MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by DarkFuture | 2025-09-29 08:18:34+00:00
I install MicroG (on my LineageOS on Pixel) which allows me to install my UK banking apps and Google Maps, etc. MicroG just reimplemented the Google APIs:

> microG GmsCore is a free software reimplementation of Google's Play Services. It allows applications calling proprietary Google APIs to run on AOSP-based ROMs like LineageOS, acting as a free replacement for the non-free, proprietary Google Play Services (sometimes referred to as the more generic term "GApps"). It is a powerful tool to reclaim your privacy and freedom while enjoying Android core features (although apps you use that take advantage of it may still be using proprietary libraries to communicate with microG, just as they do when communicating with the actual Google Play Services).

Source: https://github.com/microg/GmsCore/wiki

I add the official MicroG repo to my F-Droid using this QR code: https://microg.org/fdroid/repo/

Also, I download apps (like my UK banks) from official Play store using Aurora Store, which connects to Google servers directly to download the APKs, keep them updated, etc. No need to use those dodgy APK websites. Aurora Store is itself also available on F-Droid too.

I guess in time Google will target these apps :(
by cjs_ac | 2025-09-29 08:18:43+00:00
I think this is the right take. Other commenters are mourning the death of general-purpose computing, but general-purpose computing is very much alive and kicking in laptops, desktops, and servers. It's just smartphones and tablets that are being turned into limited-use appliances. The overwhelming majority of users just want a smartphone or tablet that's a limited-use appliance, and those of us on HN who want general-purpose computers are a tiny minority, and our insistence that we be allowed to make our own decisions is drowned out by those who need their hands held in this dangerous world.

My smartphone is used for interacting with systems that I expect to surveil me anyway - my bank, my navigation app, and so on. Serious work is done using serious machines.
by ynori7 | 2025-09-29 08:18:46+00:00
TL;DR: Scorings like CVSS evaluate IT risks, but AI introduces risks that CVSS doesn’t cover such as: psychological manipulation, unintended harm, and health consequences. I’m proposing a first draft of a scoring framework called “AI Risk Assessment – Health” to help close this gap. My intention is to make AI safer for users, especially focusing on minors and vulnerable populations. This is not a finished standard but an open invitation to collaborate.

==Background:== I’m a physician, not an AI security expert or IT professional. While using AI for daily use, I stumbled upon a serious filter failure and tried, unsuccessfully, to report it. After investigating the field and reading technical vulnerability reports, I noticed that security reports typically include CVSS scoring. CVSS works well for software bugs, but it doesn't reflect the new human and psychological risks posed by AI. Using CVSS would be a bit like using a nutrition label to rate painkillers.

This inspired me to sketch an alternative. AI Risk Assessment-Health focuses on things current scoring systems miss: human safety, mental health, and vulnerable populations.

==The Framework:== The framework evaluates risks across seven dimensions (like Physical Safety Impact, Mental Health Impact, and AI Bonding) and calculates a severity score. The framework, in it’s current state, is purely heuristic and not battle-hardened, however it serves as a discussion starter.

You can find the full draft here:

https://github.com/Yasmin-FY/AIRA-F/blob/main/README.md

==An Invitation to Collaborate:== As a physician without an IT background, I bring an outside perspective that places human well-being at the center but which inevitably overlooks technical and mathematical nuances. This framework is not expected to be a finished standard, but rather a discussion starter and a critical thought experiment.

I warmly invite experts from IT security, AI safety, standardization, psychology, and other professions to critique, extend, or even completely rework this draft. My goal is, working together, to find a common language to precisely communicate and prioritize the very real health risks posed by AI systems.

Here are a few example topics I’m interested in digging into:

How can health-related risks be rated without being overly subjective? Should this be an extension of CVSS or an entirely separate system? How can the scoring algorithm, weighting, and calibration be made more rigorous?

==Closing Thought== My intention with building this framework is to build a safer AI, especially for minors and vulnerable people as well as to enable a standardized way of communicating, evaluating, and prioritizing AI content and behavior issues.

So I kindly ask you. Take it, break it, make it better.

Many thanks to everyone who has stuck with me this far. Your opinion is greatly appreciated.
by kbvijay1 | 2025-09-29 08:19:28+00:00
Hi HN,

I'm Vijay, founder of Humble Code. I'm back with a "Show HN" for what my team and I have been passionately building. This project is the culmination of a 23-year journey that started with a deep frustration: software is too complex to build and customize.

My early career was spent watching enterprise software projects get bogged down in year-long customization cycles. This led me to bootstrap my first company building a no-code platform back in 2005, and I've been obsessed with simplifying creation ever since.

Our long-term vision for Agent Jax is to create an autonomous AI that can build and maintain complex, full-stack applications. Today, we're taking our first major step towards that vision.

We're opening up early access for the first part of our platform: the Agent Jax Website and E-commerce Builder.

Instead of endless clicking, dragging, and hunting through menus in traditional builders, you simply talk to Jax. You can tell it:

"Add a hero section with our logo, the headline 'Future of AI', and a sign-up button."

"Create a three-column feature grid using these icons and text."

"Set up a product page for a t-shirt with fields for size, color, and price."

Jax understands the context and builds it for you. You can then conversationally ask for changes, iterating in seconds.

The full Application Builder is next on our roadmap (we're still finalizing the payment pipelines and usage limits for it), but we believe this conversational approach to web/e-commerce design is powerful on its own, and we're eager to get it into your hands.

We are launching this Thursday, October 2nd, and I'm here today looking for about 100 early users to give us feedback on the website and e-commerce builder.

In return for your time and thoughts, we're offering a generous extended free plan and a steep lifetime discount for anyone who signs up this week to test it out.

I'll be here all day to answer your questions. Does a conversational interface for web design feel like a genuine time-saver, or just a gimmick? We'd love your honest feedback.
by joz1-k | 2025-09-29 08:20:50+00:00
> If it was written in C++, there's a good chance it was so for performance reasons.

I agree. But imagine that games like Doom or Quake would have been unthinkable if they weren't fully written in C/C++. Now, however, we have 3D game engines like Unity that expose a C# API for game logic scripting, and it seems to work just fine. Performance is becoming less of a concern for more and more problem domains.
by jackstraw42 | 2025-09-29 08:21:14+00:00
I haven't said anything about Apple guaranteeing this, I just am saying that Apple seems more trustworthy to me. And unless you can prove Android is actually better, then I still believe that. I feel like people are misunderstanding my original post.

You would probably not be surprised that I would still trust a heavily regulated government that's occasionally broken rather than one that's run in a totally free market by all varieties of selfish interests.
by lou1306 | 2025-09-29 08:21:44+00:00
> The length of tasks AI can do is doubling every 7 months

The claim is "At time t0, an AI can solve a task that would take a human 2 minutes. At time t0+dt, they can solve 4-minutes tasks. At time t0+2dt, it's 8 minutes" and so on.

I still find these claims extremely dubious, just wanted to clarify.
by eloisius | 2025-09-29 08:22:31+00:00
On the far end of this debate you end up with types like _RelationshipJoinConditionArgument which I'd argue is almost more useless than no typing at all. Some people claim it makes their IDE work better, but I don't use an IDE and I don't like the idea of doing extra work to make the tool happy. The opposite should be true.

sqlalchemy.orm.relationship(argument: _RelationshipArgumentType[Any] | None = None, secondary: _RelationshipSecondaryArgument | None = None, *, uselist: bool | None = None, collection_class: Type[Collection[Any]] | Callable[[], Collection[Any]] | None = None, primaryjoin: _RelationshipJoinConditionArgument | None = None, secondaryjoin: _RelationshipJoinConditionArgument | None = None, back_populates: str | None = None, order_by: _ORMOrderByArgument = False, backref: ORMBackrefArgument | None = None, overlaps: str | None = None, post_update: bool = False, cascade: str = 'save-update, merge', viewonly: bool = False, init: _NoArg | bool = _NoArg.NO_ARG, repr: _NoArg | bool = _NoArg.NO_ARG, default: _NoArg | _T = _NoArg.NO_ARG, default_factory: _NoArg | Callable[[], _T] = _NoArg.NO_ARG, compare: _NoArg | bool = _NoArg.NO_ARG, kw_only: _NoArg | bool = _NoArg.NO_ARG, lazy: _LazyLoadArgumentType = 'select', passive_deletes: Literal['all'] | bool = False, passive_updates: bool = True, active_history: bool = False, enable_typechecks: bool = True, foreign_keys: _ORMColCollectionArgument | None = None, remote_side: _ORMColCollectionArgument | None = None, join_depth: int | None = None, comparator_factory: Type[RelationshipProperty.Comparator[Any]] | None = None, single_parent: bool = False, innerjoin: bool = False, distinct_target_key: bool | None = None, load_on_pending: bool = False, query_class: Type[Query[Any]] | None = None, info: _InfoType | None = None, omit_join: Literal[None, False] = None, sync_backref: bool | None = None, **kw: Any) → Relationship[Any]
by lelanthran | 2025-09-29 08:22:42+00:00
> Those languages have existed for 20+ years so if they were ruled out as part of the original decision making then they probably still aren't applicable.

They were ruled out when the RAM/CPU budget per $SERVER could have been an expensive 4GB/2-core for a complex server processing transactions in real-time.

Today, that same complex server can cheaply run on a 48GB/6-cpu server. Those performance constraints for exactly the same $FUNCTIONALITY are such a low hurdle, dollar-wise, that it makes no sense in most applications of this heuristic.
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-09-29 08:22:44+00:00
Maybe adopt the existing Gemini Protocol instead? It's already a nice very simple markdown-like.

https://toffelblog.xyz/blog/gemini-overview/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23730408

https://gemini.circumlunar.space/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23042424
by jakewins | 2025-09-29 08:23:09+00:00
Someone apparently had the exact same question in 2020: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/62298929/what-is-an-anal...

Answer is pretty vague though, but sounds like it’s about not trying to “reverse” what the compiler did, but rather try and “analytically” work put what source code would likely have yielded the byte code it’s looking at?
by Tade0 | 2025-09-29 08:23:59+00:00
> It’s small, it’s dumb, and there were probably plenty of options out there.

Oh, this sort of "dumb" code. That is just exercise. It bothers me that in this field we don't think we should rehearse and exercise and instead use production projects for that.

Actual dumb code is one that disregards edge cases or bets on things being guaranteed when they're not.
by thomasahle | 2025-09-29 08:24:05+00:00
> I miss the time when computers did what you told them to, instead of trying to read your mind.

You haven't seen anything yet. Get ready for "Sort by AI" which will try to interpret the content of your images to sort them based on what you'll want to look at next.

Incidentally, in this case AI would have sorted them the way you want:

These look like photos straight from a phone, with filenames in the form: IMG_YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS... So the natural way to sort them is *chronologically*, by the timestamp embedded in the filename. If we do that, the order becomes: 1. `IMG_20250820_055436307.jpg` — Aug 20, 05:54:36 2. `IMG_20250820_092016029_HDR.jpg` — Aug 20, 09:20:16 3. `IMG_20250820_092440966_HDR.jpg` — Aug 20, 09:24:40 4. `IMG_20250820_092832138_HDR.jpg` — Aug 20, 09:28:32 5. `IMG_20250820_095716_607.jpg` — Aug 20, 09:57:16 6. `IMG_20250820_103857_991.jpg` — Aug 20, 10:38:57 7. `IMG_20250820_103903_811.jpg` — Aug 20, 10:39:03 That order reflects the actual sequence the photos were taken.
by tomp | 2025-09-29 08:24:40+00:00
It’s not a really good analogy because it’s mostly labour (whereas housing is mostly an investment) but yeah, this argument of “fairness” is common, e.g. by feminists (“housework should be paid or at least accounted for pension”) and governments (e.g. in Slovenia, it’s illegal to help neighbors for free).

I think it’s mostly ridiculous, though on other grounds than “fairness”.
by Theodores | 2025-09-29 08:24:45+00:00
Scots is fascinating and the overlap with English is something those that live down south (England) don't really understand as it is more than an accent that is going on. Coupled with Scots there are accents, such as Glaswegian, which is very difficult for outsiders to understand. This is why Scottish people have their 'telephone voice' for when they need to communicate with English speakers that are not Scottish. 'Telephone voice' means speaking s-l-o-w-l-y and using words that are more widely understood, so 'wee' becomes 'little' or 'small'.

In the parts of Wales where Welsh is spoken, an English person isn't going to understand a word of it unless hearing a word is for something new, so 'helicopter' is still 'helicopter'. Everyone that speaks Welsh can speak English just fine, with a Welsh accent, but there won't be substitute words, so 'yes' is 'yes', whereas in Scots, that will be 'aye'.

As for Scots Gaelic, good point on the pronunciation. That language is on artificial life support, much like Welsh, where there has to be considerable government initiatives to keep it alive.
by ljm | 2025-09-29 08:24:56+00:00
I was more referring to the environment that MCP servers run within, which at the end of the day is simply a massive interpolated string that blends instructions and data/content together in a way that an LLM will do its best to figure out a helpful response.

A 'perfectly secured' MCP server will become insecure simply by existing along neighbouring, insecure, tools. With that, I think it's safe to take a broader, less technical definition and say that you should use AI agents + MCP servers with caution.
by rickdeckard | 2025-09-29 08:25:01+00:00
An interesting aspect of all this is, that some of the largest tech-companies in US are centered around perfectioning products which funnel attention from users and turn it either into (ad)money (or frankly an abundance of corporate noise).

At least some of this might have also affected productivity of the own staff I suppose.

But now a large part of the tech-economy depends on this business model, so how to resolve this?
by rob74 | 2025-09-29 08:25:24+00:00
Call me naive, but I would presume that even a junior, once they start working at a company, should be familiar enough with a language that they know all the basic syntax, idioms etc. Still, even if they are, over-using some language features will make your code less readable (to anyone). E.g. some will prefer good ol' if/else to the notorious ternary operator and its many descendants. But that brings us back to your own personal taste...
by Al-Khwarizmi | 2025-09-29 08:27:00+00:00
I'm in CS and I submit both to conferences and journals (the former because it's what people actually read, the latter because of evaluation requirements in my country). And I can tell you that (IMO of course) the conference model is immensely better, and idealization of journals in the CS community is a clear case of "grass is always greener".

Revise and resubmit is evil. It gives the reviewers a lot of power over papers that ends up being used for coertion, sometimes subtle, sometimes quite overt. In most papers I have submitted to journals (and I'm talking prestigious journals, not MDPI or the likes), I have been pressured to cite specific papers that didn't make sense to cite, very likely from the reviewers themselves. And one ends up doing it, because not doing it can result in rejection and losing many months (the journal process is also slower), maybe the paper even becoming obsolete along the way. Of course, the "revise and resubmit" process can also be used to pressure authors into changing papers in subtler ways (to not question a given theory, etc.)

The slowness of the process also means that if you're unlucky with the reviewers, you lose much more time. There is a fact that we should all accept: the reviewing process always carries a huge random factor due to subjectivity. And being able to "reroll" reviewers is actually a good thing. It means that a paper that a good proportion of the community values highly will eventually get in, as opposed to being doomed because the initial very small sample (n=3) is from a rejecting minority.

Finally, in my experience reviewing quality is the other way around... there is a small minority of journals with good review quality but the majority (including prestigious ones) it's a crapshoot, not to mention when the editor desk rejects for highly subjective reasons. In the conferences I typically submit to (*ACL) the review quality is more consistent than in journals, and the process is more serious with rejects always being motivated.
by Etheryte | 2025-09-29 08:27:32+00:00
Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading somewhere that single use plastic bags are so cheap from production to destruction that they still make more environmental sense than totes and the like. Yes, the cotton bags last way longer, but the amount of water and energy spent to produce one is so much larger that you'd need to keep using one bag for decades just to break even. This is all paraphrasing from memory, perhaps someone else has a better recollection or a reference for this? For me, the main takeaway is not to religiously switch to reusable bags, but just use whatever you have handy and not shun away one over the other.
by rldjbpin | 2025-09-29 08:27:32+00:00
> I know it's easy to say generative art is generative swill... but "learning Suno" is no different than "learning guitar".

all the discourse with this remark is quite fascinating as an observer. similar remarks used to be said about electronic music or just use of conventional daw when they were new.

to those who have dedicated years into their craft: one must not mix self-expression from the mechanics of getting there. it is very respectable to dedicate one's life to the analogue way. but if something lets you get there in a different way, allow it.
by pornel | 2025-09-29 08:27:46+00:00
Carbon devs explicitly say use Rust if you can.

Non-trivial C++ programs depend on OOP design patterns, webs of shared-mutable objects, and other features which Rust doesn't want to support (Rust's safety also comes from not having certain features that defeat static analysis).

Rust really needs things written the Rust way. It's usually easier with C, because it won't have clever templates and deep inheritance hierarchies.

Even if your goal is to move to Rust, it may make sense to start with Carbon or Circle to refactor the code first to have more immutability and tree-like data flow.
by gruturo | 2025-09-29 08:27:52+00:00
It 100% works for vacation rentals. I found an AirBnB I liked in Spain, went there 3 more times over the past few years. One time it was already booked and the owner put me in an even better, larger (4BR) place at a discount.

Caveat: your SO must not be allergic to going to the same place more than once in a lifetime. My ex was.
by wkat4242 | 2025-09-29 08:28:28+00:00
For a flight ticket I just ID myself at the airport so that's not an issue. For concert tickets I don't need to do this now. For internet service I absolutely don't need that, all they need to know is that I pay.

And mortgage, bank etc I just do on premise of course. These things are rare and important enough to warrant to just go there.
by ____tom____ | 2025-09-29 08:29:24+00:00
There are quite a few more rules for sorting that can be applied - it's not just numbers, and numbers don't always work the way you describe.

There is "Dictionary Order", "Phone book order", and a few other standards. (Dictionary order is not lexicographic order, even if the two are now commonly conflated).

A simple rule that most still know is a book titled "The Book", should be sorted under "Book, The".

They have variations on how special characters sort, how abbreviations are handled, and even have differences in numbers. For example, in phone book order, "21st Century" sorts under “Twenty-first”, not "21".

And, of course, non-English languages add all sorts of other rules.

This tends to get ignored these days, as lexical sorts are so much easier to implement, that people forget there are other, preferred options.
by numpad0 | 2025-09-29 08:29:49+00:00
I'm not sure if your observations and my arguments contradict. My point is, lots of science happen in local languages and gets translated to English, rarely from English. English is the lingua franca as in LANG=C is always the fallback, not as in en-US.UTF8 is the interface default.

Germans discovered chemical formulas in German, Soviets did metallurgy in Russian. It's consistent that guys in China discuss AI and OSS bugs in Chinese. They support fallback modes and exported data is often converted to standard formats for the best exposure, but their internal formats are not always in English.

No, I don't have any examples to show, I just think "English is lingua franca of science" types of statement is misleading and create false impressions that the original researches always happen in English, not just the data exchange parts.
by wkat4242 | 2025-09-29 08:29:52+00:00
Absolutely, credit cards are insanely insecure, everything that is needed is written on it. I don't know why we are stuck with this archaic American system. They patched it with a form of 2FA (Mastercard 3D Secure / Visa whatever) but it's still really patchy and in many cases is not even triggered at all even for big purchases.

But here in Europe we have much better payment methods like iDeal in Netherlands and Bizum in Spain (now going pan-EU with Wero)
by komali2 | 2025-09-29 08:30:00+00:00
The massive supply chain for transistors / chips is something I chew on as one of the big unsolved problems of localization of supply chains, something I think most communities (and nations) should be taking very seriously in the face of geopolitical and environmental destabilization. Plus it's better for your economy or whatever, I don't know, it just seems crazy to me that entire economies can collapse if one country decides to close its mines or another country decides to blockade the country where all the chips are made.

There's always guys like this: https://simplifier.neocities.org/ whipping up stuff in their backyard, but so far as I know there's no serious alternatives for general computing that I could, with serious organization with, say, my entire city and the surrounding countryside (which includes some mines), use in case of global destabilization to start building our own computers.

Tinfoil hat guy maybe but I think we should have that kind of backup plan ready. Just in case!