HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

xpe

no profile record

Submissions

Claude Feature Request: Persona Profiles – switchable bundles

github.com
2 points·by xpe·قبل 3 أشهر·0 comments

SQLite has STRICT typing (since 3.37, 2021)

sqlite.org
4 points·by xpe·قبل 4 أشهر·1 comments

Command Palette ⌘⇧P since Ghostty 1.2 (2025-09-15)

ghostty.org
1 points·by xpe·قبل 4 أشهر·2 comments

LessWrong Policy on LLM Use

lesswrong.com
10 points·by xpe·قبل 4 أشهر·4 comments

Claude Code: Should not encourage shell command substitution $()

github.com
2 points·by xpe·قبل 4 أشهر·1 comments

The Pain of Real Linear Types in Rust (2017)

faultlore.com
1 points·by xpe·قبل 6 أشهر·1 comments

Building Argsort with Nushell

gist.github.com
2 points·by xpe·قبل 6 أشهر·0 comments

Why users cannot create Issues directly

github.com
773 points·by xpe·قبل 6 أشهر·310 comments

No more new foreign drones to be allowed in U.S. under FCC rules

financialpost.com
2 points·by xpe·قبل 7 أشهر·2 comments

Apache Fory Rust: Serialization Framework

fory.apache.org
3 points·by xpe·قبل 8 أشهر·1 comments

XDG Base Directory Specification

alchemists.io
5 points·by xpe·قبل 9 أشهر·2 comments

How Certificate Transparency fits into the Web PKI ecosystem

certificate.transparency.dev
1 points·by xpe·قبل 9 أشهر·0 comments

KDL: A small document language with node semantics

kdl.dev
1 points·by xpe·قبل 9 أشهر·2 comments

comments

xpe
·قبل شهرين·discuss
Sorry, I was too harsh. Or to be more precise: I should not have directed my criticism only at this particular blog post. This topic is a hot mess. Yes, even the 2019 blog post announcing Async Rust [1] used the phrase:

> On this coming Thursday, November 7, async-await syntax hits stable Rust, as part of the 1.39.0 release. This work has been a long time in development -- the key ideas for zero-cost futures, for example, were first proposed by Aaron Turon and Alex Crichton in 2016! -- and we are very proud of the end result. We believe that Async I/O is going to be an increasingly important part of Rust's story.

> While this first release of "async-await" is a momentous event, it's also only the beginning. The current support for async-await marks a kind of "Minimum Viable Product" (MVP). We expect to be polishing, improving, and extending it for some time.

> Already, in the time since async-await hit beta, we've made a lot of great progress, including making some key diagnostic improvements that help to make async-await errors far more approachable. To get involved in that work, check out the Async Foundations Working Group; if nothing else, you can help us by filing bugs about polish issues or by nominating those bugs that are bothering you the most, to help direct our efforts.

---

MVP originated from the lean startup world: the core meaning is to build the smallest thing that validates demand. Async-await (a-a) was so much more than that.

Whoever wrote the blog post wrote "MVP" which leaves a reader wondering: are those scare quotes? [2]

Nice a-a was "in the air" since Go shipped it in 2009. Compiled state machines hit the scene not long after: C# in 2012, Clojure in 2013. So demand did not need validation. As I understand it, probably the biggest driver for Rust a-a was to provide a common foundation for work going forward.

The effort and thinking that went into async/await probably blows away 99.9% of MVPs released out into the world! And I don't think it would be crazy to say Rust's a-a was better than ~80% of even "1.0" products.

I don't want to get bogged down in mere definitions... I'm emphasizing the primary emotional vibe. Using MVP (or "MVP") is a surefire way to conjure the wrong emotional valence. It invites confusion and downplays years of incredible work.

My feeling is that original blog post used that framing because the Rust team is famously open to taking however much time is needed to get things as close to perfect as they know how.

[1]: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2019/11/07/Async-await-stable/

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
xpe
·قبل شهرين·discuss
> So on the title, I picked this because it's simply the truth. Since async landed in 2019 or so, not much has changed.

Hi. The article calls Rust async an MVP. You should expect strong reactions when you frame it like that.

"MVP" has a generally understood meaning; distorting that is unhelpful and confusing. Rust's async was not an MVP when it was released in 2019. It was the result of a lot of earlier work.

Rust async: (a) works well for a lot of people and orgs in production settings and (b) is arguably better designed than most (all?) other async implementations. Calling it an MVP is far from "simply the truth". It is an opinion -- and frankly a pretty clickbaity one. I appreciate your article's attention to detail, but the title is straight up shameful sensationalism.

I strive to not reflexively defend the status quo, but I get really chafed when people conveniently blur the difference between fact and opinion.

Please argue on narrowest correct claims available. The current title overstates your claims and undermines its overall credibility. Your central claim (as I read it) is that for embedded software there are opportunities for async improvement in Rust. Yeah this might sound boring, but I think it's accurate.

My other main criticism of your article is when it claims Rust async breaks the "zero cost abstraction" principle. I don't buy this claim, because you do not show that hand rolling the code provides the same guarantees. A lot of people misunderstand what "zero cost" means; your article wouldn't be the first to give the wrong impression.

Writing is hard (different audiences bring different backgrounds), and I commend anyone who puts their ideas out into the world. Please take this as constructive feedback: please agree or disagree with me on the merits. Ask and engage where I'm unclear.
xpe
·قبل شهرين·discuss
Claim-1: the async versus sync distinction cannot be meaningfully dissolved at the programmer level.

Claim-2: async versus sync is a fundamental division in CS

Discuss amongst yourselves. I lean towards thinking both are probably true (P~70%, P~90%)

See: “What Color is Your Function?” by Bob Nystrom (2015). https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2015/02/01/what-color-is-...
xpe
·قبل شهرين·discuss
> Especially for something like a code editor, where plenty of less-shady competitors are available.

On what basis are you claiming Zed is shady? I seek evidence, not feels.

If you don't understand the contract language, it seems rather presumptuous to make that kind of claim. See what I mean?

If you want to make a _relative_ claim, then I have to ask: have you read the licenses of VS Code, JetBrains, Cursor, WindSurf?
xpe
·قبل شهرين·discuss
>Several people at work, none use OpenClaw, had their limits jump immediately to 100%.

Substantively: assuming this is true, what are the possible explanations? If they don't use OpenClaw, wouldn't this suggest there is some other cause?

What company? Will these people go on the record?

We live in a world where it is irrational for me to put much credence in a HN account. I see it has 125 karma and was created in January 2022.
xpe
·قبل شهرين·discuss
So far, after reading ~20 HN comments, I see one mention of something akin to "I verified this myself". Where are the people saying "Maybe this is true, but please tell me you considered other explanations first!"

I try to avoid X, and I put relatively low credence in a HN account I don't know. [1] Browsing X, it looks like something like 1 out of 20 say they verified.

Who here has _verified_ this claim or can find a _quality_ source that has? Not X. Someone who will take serious reputational or financial damage if they are wrong?

It is 2026. Think about epistemics. What do you believe and why? And why should I believe you if you aren't asking this question?

This situation has many characteristics of being an information cascade. [2] Raise your hand if you piled on before thinking it through. Be honest. Everyone does it sometimes. Intellectually honest people own it.

P.S. I am _not_ making a claim about the original statement. Don't shoot the messenger: somebody needs to say what I'm saying.

[1]: "We cannot trust identity like we used to here on HN ... we live in a world or anyone or any AI can claim almost anything ... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47804884

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_cascade
xpe
·قبل شهرين·discuss
The comment above has started a sh-tstorm. Please, slow down and learn about the details before jumping to conclusions. Most of us here did NOT "go pro" in the law. [1] For those that want to educate themselves, you could do worse than immediately leave HN and go _learn_:

1. SaaS Agreements: Key Contractual Provisions https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/bu...

2. Cornell Law School's Wex: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex

3. Coursera : American Contract Law I (Yale prof): https://www.coursera.org/learn/contracts-1

4. Software as a Service (SaaS) Agreements: Thomson Reuters/Westlaw (paywalled; trial available) https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I61c...

If anyone has good detailed resources that are free, please add.

[1] IANAL but I wasn't that far from going down that path. I've worked for a legal-tech startup, did really well in an undergrad Constitutional Law class, incorporated several small companies, managed lots of contractor agreements. So, I know from experience: legal language is weird and specific in ways you may not realize. So be intellectually humble and defer judgment until you talk to a legal expert. Hopefully people more experienced than I can weigh in with more specifics.
xpe
·قبل شهرين·discuss
This language fits common SaaS templates. Let me illustrate by removing chunks and labeling them:

    Customer hereby grants Zed
    {{ broad list of rights }}
    solely:
    {{ for these purposes }}
IANAL, but the term "solely" seems essential to understanding this. Pivotal. As in "if you get it wrong, you'll be wearing a tinfoil hat" essential.

Also see "4.4. Telemetry: .... For avoidance of doubt, Telemetry expressly does not include Customer Data."

My two cents: I'm not worried about Zed's contract here. Much more important to pay attention to when your data goes to third-party AI providers: read _their_ contract language.

Meta-comment: Don't let a well-meaning comment like the above trigger a panic. Better to get familiar with typical contracts and/or build your personal network for legal advice.

P.S. Look out for shameless legal slop on the Web, I "promise.legal" it is out there.
xpe
·قبل شهرين·discuss
1. Yes, Zed is open source, you can build it yourself.

2. Telemetry defaults to on. So turn off telemetry as explained at https://zed.dev/docs/telemetry#configuring-telemetry-setting...

    "telemetry": {
        "diagnostics": false,
        "metrics": false,
    },
xpe
·قبل شهرين·discuss
Which Macs, hardware, OS's? What's your baseline comparison?
xpe
·قبل شهرين·discuss
If the idea of hiding extra Markdown elements or making it more WYSIWYG appeals to you, maybe we can put more eyes on some kind of feature request. I've seeing several comments come at this from different angles: ?id=47950471 ?id=47950748
xpe
·قبل شهرين·discuss
> Also extensions can't add new UI, so you are stuck fitting to the recipe Zed team provides for you to plug into, and often enough this is not satisfactory.

What did you have in mind for "new UI"? I'm hoping to see basic text transformation myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47950471
xpe
·قبل شهرين·discuss
What's your favorite theme, maybe we can point you to something close? If you have any special needs or usability issues (colorblindness is common), that's probably relevant too.

I use the default theme + the Catppuccin Icon Theme : https://github.com/catppuccin/zed-icons
xpe
·قبل شهرين·discuss
I wish Zed had built-in APIs for extension developers to allow for more customizable text transformations. In particular, I want to write tools that have more control over what a buffer displays. Imagine a Markdown extension that gives Zed something close to the WYSIWG experience of Obsidian. To make this happen, I think something like a customizable presentation layer to transform the buffer's contents and adjust cursor movement would be a great start. Vim has a 'conceal' feature that could serve as an inspiration or reference point. [1]

I have no affiliation with Zed, though I have applied to work there, so I'm hardly neutral. I've been an enthusiastic user for probably two years. I don't expect perfect alignment with what I want, and sometimes the team doesn't respond how I would like with particular issues. But man, in a pretty suboptimal world right now, Zed is an amazing thing to have: open source, regular updates, extensions, nice settings. In the past I've used BBEdit, Eclipse, TextEdit, Sublime, Emacs, VS Code, Jetbrains, Helix. Zed is my favorite by far, probably because of the latency. It is an intangible feeling that just clicked immediately for me.

Personally, as a mostly independent developer/researcher, I go through bursts of re-evaluating my tools. To give some context about my newer tools over the last few years: Ghostty, Nushell, Podman, Nix, Mochi, Monodraw, Swish (window manager for macOS), Base (macOS SQLite editor by Menial), LM Studio, (probably obviously) Claude Code. So for a "seasoned" developer, I'm probably more open to new tools than most? Oh, totally off-topic but I think some of the lesser appreciated new open source tools / formats / conventions are: KDL (https://kdl.dev), Typst, and (evaluating) Djot, Cocogitto (Conventional Commits, took me long enough).

[1] https://alok.github.io/2018/04/26/using-vim-s-conceal-to-mak...
xpe
·قبل شهرين·discuss
Here is a top-level comment for people who want to post the things they wish Zed had.

Request: please be sincere if you claim "the one thing that keeps me from using Zed is X" ... because let's face it, there is probably more than one thing. Editor ecosystems are complex beasts, and it is ok if people are slow to switch, but the "one thing" claims are rarely credible to me. Anyhow, such comments are rarely consistent with how human nature works. People find rationalizations, and that's fine. It would just be nice if people were a little more self-aware. Changing editors is harder for some people more than others.

My suggestion: if you want to make Zed better for your use case, please smart by explaining who you are as a developer, what you've used, what your expectations are. And be intellectually honest about the last time you've made a big change to your development workflow. End soapbox.
xpe
·قبل 3 أشهر·discuss
Thanks. Along those lines, here's a sort of thought experiment. Of said engineers who know a higher standard, say we teleported them into Anthropic, what are some likely scenarios?

- How much time would they need to import their standards into Anthropic? ... things like tooling, process, culture, hiring, etc? Maybe externally-sourced discipline and rigor are the missing catalysts. [1]

- OTOH, it seems possible these engineers (many of which are used to certain levels of stability, sanity, internal tooling, etc) would be destabilized by Anthropic's problems, the scale, the rate of hiring, the rate of customer growth.

- Perhaps Anthropic needs new instrumentation to cover end-to-end customer metrics? More internal tool-building teams? A new ops team? A new org structure? I don't know.

The growth, the environment has put Anthropic into a position where these kinds of mistakes are just statistically inevitable ... unless they chose to grow more slowly.

So my overall hunch (very few people really grok the constellation of factors at Anthropic) is fuzzy. That's why I'm trying to lay out some of the questions that underlie it, without resorting to simplistic notions of blame (which paper over the deeper causes).

Lastly, can you think of comparable scenarios with this kind of growth where companies don't have major hiccups? This is driving towards thinking about the outside view [2]. Roughly speaking: don't expect to "beat the market" for long. Entropy wins.

[1]: I recently watched a video where Steve Jobs described a time in early Macintosh history where Apple tried to "professionalize" its management. Hiring proven managers didn't work, so they shifted towards hiring for cultural fit and letting them grow the management skills.

[2]: https://www.lesswrong.com/w/inside-outside-view
xpe
·قبل 3 أشهر·discuss
As I understand Anthropic's recent retrospective, calling the models directly via API did not change; the problem was that the harness changed and this was not communicated well to users.

Metaphorical reasoning is lossy, so talking about lossy image compression seems to be ironically fitting! ... perhaps a (hypothetical) metaphor involves Photoshop changing their default JPEG compression level without making it clear to users. PS did not change the JPEG algorithm, only a setting for it. If you look closely, you would notice it: I'll come back to this point in the last paragraph.

But a part of metaphor breaks down if you accept that Anthropic was making a net positive trade-off for customers so that they could provide a better overall service level statistically to their entire user base.

A rough metaphor for the individual versus collective trade-off might be when a retail store caps the number of toilet paper rolls customer can buy at a time. The goal is to reduce hoarding, which in a way is an analogous to Claude users having usage patterns at the high end of the statistical tail.

When it comes to PR*, transparency almost always wins? Anthropic's mistake hid the change from users, but they're going to notice when overall performance is degraded. I would hazard a guess that Claude has endured more verbal assault in the last month than in its entire history.

* both for public relations and pull requests
xpe
·قبل 3 أشهر·discuss
Please link us to it. Linking it provides an anchor for community discussion.
xpe
·قبل 3 أشهر·discuss
>> My overall feel is that people underestimate the complexity of the systems at Anthropic and the chaos of the growth.

> Do you not think people here work at big companies with big products? I do, and we have a much higher bar for shipping.

This form of comment (The "Do you not think {X}?") comes across as a swipe (discouraged by the HN guidelines). It doesn't respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of my comment (also in the guidelines).
xpe
·قبل 3 أشهر·discuss
I personally try to follow Rapoport's Rules, and I since think they are consistent with the HN Guidelines, I like to mention them: [1].

I've thought on it, and I will try to start off with something we both agree on... We both agree that Anthropic made some mistakes, but this is probably a pretty uninteresting and shallow agreement. I find it unlikely that we would enumerate or characterize the mistakes similarly. I find it unlikely that we would be anywhere near the same headspace about our bigger-picture takes.

> I didn't assume bad faith

Ok, I'm glad. That one didn't concern me; if I had a do-over I would remove that one from the list. Sorry about that. These are the ones that concern me:

    > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive,
    > not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When I read your earlier comment (~20 words), it didn't come across as a thoughtful and substantive response to my comment (~160 words). I know length isn't a perfect measure nor the only measure, but it does matter.

    > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what
    > someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
Are you sure you didn't choose an easier to criticize interpretation? Did you take the take to try to state to yourself what I was trying to say? Back to Rapaport's Rules ...

    > You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so
    > clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks,
    > I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
I'm grateful when people can express what I'm going for better than the way I wrote it or said it.

> I simply reworded your conclusions with less soft language

Technically speaking, lots of things could be called "rewording", but what you did was relatively far from "simply rewording". Charitably, it is closer to "your interpretation". But my intent was lost, so "rewording" doesn't fit.

> ... so that others would understand your position more clearly.

If you want to help others understand, then it is good to make sure you understand. For that, I recommend asking questions.

> Their stated goals are to be the responsible stewards of the technology and we agree they are failing at that goal.

No, I do not agree to that phrasing. It is likely I don't agree with your intention behind it either.

> You would attribute that to incompetence and not malice.

No; even if I agreed with the premise, I think it is more likely I would still disagree. I don't even like the framing of "either malice or incompetence". These ideas don't carve reality at the joints. [2] [3] There are a lot of stereotypes about "incompetence" but I don't think they really help us understand the world. These stereotypes are more like thought-terminators than interesting generative lenses.

I'll try to bring it back to the words "malice" and "incompetence" even though I think the latter is nigh-useless as a sense-making tool. Many mistakes happen without malice or incompetence; many mistakes "just happen" because people and organizations are not designed to be perfect. They are designed to be good enough. To not make any short-term mistakes would likely require too much energy or too much rigidity, both of which would be a worse category of mistake.

Try to think counterfactually: imagine a world where Anthropic is not malicious nor incompetent and yet mistakes still happened. What would this look like?

When you think of what Anthropic did wrong, what do you see as the lead up to it? Can you really envision the chain of events that brought it about? Imagine reading the email chain or the PRs. Can you see how there may be been various "off-ramps" where history might have gone differently? But for each of those diversions, how likely would it be that they match the universe we're in?

At some point figuring out what is a "mistake" even starts to feel strange. Does it require consciousness? Most people think so. But we say organizations make mistakes, but they aren't conscious -- or are they? Who do we blame? The CEO, because the buck stops there, right? He "should have known better". But why? Wait, but the Board is responsible...?

Is there any ethical foundation here? Some standard at all or is this all just anger dressed up as an argument? If this assigning blame thing starts to feel horribly complicated or even pointless, then maybe I've made my point. :)

If nothing else, when you read what I write, I want it to make you stop, get out a sheet of paper, and try to imagine something vividly. Your imagination I think will persuade you better than I can.

[1]: https://themindcollection.com/rapoports-rules/

[2]: https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Carving_nature_a...

[3]:https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/303819/what-do-t...