HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
JeffreyBenjaminBrown
hode
Haskell2019–2022
JeffreyBenjaminBrown / hode

hode

rslt, take five-ish

Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
4Distinct people
15Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
151GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

rslt, take five-ish

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 9:28:18 AM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year15 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2019-04-06 13:29:47 UTC to 2022-07-30 04:23:22 UTC.

02462019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 6 mentions; 1 submissions, 5 comments20192020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments20202021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 1 submissions, 3 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2022

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC615
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC413
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202

What Hacker News says

6 sources
Jeff_Brown·Dec 21, 2019
> (typically) the more something machine friendly the less it's human friendly. I believe I have solved some of that problem. Hode (the Higher Order Data Editor), a kind of generalization of graph databases, lets a user enter data in a manner which I believe is as similar as possible to natural language. To encode the fact "cats kill birds" as a "kill" relationship between "cats" and "birds", you just write "cats #kill birds". Relationships involving other relationships can be represented with similar ease, and relationships involving any number of elements. The query language is not much more complicated -- for instance, everything that kills birds would be "/e /it #kills birds". https://github.com/JeffreyBenjaminBrown/hode
In The sad state of personal data and infrastructure
Jeff_Brown·Dec 13, 2019
Agreed. Human thinking is arbitrarily high-order -- we use statements about statements about statements with no particular natural complexity limit. This seems to me the big limitation of knowledge graphs: The majority of real-world information, just like the majority of natural-language sentences, are highly nested relationships among relationships. That was my motivation for writing Hode[1], the Higher-Order Data Editor. It lets you represent arbitrarily nested relationships, of any arity (number of members). It lets you cursor around data to view neighboring data, and it offers a query language that is, I believe, as close as possible to ordinary natural language. (Hode has no inference engine, and I don't call it an AI project -- but it seems relevant enough to warrant a plug.) [1] https://github.com/JeffreyBenjaminBrown/hode
In Cyc
Jeff_Brown·Nov 29, 2019
Hode[1] (the Higher Order Data Editor), which is free, solves some of these problems. (I wrote it. It's still evolving but it works already.) > metadata is hard Hode lets you encode and search any kind of information -- entities, relationships bewteen entities, relationships between relationships, relationships of any arity (number of members). Hash, the language in which one adds and searches for data in Hode, is very close to natural language. I'll give examples below, based on the article's author's wishes. > Let me compare my reading list with another to see overlap This is the "and" operator. (There are also "or" and "difference" operators.) The query in Hash would look like /find (/eval /it #is-in (reading list #of mary)) & (/eval /it #is-in (reading list #of peter)) > Allow me to tag books instead of placing them into static l
Read the rest
ists Hode lets you do even better than tags -- you can classify the meaning of the tag. For instance, here are two commands that would add two tags to a book: /add The Wisdom of Crowds #was a best-seller /add The Wisdom of Crowds #(helps understand) finance > Be tied to my highlights, annotations, and bookmarks in a non-proprietary, searchable, and shareable format Hode is free software, and the data format it uses is dirt-simple. Hode permits encoding and searching just about anything I can think of. Hode cannot yet create the data for you to search, though -- so far you've got to enter the data yourself. > Let me query this tool like a relational database. For example: show me all books about scaling startups recommended by people I follow on Twitter or by people they follow. /find (/eval /it #(is about) scaling startups) & (/eval (/eval I #follow /it #on Twitter) #recommends /it) > Help me deal with prioritization Hode lets you order your search results according to any transitive binary relationship -- "read before" or "is more important than" or "was written before", whatever you want. [1] https://github.com/JeffreyBenjaminBrown/hode
In Digital Tools I Wish Existed
Jeff_Brown·Nov 29, 2019
Could be a tech solution to the reputation problem? Some kind of distributed social media- and wikipedia-like system where information is signed by its author(s), and where people are able to produce metadata rating the factuality of information and authors. Currently people can create such information, of course. But liars routinely deny well-documented things in their past, and those denials are effective to their intended audience. And currently someone can debunk a lie, but there's no systematic way to find everyone who testifies that it's untrue. And while finding all of a claim's supporters and debunkers would be a great first step, a truly good (i.e. skeptical) reader would want to be able to find their arguments, too. I'm skeptical that current AI could automate the job of indexing that information -- understanding controversial a
Read the rest
rguments seems likely to require true intelligence. I happen to have made a system[1] in which indexing any kind of data or metadata is extremely easy, requiring little more than knowing some natural language. (Deciding what kind of information you want to encode is hard, but once you've decided that, encoding it is easy.) [1] https://github.com/JeffreyBenjaminBrown/hode
In The Information Apocalypse (2018)

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.