MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by artyom | 2025-12-08 12:54:22+00:00
If I understand the article correctly, any sufficiently capable attacker can:

- Know the global state of your GPU cluster via the client.

- Target the most struggling GPU instances specifically since the client decides which one to hit.

You offer a free tier which means anyone can get an account and try to do it (e.g. you can have one "harmless, mostly inactive" free account with the only purpose of retrieving GPU cluster status, and a bunch of burner accounts to overload struggling instances).

I may be completely wrong, but this sounds like DDoS served on a silver plate to me.
by pembrook | 2025-12-08 12:54:32+00:00
I assume you're asking this rhetorically and just want people to affirm how 'evil' private equity is to support the narrative-driven belief you already have?

PE became a favorite journalist boogeyman in the 80s for saddling companies with high interest debt they could never repay or slicing up industrial companies and selling for parts. That's not reality today. A vast majority of private equity buyouts nobody ever hears about or cares about because everything turns out totally fine.

A private equity buyout that makes the company worse off, destroys customer trust, kills employee loyalty, and leaves room for competitors to swoop in is a failed private equity buyout. If that were true in the majority of cases the entire PE model wouldn't work at all.

Here's just a few success stories of companies you've heard of (there's thousands you haven't heard of, so no point in bringing them up).

- Hilton Hotels - Dunkin Brands - Beats by Dre - Dominos Pizza - Petsmart / Chewy

Businesses that sell to private equity are often businesses that are not doing well or are not long-term sustainable, hence why the owner wants to sell. Think about it logically. If you're running a fantastic business that is profitable, growing, sustainable, with happy employees -- why would you sell?? Or in the case of public companies being taken private, why would anybody take the risk if everything is going wonderfully?
by tsimionescu | 2025-12-08 12:54:51+00:00
This is automated, no one is proposing to manually look at BTC blocks to see if you are getting cheated. The problem is that you need to explicitly run code constantly to check if this happens - which means that if your monitoring agent goes offline for any reason (which an attacker could perhaps force), your BTC that you received in a Lightning channel may be stolen.
by gcr | 2025-12-08 12:55:17+00:00
And how is that exposed to the CI/CD? An environment variable? Some bespoke tool that the CI runs to read the secret from the Secure Enclave?

Your approach boils down to “lets give each step its own access to its own hardware-protected secrets, but developers shouldn’t otherwise have access”

Which is a great way to “support secrets,” just like the article says.
by maaaaattttt | 2025-12-08 12:55:21+00:00
It's still not possible because of the high speculative aspect (even though stable coins offer some form of alternative but since they are anchored on the dollar, not so much). Change will happen when more people are impacted by unilateral decisions. If all of a sudden the US decided you/your business/your political party/your government is not aligned with their views, they could make sure that Visa/Mastercard/Paypal/Stripe/... stop accepting payments for that given group. Then you realize there are very little alternatives ready to go in that case (for online payments there are, but for physical ones not so much). So far this hasn't seem like a possibility at all, but, in my view at least, this has changed this past year.
by simianwords | 2025-12-08 12:55:51+00:00
GenAI is the best thing to happen to art.

Here you have a tool that can transfer almost exactly what is in your mind into some form. Isn’t that what any tool is? I view cameras in the same way. So too a paint brush.

To the unimaginative, AI is soulless. But to others, it opens doors and allows things that were previously not possible. I’m no longer restricted by my tools like with paintbrush - I can transmit my exact creative thoughts and get a picture out of it.
by maratc | 2025-12-08 12:55:59+00:00
Do you really want, for example, the US constitution's write time understandings to be perpetuated forever? Their understanding of "citizen" did not include neither women nor black slaves, just to take one example. Another example is the famous question of "whether or not the right of a woman to abortion is a consitution-guaranteed federal right?" to which a bunch of very important folks gave an answer in 1973 but another bunch of very important folks gave a different answer in 2022.
by 7174n6 | 2025-12-08 12:58:37+00:00
Good, leave. Thank You.

And I'm not saying this as a partisan, on either side.

Fleeing is the coward's way out. Stay and fight for what you believe in.

You don't get to come back and dictate that the rest of us placate to your beliefs and feelings after you fled and didn't invest any sweat equity to fix the problem.
by nephihaha | 2025-12-08 12:59:05+00:00
So the US establishment only allows two parties to win and you have to run away when the lot you don't like get in? Do you return when the other party does? Why not campaign for a genuine multiparty system instead?

Be careful what you wish for. The Netherlands will be a culture shock for many Americans. The houses are often tiny and the place feels very cramped.
by account42 | 2025-12-08 12:59:25+00:00
Need might be a bit much but I think I would benefit from the fridge tracking expiry dates and reminding me to use up groceries before they go bad. Having a place in the kitchen to show digital recipes is also not useless.

I don't trust any tech company to provide this without fucking it up with ads or other dark patterns though so I too still have a screen-less fridge.
by 0xSid | 2025-12-08 12:59:50+00:00
Hi HN, I'm building CirtusAI. The core thesis is that Identity and Intelligence should be decoupled.

As we move toward autonomous agents, using our personal IAM (Google/Outlook/SSO) for agentic workflows is becoming a security nightmare. Agents need their own 'civil rights'—a persistent identity, a communication channel (email), and a wallet—that we control, but they operate.

CirtusAI is an infrastructure project providing: Identity Containers: Persistent personas separated from your main profile. Programmable Assets: Hosted email inboxes and (soon) crypto wallets that agents can access via API/SDK. The "Firewall": A layer that proxies interactions. You expose the Cirtus identity to third-party AI apps, keeping your root identity air-gapped.

The MVP (Live now): Through the integration of BrowserUse and CitrusAI, we enable AI to autonomously complete platform registration and login.

Demo: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hxGOjBg5j0y7g_ruRJgi0mhEIz8...

Looking for feedback on the abstraction layer: does 'Identity as an Asset' make sense for your agent workflows?
by gcr | 2025-12-08 12:59:54+00:00
The secret is held by the metadata server that the CI instance has access to

Or: the deployment service knows the identity of the instance, so its secret is its private key

Or, how PyPI does it: the deployment service coordinates with the trusted CI/CD service to learn the identity of the machine (like its IP address, or a trusted assertion of which repository it’s running on), so the secret is handled in however that out-of-band verification step happens. (PyPI communicates with Github Actions about which pipeline from which repository is doing the deployment, for example)

It’s still just secrets all the way down
by everfrustrated | 2025-12-08 13:00:10+00:00
What they are really saying is they don't want third party contributions. They don't have anyone triaging Issues or PRs so don't send them.

They will occasionally make changes if it aligns with a new product effort driven from within the org.

Saying they're dropping support is a stretch esp as very few people actually pay for their Support package anyway..... (Yes they do offer it as a paid option to Enterprise customers)
by mbesto | 2025-12-08 13:01:02+00:00
Are you referring to Private Equity (as in MBOs/LBOs) or Venture Capital? None of what you're stating is rooted in reality or data. Source: https://www.bain.com/globalassets/noindex/2025/bain-report_g...

> - The overwhelming majority of PEs lose money.

What? No. Read the report:

"Buyout funds continue to outperform public markets in all regions across time horizons longer than five years"

> - Annualized return of PE in UK has been 2.1%, this doesn't even match parking money in short-term bonds.

Once again, read the report.

> The only ones that have profited out of PE, beyond the managers working there, are those that invested in the PE itself, meaning buying shares of the fund itself.

I sold my business to PE and I profited nicely. So I'm not sure what you're concluding here...

Take the parent's post with a grain of salt.
by tsimionescu | 2025-12-08 13:01:10+00:00
My point is that Lightning has additional failure modes that BTC does not, and Lightning in itself does not offer the guarantees that Bitcoin does. It of course also suffers from all of BTC's failure points - if someone successfully does a 51% attack on BTC, they can implicitly also steal any Lightning funds as well. If you close a Lightning channel and then don't wait for enough confirmations, or you broadcast your cheating transaction and don't wait for enough confirmations, you can clearly lose your money.

The risk doesn't increase with the number of transactions on a channel, that was a wrong statement from my side. What I was thinking of is that the risk increases the more your transact through Lightning instead of regular BTC. Basically, the more of your BTC is caught up in Lightning channels, the higher the value of attacking you with a double spend attempt.
by stared | 2025-12-08 13:01:37+00:00
What I do, is actually running the task. If it is script, getting logs. If it is is website, getting screenshots. Otherwise it is coding in the blind.

Alike writing a script and having the attitude "yeah, I am good at it, I don't need to actually run it to know if works" - well, likely, it won't work. Maybe because of a trivial mistake.
by Topfi | 2025-12-08 13:01:50+00:00
I very much like the direct demo, similar to how Groq showcased their offerings initially. Would love if they shared more about their custom hardware and model training, as it stands this is far less information than Cerebras and Groq offered upon launch.

Model output seems very similar to GLM-4.6 in my purely subjective and very limited testing. Also disappointed to see the "Thinking" tokens fully hidden.

Would greatly appreciate a deep dive into what lead to the choice of training their own model, how ground up their model was trained (or whether this is based on an existing model like Composer 1 with Qwen) and why they decided not to provide their hardware with existing models like Cerebras and Groq.
by d4rkn0d3z | 2025-12-08 13:02:01+00:00
A better anology would be a virus. In some sense LLMs, and all other very sophisticated technologies, lean on our resources to replicate themselves. With LLMs you actually do have a projection of intelligemce in the language domain. Even though it is rather corpse-like, as though you shot intelligence in the face and shoved its body in the direction of language, just so you could draw a chaulk outline around it.

Despite all that, one can adopt the view that an LLM is a form of silicon based life akin to a virus and we are its environmental hosts exerting selective pressure and supplying much needed energy. Whether that life is intelligent or not is another issue which is probably related to whether an LLM can tell that a cat cannot be, at the same time and in the same respect, not a cat. The paths through the meaning manifold contructed by an LLM are not geodesic, they are not reversible, while in human reason the correct path is lossless. An LLM literally "thinks", up is a little bit down, and vice versa, by design.
by HighGoldstein | 2025-12-08 13:02:01+00:00
There are a lot of places in the world where crypto payments are now prevalent, not because users are the "dumbest people in the world" but because they have no better alternative for electronic finance. Either conventional banking is nonexistent/abysmal for this purpose or their national currencies are in such bad condition that it's better for them to hold and use cryptocurrencies.
by avsteele | 2025-12-08 13:02:11+00:00
Article Context-free raw #'s, no comparisons to traditional grocery stores AFAIK. Dad journalism.

You should not update on this article unless you have some outside knowledge of the industry.

I had AI look into it, it found a national report found that dollar stores had pricing errors at about twice (3.5%) the rate of traditional supermarkets (1.7%) but lower than convenience stores (4.9%).

https://cdn.ncwm.com/userfiles/files/Resources/Price%20Verif...
by wink | 2025-12-08 13:02:43+00:00
One of our products had a proper contact page (just a select box box to decide on something, then one outcome was a contact form) and now it's a fuck off contact page.

Sometimes (like here) there are even some good reasons (e.g. we host this product and the first point of contact is in fact another business entity, so they get to decide) and apparently their MO is "you will use this ticket system no matter what you want, so only if you are a certain customer with a login it will work" whereas before you could at least write a "hello, here's a technical problem" that would reach us and not them. Ah well.
by kokada | 2025-12-08 13:03:01+00:00
This looks like backwards. I would understand using a LLM to generate a GitHub Actions YAML, but always running your action from a Markdown file seems extremely wasteful in terms of resources.

Edit: ok, looking at example it makes more sense. The idea is to run specific actions that are probably not well automated, like generating and keeping documentation up-to-date. I hope people don't use it to automate things like CI runs though.
by mbesto | 2025-12-08 13:03:30+00:00
> PE model is very different from regular private companies, and it often involves extracting maximum profits at the expense of the company itself.

Not all PEs model. The ones you are referring to are often buying large businesses (like the infamous Toys R Us) load them with debt and strip their assets. 90% of the other PEs out there do not do this...in fact the opposite. They put capital on their balance sheet to grow.
by d-lisp | 2025-12-08 13:03:32+00:00
(Motors and human brains are both just mechanisms, the reason one is a priori capable of learning abstract thought and not the other ?)

While I agree to some extent with the materialistic conception, the brain is not an isolated mechanism, but rather the element of a system which itself isn't isolated from the experience of being a body in a world interacting with different systems to form super systems.

The brain must be a very efficient mechanism, because it doesn't need to ingest the whole textual production of the human world in order to know how to write masterpieces (music, litterature, films, software, theorems etc...). Instead the brain learns to be this very efficient mechanism with (as a starting process) feeling its own body sh*t on itself during a long part of its childhood.

I can teach someone to become really good at producing fine and efficient software, but on the contrary I can only observe everyday that my LLM of choice keeps being stupid even when I explain it how it fails. ("You're perfectly right !").

It is true that there's nothing magical about the brain, but I am pretty sure it must be stronger tech than a probabilistic/statistical next word guesser (otherwise there would be much more consensus about the usability of LLMs I think).
by hnthrow0287345 | 2025-12-08 13:03:49+00:00
>We are trying to fix probability with more probability. That is a losing game.

Technically not, we just don't have it high enough

You're doing exactly what you said you wouldn't though. Betting that network requests are more reliable than an LLM: fixing probability with more probability.

Not saying anything about the code - I didn't look at it - but just wanted to highlight the hypocritical statements which could be fixed.
by GlibMonkeyDeath | 2025-12-08 13:04:23+00:00
Personally, I think you may have already gotten a great deal if the angel/co-founder is willing to do a 50-50 split and not take a salary (or get paid in equity in lieu of salary.) Is your co-founder now demanding to be paid in salary/equity after they agreed (I assume this is written down somewhere?) otherwise? If this is a "handshake agreement" situation, then I guess you are in the process of learning an important business lesson...

That said, fairness in business has nothing to do with your or your co-founder's personal financial situation, other than the constraints of reality (i.e., you simply can't work without a minimum amount of salary.) Frankly your co-founder should be paid in something (equity) if they are not drawing a salary. Theoretically, ownership and compensation should reflect what each of you are bringing to the company. In fact, your co-founder is actually getting compensated less than you while investing their own money - that means you are already better compensated than them. Is that "fair"? Maybe, maybe not, you guys have to agree.

But get a written agreement - if this already exists than just stand by it.
by adrian_b | 2025-12-08 13:04:46+00:00
You have to use the stack for procedure calls on x86/x86-64 CPUs, where the hardware enforces this.

In most other surviving CPU ISAs the return address is saved in a register and it is easy to arrange in a compiler to use only procedure arguments that are passed in registers, the only price being paid for this being a reasonable upper limit for the number of parameters of a function, e.g. 12 or 24, depending on the number of general-purpose registers (e.g. 16 or 32). For the very rare case when a programmer would want more parameters, some of them should be grouped into a structure.

With this convention, which normally should not be a problem, there is no need for a call stack. There can be software managed stacks, which can be used even for implementing recursion, when that is desired.

The use of static memory for passing function arguments was necessary only in the very early computers, which were starved in registers.
by user34283 | 2025-12-08 13:04:49+00:00
I said the financial system must be controlled by our democratic system, not that democracy rests on control of the financial system.

No idea where I'm supposedly making "wild leaps" here. You on the other hand...

And guess where "the hell" I am getting the idea that early adopters would need to be cashed out at a profit many times exceeding inflation: reality. As cashing out at a large profit is exactly what has been happening for over a decade. It is the sole reason for virtually all participants joining the scheme in the first place.
by OvbiousError | 2025-12-08 13:04:54+00:00
Having worked with cvs and svn, git has been an absolute blast.

That said, the first thing I do now in a repo is jj init --colocate. The fact alone that there is an operation log in jj, so you can easily revert your last command, or go back to any point you want, is mind blowing coming from git and having experienced frantically digging through the reflog.

But that aside, the way to work with branches ahem bookmarks, commits, conflicts, just makes so much sense in a world where simultaneous feature branches are a thing.
by Tepix | 2025-12-08 13:06:03+00:00
> Even the charging costs for 1GWh is absurdly high compared to Heavy Fuel Oil. An orders of magnitude more expensive.

Burning 250 tons of oil to get 1GWh of energy releases around 800 tons of CO2. Let's assume a $100 CO2 tax. We want to prevent the worst of global warming, right? That would add ~25% to the price of oil.

There is likely to be an oversupply of renewable (solar) energy less than 5 years from now.

So I wouldn't be so sure about that 100 year prediction.
by bArray | 2025-12-08 13:06:50+00:00
Great idea, but a few feedback points:

1. It's difficult to know that it is following from the previous problem, and then on some problems it changes the workspace.

2. It's not always easy to know what it wants.

3. The question about finding a line starting with "The" I successfully cheated:

cat night-before-christmas.txt | grep "The "

4. Likewise the ending "!":

cat night-before-christmas.txt | grep "!"

5. On the eighth day I get a "runner error" with the command:

mv *lve* Workshop

I'm globbing for the filename match, I'm not sure if it's "elve" or "Elve" and then trying to move to the target directory.

Otherwise it's quite fun - the instant feedback is great.
by level09 | 2025-12-08 13:07:00+00:00
Thanks for the kind words and thoughtful suggestions!

On the repos, they're intentionally separate projects. Enferno stays as a minimal Flask framework with fewer dependencies, ideal for anyone who wants a clean starting point. ReadyKit builds on top of Enferno with SaaS-specific features like workspaces, Stripe billing, and team collaboration. I plan to maintain both:

* Enferno: lean framework for general Flask projects * ReadyKit: batteries-included SaaS template

This gives users the freedom to choose the level of complexity they need.

On the redirect, good point. I'll set that up so enferno.io links don't cause confusion.

On dark mode, fair feedback. I can add a dark mode toggle and will work on that.

Thanks again for checking it out!
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-12-08 13:07:26+00:00
Don't remember exactly. If I think about it, it could be quite complex.

Git has the concept of "atomic repos." Repos are a single unit, including all files, branches, tags, etc.

Older systems basically had a single repo, with "lenses" into sections of the repo (usually called "workspaces," or somesuch. VSS called them something else, but I can't remember).

I find the atomic repo thing awkward; especially wrt libraries. If I include a package, I get the whole kit & kaboodle; including test harnesses and whatnot. My libraries thend to have a lot more testing code than library code.

Also, I would love to create a "dependency repo," that aggregates the exported parts of the libraries that I'm including into my project, pinned at the required versions. I guess you could say package managers are that, but they are kind of a blunt instrument. Since I eat my own dog food, I'd like to be able to write changes into the dependency, and have them propagate back to their home repo, which I can sort of do now, if I make it a point to find the dependency checkout, make a change, then push that change, but it's awkward.

But that seems crazy complex (and dangerous), so I'm OK with the way things work now.
by schmuhblaster | 2025-12-08 13:07:30+00:00
This looks like a very pragmatic solution, in line with what seems to be going on in the real world [1], where reliability seems to be one of the biggest issues with agentic systems right now. I've been experimenting with a different approach to increase the amount of determinism in such systems: https://github.com/deepclause/deepclause-desktop. It's based on encoding the entire agent behavior in a small and concise DSL built on top of Prolog. While it's not as flexible as a fully fledged agent, it does however, lead to much more reproducible behavior and a more graceful handling of edge-cases.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.04123
by LikeBeans | 2025-12-08 13:08:05+00:00
Actually thinking about it some more why not park a couple of dozen older cargo ships along major shipping route. Equip them with wind turbines and batteries in shipping containers. Now the actual cargo ships passing by can stop for a few hours, plug in and charge. Use sodium ion batteries that can support thousands of cycles. Even use regular fuel as a backup in the charging ships. You can build and maintain anywhere and then haul them to the right location.