baked-in rough (and rounded) guess of what big tech's typical income distribution is, in order to avoid shenanigans during court cases where e.g. someone tries to argue with creative accounting that their UK revenue is less than it really is.
by foxyv | 2026-02-19 19:42:54+00:00
It depends on context for sure. Without a specific case study you can't really say.

However, in general, they are not exclusive. This has been demonstrated fairly often. In fact, it is often the case that maximizing liberty leads to more security.

https://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/europeanamericanrelationsh...

https://www.securityanddemocracy.org/post/beyond-the-false-c...
by jiriknesl | 2026-02-19 19:43:02+00:00
I don't want to be overly negative, but it seems to me that author considers just different flavours of C.

There is a massive difference between Clojure, Prolog, and Forth.

The whole:

type name = value—type-focused
name: type = value—name-focused
var name type = value—qualifier-focused

Is so much deep into details of how syntax might look like.

If you are choosing between Kotlin and Go, it is for the platform, not the syntax. If you decide between Haskell, Idris, Scheme, you do it with the syntax in mind.
by PaulHoule | 2026-02-19 19:43:11+00:00
Try the formulation "anything about AI is boring."

Whether it is the guy reporting on his last year of agentic coding (did half-baked evals of 25 models that will be off the market in 2 years) or Steve Yegge smoking weed and gaslighting us with "Gas Town" or the self-appointed Marxist who rails against exploitation without clearly understanding what role Capitalism plays in all this, 99% of the "hot takes" you see about AI are by people who don't know anything valuable at all.

You could sit down with your agent and enjoy having a coding buddy, or you could spend all day absorbed in FOMO reading long breathless posts by people who know about as much as you do.

If you're going to accomplish something with AI assistants it's going to be on the strength of your product vision, domain expertise, knowledge of computing platforms, what good code looks like, what a good user experience looks like, insight into marketing, etc.

Bloggers are going to try to convince you there is some secret language to write your prompts in, or some model which is so much better than what you're using but this is all seductive because it obscures the fact that the "AI skills" will be obsolete in 15 minutes but all of those other unique skills and attributes that make you you are the ones that AI can put on wheels.
by agentifysh | 2026-02-19 19:43:32+00:00
He'll be pardoned and released by the next election cycle, remember 2 presidents were even sentenced to death at one point.

I'm reading the comments here and surprised by the lack of depth of assessing Korea's history of prosecuting its presidents and most of you are just regurgitating what's reported in mainstream news that is echoed by Korean mainstream news which cannot give you a neutral impartial view on the situation.

Two Korean presidents were sentenced to death and were pardoned in the 90s. another two Korean presidents were jailed for decades and were released after a few years. All of this is just a quick pandering to voters for whichever side gets hold and I am willing to wager that the current and last President will also see the insides of a jail cell.

I point that democracies like American politics even when it gets ugly to the point do not engage in such tit for tat against the President to the point of sending them to jail, for obvious reasons.
by x3cca | 2026-02-19 19:43:48+00:00
I think there's just an plain faulty assumption that hiring is optimized for best candidate in lowest time for the optimal work done delta improvement.

Hiring is a process with many different motives. Like:

- Signaling company growth

- Appeasing overworked employees that something is being done

- Signaling that you or your team is important by gatekeepimg the role

- Signaling that you are important by participating or contributing to the hiring process

- Endlessly window shopping candidates simply because finding the perfect one is fun

There's a simple fact that if no one is pressuring hiring to pick someone sooner, there is simply no motivation to. And hiring is everyone involved. Managers, engineers, c suite, anyone with a veto in the process of a candidate. A single kink in the pipe can drag on the process forever. Even if engineering is slammed, if the recruiter screen or even the final CEO interview doesn't interalize that, the process is borked.

Now the real question is where are the hiring platforms that optimize for these weird motivation. I bet a platform where you swipe candidates for fun and encourage the whole team bikeshed screener quizzes would do gangbusters. Straight up make it a company tinder where unless recruiting, engineer, and CEO all swipe right on a candidate its a match! (Barf)
by vorticalbox | 2026-02-19 19:43:51+00:00
one thing that aways slowed me down was writing jsdocs and testing.

Now i can write one example of a pass and then get codex to read the code and write a test for all the branches in that section saves time as it can type a lot faster than i can and its mostly copying the example i already have but changing the input to hit all the branches.
by kazinator | 2026-02-19 19:44:22+00:00
> To tackle this issue, the model incorporates the concept of a “wide pointer” (a.k.a. fat pointer) – a larger pointer that carries bounds information alongside the pointer value.

Bounds checking with fat pointers existed as a set of patches for GCC in the early 2000's. (C front end only).

https://sourceforge.net/projects/boundschecking/
by iggori | 2026-02-19 19:44:33+00:00
I wrote this after years of working inside large European companies. What looks like an "innovation problem" is usually an incentive problem. People aren’t rewarded for taking risks, owning outcomes, or pushing things forward, so the system defaults to safety and process.

I’m curious how this compares to what engineers see in the US. Is it the same pattern or something different?
by _DeadFred_ | 2026-02-19 19:44:46+00:00
And when they do is when copyright protections might come into play. But not the basic learning of being a human being.

My playing copyrighted music on my synths at home, or singing lyrics along are different than if I am a professional musician benefiting financially from playing someone else's music in public.

Producing a product = market rules apply
Just living as a human = totally different thing
by andoando | 2026-02-19 19:44:48+00:00
Been working on mistro.sh

Idea is to give agents and humans power to both post to and consume from a vector/RAG database. So then you can do something like "Im looking for someone whose read this book recently and wants to talk about it" or "find me blog posts about x y or z". Pretty difficult to get over the need a user base to have a user base hurdle though and Im horrible with marketing
by ericmcer | 2026-02-19 19:44:56+00:00
Unfortunately the big players are pretty entrenched so the degraded quality that appears once AI fails to replace laid off workers will have minimal impact on their bottom line. And the bar for government is literally as low as "Is this such bad UX that it will cause a revolution?".

So why would they care whether its Covid, AI or a Recession that gives them the excuse to do less and less. The system keeps on rolling, the rich get richer, normal peoples lives get incrementally shittier.
by marxisttemp | 2026-02-19 19:45:03+00:00
I wouldn’t want to use a terminal-only tool with no affordances for cloud sync for home management, something that inherently is likely to involve all members of a household who are likely not all proficient with terminal usage. You should ask your LLM to make something that can run as a home server and have different clients.

I also personally wouldn’t trust the database of all my important home info to a vibe-coded program.
by mytailorisrich | 2026-02-19 19:45:04+00:00
Blunt opinion: Most devs are not that good and really only execute what they are told to do.

The threat of AI for devs, and the way to drastically improve productivity is there: keep the better devs who can think systemically, who can design solutions, who can solve issues themselves and give them all the AI help available, cut the rest.
Show HN: Getting Warmer – Daily word game scored by GloVe embedding similarity
by frostadvisory | 2026-02-19 19:45:26+00:00
Each day there's a new secret word — you guess words and get a temperature score from -40° to 100° based on cosine similarity of GloVe 100d embeddings. The closer your guess is in meaning to the target, the warmer your score. Built with Nuxt 3, AWS Amplify, and ~400k word vectors stored as binary chunks in S3. Happy to answer questions about the implementation.
by JohnMakin | 2026-02-19 19:45:31+00:00
It's a reasonable question - I would probably answer, having shipped some of these naive solutions before, that you'll find out later it doesn't do entirely what you wished, is very difficult/impossible to maintain, has severe flaws you're unable to be aware of because you lack the domain expertise, or the worst in my opinion, becomes completely unable to adapt to new features you need with it, where as the more mature solutions most likely already had spent considerable amount of time thinking about these things.

I was dabbling in consulting infrastructure for a bit, often prospects would come to me with stuff like this "well I'll just have AI do it" and my response has been "ok, do that, but do keep me in mind if that becomes very difficult a year or two down the road." I haven't yet followed up with any of them to see how they are doing, but some of the ideas I heard were just absolute insanity to me.
by netik | 2026-02-19 19:45:34+00:00
Caveat: I was employee 13 at Twitter and I spent a long time dealing with random failure modes.

At extremely high scale you start to run into very strange problems. We used to say that all of your "Unix Friends" fail at scale and act differently.

I once had 3000 machines running NTP sync'd cronjobs on the exact same second pounding the upstream server and causing outages (Whoops, add random offsets to cron!)

This sort of "dogpile effect" exists when fetching keys as well. A key drops out of cache and 30 machines (or worker threads) trying to load the same key at the same time, because the cache is empty.

One of the solutions around this problem was Facebook's Dataloader (https://github.com/graphql/dataloader), which tries to intercept the request pipeline, batch the requests together and coalesce many requests into one.

Essentially DataLoader will coalesce all individual loads which occur within a single frame of execution (a single tick of the event loop) and then call your batch function with all requested keys.

It helps by reducing requests and offering something resembling backpressure by moving the request into one code path.

I would expect that you'd have the same sort of problem at scale with this system given the number of requests on many procs across many machines.

We had a lot of small tricks like this (they add up!), in some cases we'd insert a message queue inbetween the requestor and the service so that we could increase latency / reduce request rate while systems were degraded. Those "knobs" were generally implemented by "Decider" code which read keys from memcache to figure out what to do.

By "pushes to connected SDKs": I assume you're holding a thread with this connection; How do you reconcile this when you're running something like node with PM2 where you've got 30-60 processes on a single host? They won't be sharing memory, so that's a lot of updates.

It seems better to have these updates pushed to one local process that other processes can read from via socket or shared memory.

I'd also consider the many failure modes of services. Sometimes services go catatonic upon connect and don't respond, sometimes they time out, sometimes they throw exceptions, etc...

There's a lot to think about here but as I said what you've got is a great start.
by sillyfluke | 2026-02-19 19:45:53+00:00
I think you're missing the general point of the post.

>AI frees my human brain to think about goals, features, concepts, user experience and "big picture" stuff.

The trigger for the post was about post-AI Show HN, not about about whether vibe-coding is of value to vibe-coders, whatever their coding chops are. For Show HN posts, the sentence I quoted precisely describes the things that would be mind-numbingly boring to Show HN readers.

pre-AI, what was impressive to Show HN readers was that you were able to actually implement all that you describe in that sentence by yourselves and also have some biochemist commenting, "I'm working at a so-and-so research lab and this is exactly what I was looking for!"

Now the biochemist is out there vibe-coding their own solution, and now, there is no way for the HN reader to differentiate your "robust" entry from a completely vibe-code noobie entry, no matter how long you worked on the "important stuff".

Why? because the barrier of entry has been completely obliterated. What we took for granted was that "knowing how to code" was a proxy filter for "thought and worked hard on the problem." And that filter allowed for high-quality posts.

That is why the observation that you know longer can guarentee or have any way of telling quickly that the posters spent some time on the problem is a great observation.

The very value that you gain from vibe-coding is also the very thing that threatens to turn Show HN into a glorified Product Hunt cesspool.

"No one goes there any more, it's too crowded." etc etc