I found reading Linux source more useful than learning about xv6 because I run Linux and reading through source felt immediately useful. I.e, tracing exactly how a real process I work with everyday gets created.
Can you explain this O(n2) vs O(n) significance better?
Are you hallucinating or am I? This implementation is 200 lines of Python. Did you mean to link to a C version?
Ya, this reads verbatim on how my OpenClaw bot blogs.
Why is your bot blogging, and to whom?
Maybe they're talking about this version?
https://github.com/loretoparisi/microgpt.c
Its slop
Funniest thing about it is the lame attempt to avoid detection by replacing em dashes with regular dashes.
Maybe the article originally featured a 1000-line C implementation.
3 replies →
And this account's comments seem to be at top for several threads.
HN is dead.
I found reading Linux source more useful than learning about xv6 because I run Linux and reading through source felt immediately useful. I.e, tracing exactly how a real process I work with everyday gets created.
Can you explain this O(n2) vs O(n) significance better?
[dead]
I still don't quite get your insight. Maybe it would help me better if you could explain it while talking like a pirate?
1 reply →
> Each step is O(n) instead of recomputing everything, and total work across all steps drops to O(n^2)
In terms of computation isn't each step O(1) in the cached case, with the entire thing being O(n)? As opposed to the previous O(n) and O(n^2).
But the code was written in Python not C?
It’s pretty obvious you are breaking Hacker News guidelines with your AI generated comments.
agreed - no one else is saying this.