rottc0dd (u/rottc0dd)

rottc0dd commented on Ask HN: Is it time to fork HN into AI/LLM and "Everything else/other?" · Posted by u/bookofjoe

simonw · a month ago

I built you this: https://tools.simonwillison.net/hacker-news-filtered

It shows you the Hacker News page with ai and llm stories filtered out.

You can change the exclusion terms and save your changes in localStorage.

o3 knocked it out for me in a couple of minutes: https://chatgpt.com/share/68766f42-1ec8-8006-8187-406ef452e0...

Initial prompt was:

  Build a web tool that displays the Hacker
  News homepage (fetched from the Algolia API)
  but filters out specific search terms,
  default to "llm, ai" in a box at the top but
  the user can change that list, it is stored
  in localstorage. Don't use React.

Then four follow-ups:

  Rename to "Hacker News, filtered" and add a
  clear label that shows that the terms will
  be excluded

  Turn the username into a link to
  https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=xxx -
  include the comment count, which is in the
  num_comments key

  The text "392 comments" should be the link,
  do not have a separate thread link

  Add a tooltip to "1 day ago" that shows the
  full value from created_at

rottc0dd · a month ago

Top story: Kiro: new agentic IDE

rottc0dd commented on -2000 Lines of code (2004) folklore.org/Negative_200... · Posted by u/xeonmc

rottc0dd · 2 months ago

Hi,

I think I have mentioned this before in HN too. I am not from CS background and just learnt the trade as I was doing the job, I mean even the normal stuff.

We have a project that tries reify live objects into human readable form. Final representation is so complicated with lot of types and the initial representation is less complicated.

In order to make it readable, if there is any common or similar data nodes, we have to compare and try to combine them i.e. find places that can be made into methods and find the relevant arguments for all the calls (kind of).

Initial implementation did the transformation into the final form first, and then started the comparison. So, the comparison have to deal with all the different combinations of the types we have in final representation now, which made the whole thing so complex and has been maintained by generation of engineers that nobody had clear idea how it was working.

Then, I read about hashmap implementation later (yep, I am that dumb) and it was a revelation. So, we did following things:

1. We created a hash for skeleton that has to remain the same through all the set of comparisons and transformation of the "common nodes", (it can be considered as something similar to methods or arguments) and doing the comparison for nodes with matching skeletal hashes and

2. created a separate layer that does the comparison and creating common nodes on initial primitive form and then doing the transformation as the second layer (so you don't have to deal with all types in final representation) and

3. Don't type. Yes. Data is simplest abstraction and if your logic can made into data or some properties, please do yourself a favor and make them so. We found lot of places, where weird class hierarchies can be converted into data properties.

Basically, it is a dumb multi pass decompiler.

That did not just speed up the process, but resulted in much more readable and understandable abstractions and code. I do not know, if this is widely useful but it helped in one project. There is no silver bullet, but types were actual problem for us and so we solved it this way.

rottc0dd commented on Human quarter--mile.com/Human... · Posted by u/surprisetalk

rottc0dd · 3 months ago

I did try to ask are we not computers. I tried to imply, in the fundamental level there are striking similarities to computation.

> That’s not to say that computers couldn’t do what the brain does, including consciousness and emotions,

Yes. Fundamental building blocks are simple and physical in nature and follow the computational aspect good enough to serve as nice approximations

> but that wouldn’t have any particular relation to how DNA/RNA and protein synthesis works.

Hmm... transistors are not neural networks so? I am sorry, I am a non native speaker and maybe I am not communicating things properly. I am trying to say, the organic or human is different manifestation of order - one is chemical and other is electronic. We have emotions and consciousness, but we can agree we are made of cells that send electric pulses to each other and primitive in nature. And even emotions and beliefs are physical in nature (Capgras syndrome for example).

rottc0dd · 3 months ago

> I did try to ask are we not computers.

I meant to say "I did not try to ask are we not computers."

rottc0dd commented on Human quarter--mile.com/Human... · Posted by u/surprisetalk

TapamN · 3 months ago

IIRC, Gödel, Escher, Bach discusses comparing chromosome/protein generation and computation.

rottc0dd · 3 months ago

You might like Gene: An intimate history[0]. It was really good book.

[0]: https://www.amazon.com/Gene-Intimate-History-Siddhartha-Mukh...

rottc0dd commented on Human quarter--mile.com/Human... · Posted by u/surprisetalk

layer8 · 3 months ago

There are some aspects that have some similarity to computation, but also many that are not. If your aim is “aren’t we really just computers”, that doesn’t actually work.

That’s not to say that computers couldn’t do what the brain does, including consciousness and emotions, but that wouldn’t have any particular relation to how DNA/RNA and protein synthesis works.

rottc0dd · 3 months ago

> There are some aspects that have some similarity to computation, but also many that are not.

What I have explained is the exact way a chromosome works, it's raison d'etre. I think this cannot be dismissed as some aspect of it. It is its essence.

rottc0dd commented on Human quarter--mile.com/Human... · Posted by u/surprisetalk

layer8 · 3 months ago

There are some aspects that have some similarity to computation, but also many that are not. If your aim is “aren’t we really just computers”, that doesn’t actually work.

That’s not to say that computers couldn’t do what the brain does, including consciousness and emotions, but that wouldn’t have any particular relation to how DNA/RNA and protein synthesis works.

rottc0dd · 3 months ago

I did try to ask are we not computers. I tried to imply, in the fundamental level there are striking similarities to computation.

> That’s not to say that computers couldn’t do what the brain does, including consciousness and emotions,

Yes. Fundamental building blocks are simple and physical in nature and follow the computational aspect good enough to serve as nice approximations

> but that wouldn’t have any particular relation to how DNA/RNA and protein synthesis works.

Hmm... transistors are not neural networks so? I am sorry, I am a non native speaker and maybe I am not communicating things properly. I am trying to say, the organic or human is different manifestation of order - one is chemical and other is electronic. We have emotions and consciousness, but we can agree we are made of cells that send electric pulses to each other and primitive in nature. And even emotions and beliefs are physical in nature (Capgras syndrome for example).

rottc0dd commented on Human quarter--mile.com/Human... · Posted by u/surprisetalk

layer8 · 3 months ago

Physical systems are computable only in approximation. And quantum uncertainty throws another wrench into it. We also know that arbitrarily small rounding errors in the computation can lead to arbitrarily large differences with the actual system down the road. No, cells are not computers (in the sense of the Turing model). (However, that doesn’t mean that one can’t still consider them to be mechanistic and “soulless”.)

rottc0dd · 3 months ago

> (However, that doesn’t mean that one can’t still consider them to be mechanistic and “soulless”.)

How should we describe or approximate the things happening in cell?

rottc0dd commented on Human quarter--mile.com/Human... · Posted by u/surprisetalk

layer8 · 3 months ago

Physical systems are computable only in approximation. And quantum uncertainty throws another wrench into it. We also know that arbitrarily small rounding errors in the computation can lead to arbitrarily large differences with the actual system down the road. No, cells are not computers (in the sense of the Turing model). (However, that doesn’t mean that one can’t still consider them to be mechanistic and “soulless”.)

rottc0dd · 3 months ago

I meant to say in the way that there is well defined set of alphabets (A, T, G, C) and each triplet of these alphabet is responsible for specific protein to be created and combination of such protein make each cell what it is. (There are 20 different proteins for humans and we have four alphabets coming in triplets. So, if it was pair or quadreplets responsible for proteins, it would have too much or too little. They are not perfect but given the condition, there is some balance)

A single alphabet change in specific places can cause genetic defects like sickle cell anemia. And activation of which one has to generate protein (execute) is dependent on presence of certain things encoded as proteins again.

And viruses when enter a cell, the cell starts to execute viral genetic material. Even if these are not exactly Turing compatible, do they not mimic many aspects of computation?

rottc0dd commented on Human quarter--mile.com/Human... · Posted by u/surprisetalk

rottc0dd · 3 months ago

Are cells not computers in some way? We are made of cells and cells work with chromosomes. Chromosomes are coded with ATGC pairs and each triplet is capable of creating proteins.

And the activation and deactivation of some triplet happens on response to presence of proteins. So, chromosomes are code and input and output is proteins. So, if our fundamental building blocks are computable in nature, what does it make us?

rottc0dd commented on Careless People pluralistic.net/2025/04/2... · Posted by u/Aldipower

hirvi74 · 4 months ago

Congratulations on learning piano. I think everyone who is capable of learning an instrument should consider it.

Rachmaninoff once said, "Music is enough for a lifetime, but a lifetime is not enough for music." So, no matter when one starts, there would never be enough time to truly master the craft.

I believe it is better for one to start late and enjoy it than start early and burnout.

rottc0dd · 4 months ago

Thanks a lot. It is really fun. But, I don't have adult company in my neighborhood.

If take "What if I don't became great with this" anxiety out of the equation, it feels just more fun and life seems a little more colorful being a beginner.