Hacker News: coffeeaddict1

Semantics for 2D Rasterization

coffeeaddict1 — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 23:29:07 +0000

Article URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.23696

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48453893

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

New comment by coffeeaddict1 in "My Agent Skill for Test-Driven Development"

coffeeaddict1 — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 19:56:52 +0000

I disagree. Not all skills are useless. For example, I sometime use Qt for GUI projects and I have found their skills [0] very useful to improve the quality and performance of my projects. I their absence, I would each time have to direct the agents to find the docs or specific tools, wasting tokens and thus decreasing the quality of the output.

[0] https://github.com/TheQtCompanyRnD/agent-skills

New comment by coffeeaddict1 in "C++: The Documentary"

coffeeaddict1 — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 19:16:20 +0000

An interesting opinion on this by Chandler Carruth: https://hachyderm.io/@chandlerc/116694268329657881.

New comment by coffeeaddict1 in "Gooey: A GPU-accelerated UI framework for Zig"

coffeeaddict1 — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 20:37:24 +0000

This is what you can with Qt:

    #include 
    #include 
    #include 

    class widget : public QWidget {
    void paintEvent(QPaintEvent*) override {
        QPainter(this).drawEllipse(QPoint(320, 240), 100, 100);
    }
    };

    int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
        QApplication app(argc, argv);
        widget w;
        w.resize(640, 480);
        w.show();
        return app.exec();
    }

It doesn't seem too complicated to me.

New comment by coffeeaddict1 in "The Speed of Prototyping in the Age of AI"

coffeeaddict1 — Sun, 31 May 2026 18:09:55 +0000

I use AI mostly to prototype features in my existing projects. If I have an idea, I use the AI to implement it and try out different ways in which it could be implemented. Then I throw away the code and mostly write the code manually, with AI used primarily for review or docs.

New comment by coffeeaddict1 in "WinUI 3 Performance: A Leap Forward"

coffeeaddict1 — Fri, 15 May 2026 12:50:22 +0000

While I agree that shared pointer are problematic (I almost never use them in C++), I don't think they're ever really the reason for performance issues in GUI apps. I've been doing GUI programming for more than a decade now and the overwhelming majority GUI performance issues come down to issues like poor use of concurrency (blocking GUI thread), unoptimised algorithms (e.g. for layouts), overdrawing, GPU/CPU sync issues or inefficient input handling.

I have never encountered a performance issue that was to due to reference counting (in fact I'm a big user of the CoW idiom when it comes to UI).

New comment by coffeeaddict1 in "WinUI 3 Performance: A Leap Forward"

coffeeaddict1 — Thu, 14 May 2026 21:36:05 +0000

Ok fair enough, thanks for letting me know.

New comment by coffeeaddict1 in "WinUI 3 Performance: A Leap Forward"

coffeeaddict1 — Thu, 14 May 2026 20:57:33 +0000

> Will any of this translate to Windows programs like File Manager?

Did you not read the thread? That's literally stated as an explicit goal.

New comment by coffeeaddict1 in "Rust Threads on the GPU"

coffeeaddict1 — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:04:18 +0000

I have to give it to Apple though in this case. Waves or warps are ridiculously uninformative, while simdgroups at least convey some useful information.

New comment by coffeeaddict1 in "Intelligent people are better judges of the intelligence of others"

coffeeaddict1 — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 21:26:46 +0000

While the linked study is interesting, using standardised tests is a terrible way to judge if someone is "intelligent".

Also imo is very difficult to come up with a universal definition of intelligence. For example, I hold Lionel Messi to be a very "intelligent" footballer, but I would judge his intelligence to be of vastly different nature to that of Albert Einstein.

New comment by coffeeaddict1 in "Measuring progress toward AGI: A cognitive framework"

coffeeaddict1 — Thu, 19 Mar 2026 09:54:44 +0000

> I feel like an average human wouldn't pass some of these metrics yet they are "generally intelligent". On the other hand they also wouldn't pass a lot of the expert questions that AI is good at.

I think this approach is intentional. The philosophy is simply "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". What you're saying is true, but producing a system that exhibits all human cognitive capabilities is a better threshold for the (absolutely wild) claim of the existence of AGI.

New comment by coffeeaddict1 in "A few random notes from Claude coding quite a bit last few weeks"

coffeeaddict1 — Tue, 27 Jan 2026 20:14:50 +0000

> And accountability can still exist? Is the engineer that created or reviewed a Pull Request using Claude Code less accountable then one that used PICO?

The point is that in the human scenario, you can hold the human agents accountable. You cannot do that with AI. Of course, you as the orchestrator of agents will be accountable to someone, but you won't have the benefit of holding your "subordinates" accountable, which is what you do in a human team. IMO, this renders the whole situation vastly different (whether good or bad I'm not sure).

New comment by coffeeaddict1 in "A few random notes from Claude coding quite a bit last few weeks"

coffeeaddict1 — Tue, 27 Jan 2026 19:47:52 +0000

But how can you be a responsible builder if you don't have trust in the LLMs doing the "right thing"? Suppose you're the head of a software team where you've picked up the best candidates for a given project, in that scenario I can see how one is able to trust the team members to orchestrate the implementation of your ideas and intentions, with you not being intimately familiar with the details. Can we place the same trust in LLM agents? I'm not sure. Even if one could somehow prove that LLM are very reliable, the fact an AI agents aren't accountable beings renders the whole situation vastly different than the human equivalent.

New comment by coffeeaddict1 in "Unrolling the Codex agent loop"

coffeeaddict1 — Sat, 24 Jan 2026 16:01:19 +0000

Usually, I tell the agent to try out an idea and if I don't like the implementation or approach I want to undo the code changes. Then I start again, feeding it more information so it can execute a different idea or the same one with a better plan. This also helps the context window small.

New comment by coffeeaddict1 in "Unrolling the Codex agent loop"

coffeeaddict1 — Fri, 23 Jan 2026 22:12:34 +0000

What I really want from Codex is checkpoints ala Copilot. There are a couple of issues [0][1] opened about on GitHub, but it doesn't seem a priority for the team.

[0] https://github.com/openai/codex/issues/2788

[1] https://github.com/openai/codex/issues/3585

New comment by coffeeaddict1 in "Claude's new constitution"

coffeeaddict1 — Wed, 21 Jan 2026 23:19:30 +0000

> That's probably because we have yet to discover any universal moral standards.

This is true. Moral standards don't seem to be universal throughout history. I don't think anyone can debate this. However, this is different that claiming there is an objective morality.

In other words, humans may exhibit varying moral standards, but that doesn't mean that those are in correspondence with moral truths. Killing someone may or may not have been considered wrong in different cultures, but that doesn't tell us much about whether killing is indeed wrong or right.