MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by K0balt | 2026-01-24 21:01:09+00:00
Of -reported- incedents, 1 in 4 women report having been the victim of significant physical harm by an intimate partner, as do 1 in 7 men. Now if you consider the comparative likelihood of severe physical harm in M vs F and F vs M, and factor in the likelihood of reporting for women vs men, I think you can see that the rate is not at all what it seems at first glance.

(FWIW, despite the relative -frequency- of incidents , I do agree that the danger is greater to women just on the basis of the likelihood of harm in a MvF conflict.)

Reported incidence of psychological/emotional abuse are almost exactly at parity, with just under half of both sexes reporting abuse in their lifetime. Physical abuse prevalence in lesbian relationships is also much higher than either heterosexual or male-male relationships.

From this I would estimate that the willingness to act out in violence against a domestic partner is something close to evenly distributed among the sexes.

Collection of definitive data about subjects such as this is notoriously difficult, but reading between the lines both here and in violence among youth (m-m, f-f, m/f) seems to indicate that the predilection, if not the severity, of violence is relatively evenly distributed among.
by B1FIDO | 2026-01-24 21:02:04+00:00
If someone is going in to a situation where they know there are armed riot police, armed federal agents, armed and agitated protestors, and several people have already been unalived, I would call them nothing but "suicidal" to carry their own weapon into that situation. Suicidal. Even when concealed and unused. Suicidal.

Of course they would be suicidal to go into that situation unarmed, as well. But carrying a weapon would be double-plus-ungood and guaranteed to make them a target for unaliving, sticking out from amongst the crowd bearing rocks and sticks or even Molotov cocktails.
by dang | 2026-01-24 21:02:17+00:00
My post contains all the information you need to answer that question. The current story is obviously a flamewar topic, a political battle topic, and a repetitive topic. I'm not saying it isn't important—of course it's important, far more important than most things on HN's front page*. The issue is that HN's frontpage is not optimized for importance but for something else (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). Optimizing for importance would make this a current affairs site, which is not its mandate. Actually we have to expend a lot of energy preventing that outcome, because the default pressures point in that direction, and are quite strong. One can really see that at moments when passions are heated, as they are in this thread.

* If you look at some of the old links I dug up here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46747388, you'll find that this point has also been around a long time. Specifically these:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23380817 (June 2020)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20453883 (July 2019)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16968668 (May 2018)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15948011 (Dec 2017)
by toomuchtodo | 2026-01-24 21:02:33+00:00
Blue states fund red states, they are the economic engines of the country. California has the forth largest economy in the world. The federal government has more to lose. Red states are poor. Blue states can simply withhold federal support, keep federal tax revenue in state and let the federal government try to sue for it.

I encourage the federal government to try to support itself off of red states.

https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-mo...
by my_throwaway23 | 2026-01-24 21:03:05+00:00
While not a commercial offering, which is what this is saying in reality - closed source, commercial alternative with (limited) interoperability, I've been running my own chat server for a while now with (limited) interoperability with both Whatsapp and Messenger.

I suspect a good number of people here don't care for any of this - FOSS, chat, voice, and video is where it's at. Interoperability for those last two don't exist yet AFAIK, and they're truly game-changers. Will that change? Does the DMA mention anything other than chat? Perhaps someone could enlighten me.
by colechristensen | 2026-01-24 21:03:12+00:00
This is really up to the writer of the provider (very often the service itself) to have the provider code correctly model how the service works. It very often doesn't and allows you to plan error-free what will fail during apply.

It's not an API issue but a terraform provider issue having missing or incomplete code (i.e. https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws )
by KaiserPro | 2026-01-24 21:03:16+00:00
> People are emotional and react in unexpected ways to even the smallest perceived slights, myself included

Most people react quite predictably to slights. The issue is, if you don't have enough context, you might not understand you are slighting someone.

I think the biggest problem in the workplace is that those higher up, or more successful in a company will put more stock in following the company rules/culture than making sure someone is ok.

Your point about bereavement leave is a good case in point, I had a similar incident where my manager at the time said "Well your aunt's not your close family is she?" when I asked to attend a funeral. I told HR and they went wide-eyed and silent for a bit before ushering me to the comfy seat while they tore a bollock off my manager. Had they not done that, I think I probably would have rage quit.

But why would my manager think that this would be a rational thing to do? Did she thing that one day would mean I delivered a critical project on time (no, I was a junior) My manager made a judgement that it would be fine to reject a bereavement leave.

The point is, now that I am manager, I make sure that my underlings are and feel cared for. The short term productivity for being a prick to them will evaporate in days. If I can't do something for them, or allow them to do something, I say I can't and why.

Am I a great manager? no, because I'm not really organised. But my team work well despite me, rather than because of me.
by LexiMax | 2026-01-24 21:03:35+00:00
Complaining about names seems like a surefire way to induce endless bikeshedding conversations that go nowhere. It's also often cited as a too-convenient excuse for why a service fails that doesn't really account for the market realities or whatever systemic failures were at play.

The truth is that 15 years ago, "tweet" was seen as a joke by those who weren't extremely online. It didn't stop Twitter from becoming a desirable place to socialize, at least for a time. If the internet made "tweet" happen, people can get used to any weird nomenclature.
Show HN: Pingaroo – a tiny native macOS menu bar app for network stats
by mallochio | 2026-01-24 21:03:58+00:00
Hi HN,

I built a tiny native menu bar app I'm calling Pingaroo. It separates router latency from internet latency and shows real-time signal quality/noise graphs to help diagnose intermittent lag. Written in 100% Swift/SwiftUI and fully open source.

Pingaroo is a recreation of the WhyFi app by James Potter based on screenshots, with a few personal riffs and improvements.

Feedback welcome!
by lordnacho | 2026-01-24 21:04:21+00:00
> The salesman can't tell you how to hedge the product. If you can't hedge you will lose that 5% upfront pretty fast.

> You need quants and sales and trading. Which is why all banks have all three.

I don't think anybody said you can just run without one of those. But it seems the magic is in spotting the fish, not hauling it in.
by krapp | 2026-01-24 21:04:51+00:00
It seems to me like you're the one with a strong negative emotional investment in this thread. I don't know what your bar for "reasonable" is but the entire top thread seems fine to me. It's certainly better than many discussions I've seen of LLMs or other controversial but technical subjects.

In any case, I disagree that this thread, much less all "political" threads, deserve to be flagged by default. This community's specific grudge against politics is weird given how much politics gets excused in "technical" contexts.
by mbivert | 2026-01-24 21:05:00+00:00
> but the opening bit has always seemed straightforward to me

the a/symmetry of the opening bits in Chinese, visually echoes a taiji:

> 道可道，

> 非恆道；

> 名可名，

> 非恆名。

given the diversity of translations available for those bits, I think it's fair to say that there's room for debate regarding their exact meaning − dare I say

amusingly, by being certain one understand what it means, somehow one really does not. Lao-Tseu may have been way, way wiser than average.
by mafriese | 2026-01-24 21:05:16+00:00
Ok it might sound crazy but I actually got the best quality of code (completely ignoring that the cost is likely 10x more) by having a full “project team” using opencode with multiple sub agents which are all managed by a single Opus instance. I gave them the task to port a legacy Java server to C# .NET 10. 9 agents, 7-stage Kanban with isolated Git Worktrees.

Manager (Claude Opus 4.5): Global event loop that wakes up specific agents based on folder (Kanban) state.

Product Owner (Claude Opus 4.5): Strategy. Cuts scope creep

Scrum Master (Opus 4.5): Prioritizes backlog and assigns tickets to technical agents.

Architect (Sonnet 4.5): Design only. Writes specs/interfaces, never implementation.

Archaeologist (Grok-Free): Lazy-loaded. Only reads legacy Java decompilation when Architect hits a doc gap.

CAB (Opus 4.5): The Bouncer. Rejects features at Design phase (Gate 1) and Code phase (Gate 2).

Dev Pair (Sonnet 4.5 + Haiku 4.5): AD-TDD loop. Junior (Haiku) writes failing NUnit tests; Senior (Sonnet) fixes them.

Librarian (Gemini 2.5): Maintains "As-Built" docs and triggers sprint retrospectives.

You might ask yourself the question “isn’t this extremely unnecessary?” and the answer is most likely _yes_. But I never had this much fun watching AI agents at work (especially when CAB rejects implementations).
This was an early version of the process that the AI agents are following (I didn’t update it since it was only for me anyway): https://imgur.com/a/rdEBU5I
by LeFantome | 2026-01-24 21:05:26+00:00
Ladybird is further ahead than Servo, at least with what it can render and how correct it is. But Ladybird is a lot slower at this point.

One reason of course is that Ladybird wrote its own JavaScript engine while Servo uses SpiderMonkey.

Ladybird scores over 500 on https://html5test.co which is better than Firefox 60. And Ladybird is not too far behind Safari on the Web Playform Tests (ahead of Servo).

I wish both projects well.
by judahmeek | 2026-01-24 21:06:01+00:00
How hard is benchmarking models actually?

We've got a lot of available benchmarks & modifying at least some of those benchmarks doesn't seem particularly difficult: https://arc.markbarney.net/re-arc

To reduce cost & maintain credibility, we could have the benchmarks run through a public CI system.

What am I missing here?
Show HN: A GTK app for Linux to show file buffer progress
by dcminter | 2026-01-24 21:06:32+00:00
This GTK app for Linux [0] puts up a progress bar showing how much data is left in the "Dirty" and "Writeback" buffers. For good measure it also shows the progress on most simple file operations such as cp or mv.

The main purpose is to scratch my own itch when copying large files onto a USB drive. I want to be able to see the progress of sync (or "eject") operations whose feedback usually amounts to "wait" or "finished" !

At the CLI, of course, you can instead run progress [1] or just manually grep for "Writeback" in /proc/meminfo [2] but personally I like having something graphical!

[0] https://github.com/dcminter/meminfo-rs

[1] https://github.com/Xfennec/progress

[2] https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man5/proc_meminfo.5.html
by otterley | 2026-01-24 21:07:03+00:00
> the specific prompt is irrelevant

The instruction prompt is absolutely relevant: it conveys to the agent the scope of its authority and the principal's intent, and would undoubtedly be used as evidence if a dispute arose over it. It's not different in kind from instructions you would give a human being.

> this still relies upon an LLM agent being held out as some kind of bona fide legal agent capable of executing some legally binding agreements

Which it can...

> You're essentially saying there is no way to run a software program without extending it the legal authority to form legal contracts on your behalf.

I'm not saying that at all. Agency law is very mature at this stage, and the test to determine that an actor is an agent and whether it acted within the scope of its authority is pretty clear. I'm not going to lay it all out here, so please go study it independently.

I'm also not entirely sure what your angle here is: are you trying to say that an LLM-based agent cannot under any circumstances be treated as acting on its principal's behalf? Or are you just being argumentative and trying to find some angle to be "right"?
by vardalab | 2026-01-24 21:07:12+00:00
I iterate around issues. I have a skill to launch a new tmux window for worktree with Claude in one pane and Codex in another pane with instructions on which issue to work on, Claude has instructions to create a plan, while Codex has instructions to understand the background information necessary for this issue to be worked on. By the time they're both done, then I can feed Claude's plan into Codex, and Codex is ready to analyze it. And then Codex feeds the plan back to Claude, and they kind of ping pong like that a couple times. And after a certain or several iterations, there's enough refinement that things usually work.
Then Claude clears context and executes the plan. Then Codex reviews the commit and it still has all the original context so it knows what we have been planning and what the research was about the infrastructure. And it does a really good job reviewing. And again, then they ping pong back and forth a couple times, and the end product is pretty decent.
Codex's strength is that it really goes in-depth. I usually do this at a high reasoning effort. But Codex has zero EQ or communication skills, so it works really well as a pedantic reviewer. Claude is much more pleasant to interact with. There's just no comparison. That's why I like planning with Claude much more because we can iterate..
I am just a hobbyist though. I do this to run my Ansible/Terraform infrastructure for a good size homelab with 10 hosts. So we actually touch real hardware a lot and there's always some gotchas to deal with. But together, this is a pretty fun way to work. I like automating stuff, so it really scratches that itch.
by akomtu | 2026-01-24 21:07:28+00:00
> In Demons, the revolutionary circle does not have a coherent plan for social transformation. Its members have various ideas, many of them contradictory. What they share is not a program but an orientation—toward destruction, toward the thrill of transgression, toward the exhilarating feeling that the old order is crumbling and they are the agents of its collapse.
by falcor84 | 2026-01-24 21:07:31+00:00
It's a question of semantics. What I'm saying is that the way many of us use html in practice in 2026 is less like arbitrary strings and more like db connection strings, where most of our focus is not on whether a bit of text is an article or an aside, but about how it participates in the control flow across different components in our architecture.

From another perspective, I'm not familiar with any present day company, where the html they use in their source code is sufficiently simple and distinct from the rest of the program to be managed by non-programmers. The only html that is just used as strings is that used for individual posts in a crm or marketing tool's cms, typically stored in a database rather than the source code repository.
by hyperman1 | 2026-01-24 21:07:43+00:00
Something I learned on this site: We're bad at estimating the average duration, but reasonable for the mean duration.

If you get 10 tasks of seemingly equal duration, 9 will go well and 1 will hit a reef of unexpected troubles and take forever.

So the practice of doubling is not that stupid. It leaves time in the first 9 to deal with the unexpected disaster.
by daxfohl | 2026-01-24 21:07:56+00:00
IME "Risk 2: Distributed Monolith" always comes back to bite. You have a nice separation of concerns at first, but then a quarter later there's some new feature request that cuts across those boundaries, and you're forced into distributed monolith territory.

Then the problem is you can't refactor it even if you wanted to, because other teams have taken dependencies on your existing APIs etc. Cleaning up becomes a risky quarter-long multi-team project instead of a straightforward sprint-long ticket.

I think AI is going to reverse the microservice trend too. The main problem that microservices improves is allowing teams to work more independently. Deployments, and especially rollbacks if there's a bug, can be quick for a microservice but take lots of coordination for monoliths. With AI (once/if it gets better), I imagine project work to be a lot more serial, since they work so much faster, and it'll be able to deploy one project at a time. A lot less chance of overlapping or incompatible changes that block monolith rollouts for weeks until they're resolved. A lot less extra feature-flagging of every single little change since you can just roll back the deployment if needed. Plus, a single codebase will be a lot easier for a single AI system to understand and work with e2e.
by jdalsgaard | 2026-01-24 21:08:02+00:00
Most tools, frameworks and articles in IT, SaaS in particular, are about spinning up things. It is what people find exciting.

Work a few years in Ops and you learn that spinning up things is not a big part of your work. It's maintenance, such as deleting stuff.

Unfortunately this process is the hardest, and there's very little to help you do it right. Many tools, framework and vendors don't even have proper support for it.

Some even recommend 'rinse and repeat' instead of adjusting what you have - and this method is not great if you value uptime, nor if you have state that you want to preserve, such as customer data :-)

Deleting stuff, shutting services down, turning off servers - those are hard tasks in IT.
by pianopatrick | 2026-01-24 21:09:51+00:00
People, including the author of this article, say that design and architecture are the hard parts, but I think long term those are just as solvable as coding.

I think architecture will become like an installer. Some kind of agent orchestration system will ask you "do you want this or that" and guide you through various architecture choices when you set up a project, or when those choices arise.

And for design, now that code is fast and easy to generate, an agent system can just generate two, three or four versions of the UX for each feature and ask "do you like this one, this one or that one?".

So a switch from upfront design / architecture choices you have to put into prompts to the agent orchestration system asking you to make a choice when the choice becomes relevant.
by gedy | 2026-01-24 21:10:15+00:00
> running these tools can review and comprehend the output properly

You have to realize this is targeting manager and team lead types who already mostly ignore the details and quality frankly. "Just get it done" basically.

That's fine for some companies looking for market fit or whatever - and a disaster for some other companies now or in future, just like outsourcing and subcontracting can be.

My personal take is: speed of development usually doesn't make that big a difference for real companies. Hurry up and wait, etc.
by lqstuart | 2026-01-24 21:10:29+00:00
If you don’t like the behavior of a company voluntarily doing something, your problem is with that company. If you don’t like a company complying with the law, your problem is with the law. It is unreasonable to expect anyone or any company to break the law or violate a court order to protect you.

If you don’t trust the institutions issuing those court orders, that is an entirely reasonable stance but it should be addressed at its root cause using our democratic process, however rapidly eroding that process may seem to be.

The fourth amendment protects against warrantless search and seizure, it is not carte blanche to fill up your hard drive with child porn and expect Microsoft to fall on their swords to protect you.
by NickC25 | 2026-01-24 21:10:45+00:00
It's from a culture of people who cheat to get ahead, because they come from a society SO competitive, SO cutthroat, and SO obsessed with education & testing that cheating is encouraged and rewarded...because its rewarded in the workplace, in the broader economy (up to a point), and in the political body.

Of course, there's also the Chinese, who cheat because they are international students paying several multiples of the tuition and the university doesn't want to upset that gravy train in the wake of several federal funding cuts. Also because your rank-and-file Chinese students at most American colleges suck at speaking English so they, except in pure STEM, need to cheat in order to pass in the first place.
by autoexec | 2026-01-24 21:11:21+00:00
Yeah I laughed when I saw he'd moved to MS, but I'd love to get some more alternatives.

My ISP has already said they're going to stop providing email service at some point in the near future and I'll have to migrate at some point.
In the past I'd picked up a cheap domain and self-hosted for a bit, but I'd love to not have to. Any good email providers out there that actually respect their customers and support IMAP?
by nomel | 2026-01-24 21:11:32+00:00
What you call "platforming" I often call "listening to what someone says/thinks". Not every interview needs challenging questions, or to be a battle/debate, and sometimes it's not appropriate (above George Hotz being an example, difference in qualifications being another). But, I enjoy trying to understand someone, quirks and all, especially the human aspect, flaws and all. It's interesting seeing the differences in people.

From what I've seen, people that crave "challenging questions" usually most enjoy activist interviewers that are very strongly aligned with their own (usually political) worldview. I don't think that describes Lex Fridman, or me as a listener, at all, and that's fine.
by malshe | 2026-01-24 21:11:37+00:00
I will give my perspective as an academic who writes R and Python code for data analysis (including a lot of data cleaning).

1. I find AI written code verbose and inelegant. It makes it difficult to troubleshoot. I take pride in my own code and share it confidently with my doctoral students and coauthors. I can't share AI written/assisted code with the same confidence let alone pride.

2. Often AI takes shortcuts and writes terrible code. This is especially true for Bayesian models. My first check with any Bayesian model is to recover parameters using a simulated dataset. If the code fails to do that, there is no point in going forward. I used Opus 4.5, Gemini 3.0, and GPT 5.2 recently to write rather simple code for random parameters dynamic panel model. There are already papers that have done it. All three failed numerous times. I got it to work after a lot of handholding.

3. AI helps tremendously while creating web apps that make my analysis more actionable. A lot of reviewers now want to see something in action, so using Streamlit or Shiny is the way to go.