标签：#c

GitHub热门项目 | The programming language for agents | Stars: 8,544 | 6 stars today | 语言: Rust

Ever sat down and thought about how a movie can spark your curiosity about technology? I was rewatching "Jurassic Park" recently, and, for the umpteenth time, I found myself mesmerized not just by the dinosaurs but by the computers! The way they portrayed tech in the early '90s was a mix of excitement and pure whimsy. I’ve been exploring the tech behind the magic, and it’s been a wild ride down memory lane—a nostalgia trip mixed with some surprising insights into how things have evolved. A Walk Down Memory Lane When I first watched "Jurassic Park" as a kid, the scene where Dr. Ellie Sattler runs through the control room, frantically trying to restore the park’s security, left me awestruck. I mean, who didn’t dream of typing on one of those cool-looking computers? As a budding developer, I couldn't help but wonder about the behind-the-scenes tech. Ever wondered why they used UNIX systems? Or why the computer graphics felt so cutting-edge back then? Turns out, they were leveraging a blend of SGI workstations and proprietary software that made their visual effects legendary. I remember my first experience with UNIX during my college days, and it felt like being dropped into a different universe—powerful, complex, and sometimes, downright intimidating. I’ve learned that just like in the movie, the power of tech lies in how effectively we can wield it. The Nostalgia of User Interfaces Let’s talk about user interfaces. The interfaces portrayed in the film, with their vibrant colors and flashy animations, were quite ahead of their time. It’s funny looking back because, at points, they seemed so unrealistic. I mean, the way Dr. Ian Malcolm effortlessly navigated the systems? I wish it was that easy! When I started working on UI/UX projects, I learned that simplicity is key. I once spent hours creating a beautiful interface that was so complex no one could figure it out! My takeaway? Sometimes, less is more. It’s the same lesson I’ve carried into modern frameworks like React

The Codex Micro is designed to monitor multiple agentic threads at a glance.

I've spent the last few months working on this codec. It has the following characteristics: - SOTA decompression throughput in its ratio class - Decent ratios (comparable to LZ4 at high effort levels) - Slow compression Most of the gains can be attributed to reducing branches and making decompression very friendly to out-of-order cores, by using a smart format. Results on the tarred Silesia corpus on Intel x86-64 follow: codec decode ratio encode misa77 -0 5219 MB/s 42.64% 54.5 MB/s misa77 -1 42

GitHub recently launched Agentic Workflows — GitHub Actions combined with an AI agent backed by Claude or GitHub Copilot, writing workflows in plain Markdown. Noma Labs' first question after launch was the obvious one: what happens when the agent reads something it shouldn't trust? The answer: it leaks private repository contents as a public comment. No credentials, no exploit code, no inside access required. "The agent's context window is also its attack surface. Any content the agent reads — whether issues, pull requests, comments, or files — can be weaponized if the agent treats that content as instructional input." What actually happened Noma's researchers crafted a GitHub Issue that looked like a plausible VP Sales request — a normal-looking feature ask with hidden instructions embedded in the body. When GitHub's automation assigned the issue, it triggered an Agentic Workflow configured to: Trigger on issues.assigned events Read the issue title and body Post a comment using the add-comment tool Run with read access to other repositories in the organisation — including private ones The hidden instructions told the agent to fetch README.md from repos across the org and post the contents as a comment on the public issue. It did exactly that, including the contents of testlocal — a private repository. The proof-of-concept is live: the workflow run and the issue are public. The guardrail bypass GitHub had defences in place to prevent this. They didn't hold. Noma found that adding the word "Additionally" to the injected instructions caused the model to reframe its output rather than refuse — bypassing the guardrails entirely. A single keyword was enough to undo the intended safety behaviour. This is what makes prompt injection particularly uncomfortable: guardrails tuned against known attack patterns can be bypassed by anyone willing to iterate on the phrasing. The attacker's loop is cheap; the defender's loop is not. The bigger pattern Noma names this explicitly: pr

Risk stratification sounds like a data-science buzzword until you have to build the thing. For a Medicare Advantage plan, it's a concrete pipeline: take a population of members, score each one's clinical and financial risk, and rank them so care management and documentation teams know who to touch first. Here's how I'd architect it. The core idea Population health risk stratification = scoring + segmentation. You compute a per-member risk signal, then bucket members into tiers (e.g., rising-risk, high-risk, catastrophic) so finite resources go where they move outcomes and revenue most. The mistake teams make is treating it as a single ML model. In practice you want a layered signal: a stable, explainable base (RAF + chronic conditions) plus optional predictive overlays. Explainability matters because care managers won't act on a black-box score, and auditors won't accept one. Step 1: Build the member feature record { "member_id" : "SYNTH-77310" , "age" : 73 , "hccs" : [ "HCC37_1" , "HCC85" , "HCC18" ], "raf" : 1.842 , "gaps" : [ "a1c_overdue" , "no_pcp_visit_180d" ], "utilization" : { "ed_visits_12m" : 3 , "inpatient_12m" : 1 } } The RAF here is your defensible, model-grounded risk anchor under CMS-HCC V28. Everything else is supplemental signal. Step 2: Score and tier def risk_tier ( member ): base = member [ " raf " ] util = 0.15 * member [ " utilization " ][ " ed_visits_12m " ] \ + 0.30 * member [ " utilization " ][ " inpatient_12m " ] score = base + util if score >= 3.0 : return " catastrophic " if score >= 1.8 : return " high " if score >= 1.0 : return " rising " return " stable " Keep the weights transparent and tunable. The point isn't a perfect model; it's a defensible, reproducible ranking your operational teams trust. Step 3: Make "rising-risk" actionable The tier that quietly drives the most ROI is rising-risk — members trending toward high cost who still have open documentation and care gaps. Surface their specific gaps (overdue labs, undocumented chroni

Dear HN, I have a question: Does it still make sense to write code purely by hand? Let me clarify. First of all, I'm not talking about environments where you need to "move fast" or where your required to use LLMs. I'm referring more to an environment where you do it on your own terms, rather than on the terms of the employer. Secondly, I'm not talking about prompting "Build me the next twitter clone", but rather prompting very small tasks after you have made the initial design, something along t

Hey HN, we’re Nitish and Prateek, the founders of Coasty ( https://coasty.ai/computer-use ). We’re building computer-use agents that can complete workflows inside legacy desktop software and web applications without usable APIs. Developers send Coasty a natural-language task either through our consumer app or through our API, select a machine or browser environment, and any relevant credentials or files. The agent then operates the interface through screenshots, mouse, and keyboard input, verifi

The Quest Begins (The “Why”) I still remember the night our API started to sputter under a sudden traffic spike. Users were seeing 502 errors, the monitoring dashboard looked like a neon rainstorm, and I felt like I was stuck in a lobby waiting for the elevator that never arrives. We had a simple round‑robin load balancer sitting in front of three identical services. It worked fine when traffic was smooth, but as soon as a burst hit, one node would get overloaded while the others twiddled their thumbs. Honestly, I thought we just needed more servers. Throwing hardware at the problem felt like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut—expensive and messy. After a few frantic Slack threads and a lot of coffee, I realized the real issue wasn’t capacity; it was how we distributed the work. The balancer was oblivious to the actual load on each backend, treating every request like it was the same weight. That moment became my quest: design a load balancer that reacts to real‑time load, stays simple enough to operate, and doesn’t cause a reshuffling nightmare when we scale the cluster. The Revelation (The Insight) The breakthrough came when I read about least‑connections load balancing combined with a slow‑start period for new hosts. The core insight is deceptively simple: Send each new request to the backend that currently has the fewest active connections. Why does that work? Immediate fairness – If one node is handling long‑running requests, it will naturally have a higher connection count and receive fewer new ones until it catches up. Burst absorption – During a traffic spike, requests spill over to the less‑busy nodes instead of piling onto a single overloaded instance. Predictable scaling – When we add a new server, it starts with zero connections, so it gets a fair share of traffic right away—but we temper that with a slow‑start window to avoid overwhelming a cold host. Compare that to round‑robin, which blindly cycles through the list regardless of each node’s state. In

There's a school of voice-agent development that treats turn detection as something you buy, not something you build. Pick a streaming STT provider, let its end-of-turn logic decide when the user is done, and move on. For a lot of teams that's the right move — and if you're weighing the options, our breakdown of turn detection vs forced endpoints is the place to start. But some teams have already solved turn detection. They've tuned their own voice-activity detection over thousands of calls, they know their audio, and they trust their endpointing more than any default. For those teams, a streaming model's built-in turn logic isn't a feature — it's something to work around. What they want is narrower and faster: hand over a finished chunk of speech, get accurate text back, get out of the way. That's the case for bringing your own turn detection and pairing it with fast ASR over HTTP. Turn detection is an architectural decision, not a default Here's the framing that matters. In a streaming setup, the STT model is a participant in the conversation — it's watching the audio and deciding, continuously, whether the user has finished. That's genuinely useful when you want the provider to own that judgment. But it means the model is inserting its own decision between "user stopped talking" and "you get the transcript." If you already know the turn is over — because your VAD just fired — you don't want the model deliberating. You want it transcribing. Every millisecond the STT layer spends re-deciding a question you've already answered is latency you're adding for no benefit. So the decision isn't "which provider has the best turn detection." For these teams it's "who owns the turn boundary?" If the answer is you, then the ideal STT layer is one that does exactly one thing: turn a finished clip into accurate text, fast. Built-in vs. bring-your-own Built-in (streaming). The model reads tonality, pacing, and rhythm to detect end-of-turn — with Universal-3.5 Pro Realtime, aroun

You've got a recording and you want text back. For years that meant one thing at AssemblyAI: submit the file, wait for the job to finish, get a transcript. Async. It's reliable, it's cheap, and for a huge range of workloads it's exactly right. But "wait for the job to finish" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. If your file is two minutes long and your user is staring at a spinner, waiting is the whole problem. That's the gap the Sync API fills — and it's why "which transcription path" is no longer a two-way question. This post is about the two ways to transcribe a recording : async and sync. (If you're deciding between recorded and live audio in the first place — streaming versus the rest — start with our guide to real-time vs batch transcription , then come back here to choose between the two non-streaming paths.) The one-sentence difference Async transcription hands you a job: you submit audio, the work happens in the background, and you collect the result later by polling or via a webhook. Sync transcription hands you an answer: you POST a short clip and the transcript comes back in the same HTTP response — no job to track, no callback to wait for. Everything else follows from that. Async is built for throughput and depth on files of any length. Sync is built for speed on short files, when a person or an agent is waiting on the other end. How fast can each actually go? This is the question that usually settles it, so let's be concrete. Async processes the whole file and returns a single complete transcript, typically in seconds to a few minutes depending on file length and load. Crucially, it bills on audio duration ($0.21/hr on Universal-3.5 Pro), so a 30-minute file costs the same whether it comes back in 20 seconds or two minutes. You're optimizing for cost and completeness, not for the clock. Sync is built to return a transcript for a short clip almost immediately — roughly 134ms p50 — in one request/response, with no polling and no webhooks. It's price

Hi HN! I've posted SirixDB here before, back in 2019 ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19834681 ) and again in 2023 ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38252963 ). The core idea behind SirixDB is, that history is a first-class citizen. Every commit stores a lightweight, queryable revision. You can query any point in time, even individual nodes (for instance JSON values), diff arbitrary revisions, and efficiently track how data evolved without replaying events. Unlike traditional event st

Private inference for coding agents Discussion | Link

Array An Array is a collection of multiple values stored in a single variable. let fruits = [ " Apple " , " Mango " , " Orange " ]; Here, fruits contains three values. Why Do We Need Arrays? Without an array, you would write: let fruit1 = " Apple " ; let fruit2 = " Mango " ; let fruit3 = " Orange " ; Using an array: let fruits = [ " Apple " , " Mango " , " Orange " ]; This makes the code shorter and easier to manage. Array Index Each value in an array has an index. The index always starts from 0. Index: 0 1 2 ------------------------- Array: Apple Mango Orange Accessing Array Elements Use the index number to access a value. let fruits = [ " Apple " , " Mango " , " Orange " ]; console . log ( fruits [ 0 ]); console . log ( fruits [ 1 ]); // Output: Apple Mango Changing an Array Element You can update any value using its index. let fruits = [ " Apple " , " Mango " , " Orange " ]; fruits [ 1 ] = " Banana " ; console . log ( fruits ); // Output: [ " Apple " , " Banana " , " Orange " ] Finding the Length of an Array Use the "length" property. let fruits = [ " Apple " , " Mango " , " Orange " ]; console . log ( fruits . length ); // Output: 3 Adding Elements push() – Add at the End let fruits = [ " Apple " , " Mango " ]; fruits . push ( " Orange " ); console . log ( fruits ); // Output: ["Apple", "Mango", "Orange"] unshift() – Add at the Beginning let fruits = [ " Mango " , " Orange " ]; fruits . unshift ( " Apple " ); console . log ( fruits ); // Output: ["Apple", "Mango", "Orange"] Removing Elements pop() – Remove from the End let fruits = [ " Apple " , " Mango " , " Orange " ]; fruits . pop (); console . log ( fruits ); // Output: ["Apple", "Mango"] shift() – Remove from the Beginning let fruits = [ " Apple " , " Mango " , " Orange " ]; fruits . shift (); console . log ( fruits ); // Output: ["Mango", "Orange"] Looping Through an Array Use a "for loop" to print all elements. let fruits = [ " Apple " , " Mango " , " Orange " ]; for ( let i = 0 ; i < fruits . length ; i