MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by fumblebee | 2026-01-07 13:45:20+00:00
> Surely Congress or the courts would have something to say about it?

my sense is that Trump feels to be above the law right now, having ordered the operation to seize Maduro without Congressional approval (illegal under U.S. constitutional law). Trump's reasoning was that "Congress has a tendency to leak", and so to him congress seems little more than background noise.
by Fiveplus | 2026-01-07 13:45:38+00:00
Nice! The author touches on the area properties and here's the most practical life hack derived from the standard I personally use. It uses the relationship between size and mass.

Because A0 is defined as having an area of exactly 1 square meter, the paper density (GSM or grams per square meter) maps directly to the weight of the sheet.

>A0 = 1 meter square.

>Standard office paper = 80 gsm

>Therefore, one sheet of A0 = 80 grams.

>Since A4 is 1/16th of an A0, a single sheet of standard A4 paper weighs 5 grams.

I rarely need to use a scale for postage. If I have a standard envelope (~5g) and 3 sheets of paper (15g), I know I'm at 20g total. It turns physical shipping logistics into simple integer arithmetic. The elegance of the metric system is that it makes the properties of materials discoverable through their definitions.
by ggggffggggg | 2026-01-07 13:46:57+00:00
I don’t know that the vast majority of Americans know who Eric Schmidt is. And unless they find little green men, no one will care about this project, so it won’t affect his (essentially nonexistent) reputation.

It’s not unlike if you had a blog post about a gardening project in your backyard. Perhaps interesting to gardeners, but approximately no one cares.

Low effort cynicism.
by alsufinow | 2026-01-07 13:47:22+00:00
Hey HN, I'm Mohammad (19, Jordan). My co-founder Connor is 21 and currently somewhere in the ocean working 12-hour shifts on oil rigs. Between not drowning and trying to fund this thing, we built Planless.

Planless started because we needed it ourselves. Every productivity tool felt like a chore. We'd try something, use it for a week, abandon it. Nothing stuck. So we built this for us, and it actually worked. We built the entire product inside Planless itself.

Connor has maybe a few hours between shifts. We can't waste time, so we needed to stay in flow.

We started with just planning and organizing, but we needed actual hands-on support. We kept saying "I wish we had Jarvis." So we said fuck it, let's build it.

The AI (your sidekick) lives in the workspace with you. You talk to it and it remembers, builds a relationship with you like Jarvis from Iron Man. It learns when you work, what stresses you, how you think and what are you trying to achieve. Working on something and need research? It does it. Need a doc written? It writes with you. Budget sheet? It builds it. Need an email sent? It writes it and sends it. Meeting? Books it. You cantal to it with voice and it responds back, it can do multistep operations from one prompt in seconds.

The workspace is spatial. Your brain thinks in connections, one idea branches into others. Create a space for marketing with tasks and notes inside. Need deeper focus? Create another space inside that. Click the card, you're in a new board. Navigate with tree structure in the sidebar, breadcrumbs, or ask the AI. You also have different tab for tasks, notes, calendar and you can filter by space.

Analytics show when you're most productive, where time goes. AI analyzes in real time, learns over time.

Here's the thing: no pillar works without the others. Email, calendar, tasks, notes, docs, sheets with 527 functions, themes across everything. They all make sense because the AI is inside connecting it all. This isn't a team tool. It's personal. Made to understand you as a person, your tasks, your notes. Real-time collab is coming soon, but right now this is your space that adapts to you and helps you move forward.

We're in beta. Try it for free and tell us what breaks.
by bayindirh | 2026-01-07 13:47:43+00:00
A model trained on a very large corpus can't, because these behaviors are different or specialized enough they cancel each other most of the cases. You can forcefully fine-tune a model with a singular person's behavior up to a certain point, but I'm not sure that even that can capture the subtlest of behaviors or decision mechanisms which are generally the most important ones (the ones we call gut feeling or instinct).

OTOH, while I won't call human brain perfect, the things we label "shit" generally turn out to be very clever and useful optimizations to workaround its own limitations, so I regard human brain higher than most AI proponents do. Also we shouldn't forget that we don't know much about how that thing works. We only guess and try to model it.

Lastly, searching perfection in numbers and charts or in engineering sense is misunderstanding nature and doing a great disservice to it, but this is a subject for another day.
by croon | 2026-01-07 13:48:04+00:00
The wording is such [0]:

> If the data subject’s consent is given in the context of a written declaration which also concerns other matters, the request for consent shall be presented in a manner which is clearly distinguishable from the other matters, in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language. Any part of such a declaration which constitutes an infringement of this Regulation shall not be binding.

> ... It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent.

Your example does appear muddy, but I also doubt any enforcement targetting such sites.

What however is extremely common is an "Accept all" vs "Manage settings" which opens up another panel, where there is still no "Reject all" option, and only various settings where you can "Save choices" which might or might not default to what you want. Such cases are obviously blatant rule violations, both in amount of clicks and obfuscation of consent.

[0] https://gdpr.eu/article-7-how-to-get-consent-to-collect-pers...
by securestor | 2026-01-07 13:49:15+00:00
Artifact Repositories Are a Supply-Chain Security Blind Spot

Most teams secure their source code and production environments. Far fewer secure their artifact repositories—even though artifacts are what actually get deployed.

If an attacker can tamper with a binary, container image, or package after CI, they’ve effectively bypassed your entire pipeline.

Common problems I see:

Artifacts stored unencrypted or only disk-encrypted

Coarse-grained access controls

Mutable artifacts that can be silently replaced

Weak or unusable audit logs

In regulated or enterprise environments, this is a real risk.

SecureStor: Security-First Artifact Storage (Open Source)

We’re building SecureStor, an open-source, enterprise-grade artifact repository designed with security and compliance as first-class concerns.

Repo: https://github.com/securestor/securestor

Core ideas:

Encryption by default at the application layer

Fine-grained access control (CI/CD–friendly)

Immutable artifacts once published

Audit logs that are actually useful for compliance and forensics

The goal is to make the artifact repository a security boundary, not just a storage backend.

Why Open Source Here?

Security infrastructure benefits from transparency:

Cryptography and access control can be audited

No vendor lock-in for a core trust component

Easier to adapt for internal developer platforms

Where This Fits

SecureStor is aimed at:

Platform / DevOps teams

Security-conscious enterprises

Regulated environments

Teams building internal CI/CD platforms

Early Project, Feedback Welcome

The project is still evolving, and we’re actively looking for feedback on:

Security model

CI/CD integration patterns

Compliance requirements

If you’ve dealt with artifact security or supply-chain issues, I’d genuinely appreciate your input.

https://github.com/securestor/securestor
by JasonADrury | 2026-01-07 13:49:28+00:00
I don't think this is true. A lot of crime happens, most criminals don't get caught.

> It involves a lot of grey areas and is not something you can just easily automatically flag.

Successful, high confidence trades by traders who do not make them frequently are trivial to detect statistically. There exist automated systems which detect this. It's extremely difficult to make highly profitable trades based on insider information without making abnormally confident trades.

I suppose a big fund that frequently makes high confidence bets based on legitimate, deep, research could theoretically hide such activity, but I don't see that as a ver realistic option.

>so the best bet is that law enforcement will ignore these and will go only after simple low level frauds - because that is all they are competent to do now.

Insider trading is often one of the simplest white collar crimes to pursue, and it's just good PR because the public always likes it when the feds are going after rich corporate types.

The reason it's so simple is because you can automatically get a very high-confidence list of targets who are likely engaged in insider trading, it's also feasible to link many of the traders to insiders in an automated manner using tools like accurint. Even doing this manually makes your life really easy, you start by doing things like checking who each of these individuals follows on social media.

A very sophisticated operation could hide this better, but any highly lucrative trades will fundamentally stand out. Any particularly profitable insider trading will be detected and eventually investigated.

>We kind of know it is going on, because people in positions to have insider information are disproportionally "winning" those bets, but that all that goes about it.

This sentence kind of suggests to me that you might be thinking of some atypical case of insider trading, perhaps involving politicians rather than corporate insiders?
by qcnguy | 2026-01-07 13:49:39+00:00
> Tesla is shipping Optimus Sub-Primes. Hyundai is shipping a boring, reliable, high-torque worker. I’ll take the boring static model that actually has a spec sheet over another backflip video any day.

We don't actually know how boring or reliable it is.

But the key here is really the mind. Atlas looks strictly worse for a given task than any other kind of robot. Its only advantage is the touted lower training costs. It's very unclear how that really measures up. You can see a robot do cool stuff on stage and imagine it must be great, but the only thing that really matters for manufacturing is whether they can lower the training cost for new tasks to much less than what other static non-humanoid robot manufacturers make.

There it seems dubious. They only seem to talk about and demonstrate one task, engine part sequencing. It appears to be just a pick and place task. It's not obvious why existing robots can't do it well. They make general claims about how it's often not worth automating a task, because it changes too quickly or it costs too much to program a robot. Sure. But that's a statement about the quality of AI not the form of the robot.

Existing pick place machines work great and can handle messy real world noise like objects being in random positions and places. They are much, much faster than a humanoid robot will be, and much cheaper. So what's Atlas' advantage on the factory floor?

https://www.fanucamerica.com/solutions/applications/picking-...
by nananana9 | 2026-01-07 13:49:48+00:00
> If not, how do you think they should make money?

Figure it out or go bankrupt, for all I care. They're the ones who chose a business model directly adversarial to their users.

Plenty of games, mail and other services work without ads already, I'm sure if we're one day lucky enough to see Google go belly up someone will fill that hole as well.
by jlokier | 2026-01-07 13:50:23+00:00
They did it, so both of those are ruled out by context.

That's how I talk, and admittedly some people find how I talk confusing when I think it's clear. Thanks for the amusing heads up on language interpretation!

In pseudo-code: (clear (not (eq (reason for doing it) (to get out of debts))))).
by miki123211 | 2026-01-07 13:50:26+00:00
In my personal experience, Claude is better at greenfield, Codex is better at fitting in. Claude is the perfect tool for a "vibe coder", Codex is for the serious engineer who wants to get great and real work done.

Codex will regularly give me 1000+ line diffs where all my comments (I review every single line of what agents write) are basically nitpicks. "Make this shallow w/ early return, use | None instead of Optional", that sort of thing.

I do prompt it in detail though. It feels like I'm the person coming in with the architecture most of the time, AI "draws the rest of the owl."
by rors | 2026-01-07 13:50:47+00:00
I was big fan of Scala a decade ago. The idea of a “scalable language” where DSLs could be built within the type system seemed super powerful. I lost my enthusiasm when the community decided they wanted to use it as Haskell on the JVM.

I’m hoping more recent developments, like WASM or Graal, provide a route for more flexibility when selecting languages. It’s nice to see Rust slowly become a serious choice for web development. Most of the time JS is fine, but it’s good to have the option to pull out a stricter low-level language when needed.
by rightnow_ai | 2026-01-07 13:51:08+00:00
I needed GPU specs for a project and couldn't find a good structured database. So I built one

2,824 GPUs across NVIDIA, AMD, and Intel. Each GPU has up to 55 fields including architecture, memory, clock speeds, and kernel development specs like warp size, max threads per block, shared memory per SM, and registers per SM.

NVIDIA: 1,286 GPUs
AMD: 1,292 GPUs
Intel: 180 GPUs

Apache 2.0 license
by ndsipa_pomu | 2026-01-07 13:51:14+00:00
Depends on what you call a "free market". The usual understanding is that a free market relies on the participants having sufficient information and being able to trade freely. However, the necessary information is usually hidden by sellers so that buyers can't make a "rational" decision in what to purchase (see The Market for Lemons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons).

Trading freely is compromised as well as markets will almost always favour the larger purchaser and so there's an incentive for companies to become every larger in order to consolidate power and profits.

So, it's not so much that free markets lead to monopolies, but our bastardised version of free markets that lead to monopolies.

Also, free market advocates are rarely advocates of actually free markets, but instead advocates of asymmetric markets that favour the large incumbents.
by cs702 | 2026-01-07 13:52:02+00:00
Very cool.

On one hand, this is great. It portends that all of us will benefit from intense price-and-feature competition between Hyundai, Tesla, and others.

On the other hand, Ironman 2's Hammer Drones no longer seem so far off:

https://youtu.be/Ryth87k2Mww?t=78

and Robocop doesn't seem so far-off either:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECemP5fi_n0

We sure live in interesting times.
Ask HN: Freelancers, are you being out-competed by AI?
by stevage | 2026-01-07 13:52:35+00:00
I've been a freelance web dev in a niche (online maps) for about 8 years. I have noticed a large drop in project enquiries over the last 12 months or so, and I'm speculating that one cause is potential clients using AI to implement their own projects.

My typical projects are small, single-person full-stack sites: a bit of data preparation, a bit of specialist GIS knowledge, a Vue front-end, a Node backend, and deployment to a server provided by the client. I haven't tried, but I suspect modern LLMs would do a pretty good job building this kind of thing in the hands of a reasonable programmer.

In other words: core value proposition (web mapping expertise and experience) can be provided by an AI.

I'm curious whether other freelancers are experiencing something similar, or whether people on the other side of that equation (working at companies that might typically hire freelancers) have any insight to offer.
by Timon3 | 2026-01-07 13:53:30+00:00
Why does "a Grok button on every post to real time fact check it" increase your trust, given the obvious and open control Musk has over it? When Grok disagreed with him, he kept saying they'd "fix" it, and that's not to mention that infamous "white genocide" issue. It's undeniable that Musk is using his control to align Grok with his own opinions.

How does that not decrease your trust? I can't understand the thought process.
by whynotminot | 2026-01-07 13:54:29+00:00
Yeah, I might be early to this. And certainly, I still read a lot of code in my day to day right now.

But I sure write a lot less of it, and the percentage I write continues to go down with every new model release. And if I'm no longer writing it, and the person who works on it after me isn't writing it either, it changes the whole art of software engineering.

I used to spend a great deal of time with already working code that I had written thinking about how to rewrite it better, so that the person after me would have a good clean idea of what is going on.

But humans aren't working in the repos as much now. I think it's just a matter of time before the models are writing code essentially for their eyes, their affordances -- not ours.
by palata | 2026-01-07 13:54:30+00:00
I have always thought that the idea that "files are too complicated for users" and "users want to do something, they shouldn't care about whether it is a file or not" is bullshit.

The real reason is that it's easier to design an app that assumes it's alone in the world (so it can store data the way it wants), and on top of that it generally makes for a default state of lock-in (if you can't access your photos, you can't go away).

It's worse for the users, but better for the app. The UX bullshit is just a way to justify it. Which is consistent with what the industry is all about: the end goal is to make money, not happy users.
by edanm | 2026-01-07 13:54:40+00:00
> The productivity studies on software engineers directly don't show much of a productivity gain certainly nowhere near the 10x the frontier labs would like to claim.

Which studies are you talking about? The last major study that I saw (that gained a lot of attention) was published half a year ago, and the study itself was conducted on developers using AI tools in 2024.

The technology has improved so rapidly that this study is now close-to-meaningless.
by danieltanfh95 | 2026-01-07 13:54:41+00:00
Why not just let the product manager use some no-code tool?

I think software engineers are having an identity disconnect from their roles as engineers vs coders. Engineering is about solving problems via tools and knowledge through constraints. An engineer is not diminished by having other engineers or better tooling as assistants. If you are having problems understanding your role in the problem, frankly you need to review your skillset and adjust.
by duesabati | 2026-01-07 13:55:48+00:00
I completely disagree with the post.

All programming languages are equivalent meaning their level of expressiveness is the same, it's not an opinion it's a fact. Each language comes with its runtime and its peculiarities but potentially you can always make any feature that another language runtime has with any language, even though probably not with the same performance and efficiency has been that feature native to the runtime itself.

So there are no "more powerful languages" just runtimes that allow you to hide away some stuff considered stable enough that they become some kind of primitive for the programmer, now we may have different opinions on what elegant code is, but personally I'd like to avoid code that directly (i.e. no kind of abstraction) relies on runtime features and instead express clearly my intention in code, but I recognize the productivity gains.
Show HN: Kprotect – eBPF-based file protection using process lineage
by khoinp1012 | 2026-01-07 13:56:13+00:00
I built kprotect because I wanted a way to protect my sensitive files (SSH keys, env files) that went beyond just standard Linux permissions. Even if a process is running as root, it shouldn't be able to read my secrets unless it’s part of a trusted execution chain.

How it works: It uses BPF LSM (Linux Security Modules) to intercept file access at the kernel level. Instead of just checking the PID or the binary name, it looks at the entire lineage (the "Chain of Trust"). For example, cat is only allowed to read my SSH keys if the parent process is my-terminal and the grandparent is vscodium.

Key Tech:

Backend: Rust + Aya (for the eBPF bits).

Frontend: Tauri + React for the dashboard.

Security: Logs and configs are AES-encrypted to prevent tampering.

It’s currently in beta (0.1.0). It requires a kernel (5.10+) with BPF LSM enabled. I'd love to hear feedback on the "Chain of Trust" logic—specifically if anyone sees edge cases in how I'm verifying the process ancestors.
GitHub: https://github.com/khoinp1012/kprotect
by thatbencc | 2026-01-07 13:56:50+00:00
Remote: Yes or near Eindhoven

Time zone: Netherlands GMT+1 (CET/CEST)

Willing to relocate: no

Senior software engineer - professional experience since 2011
Affinity for sw-design, cleancode, testing, web3-infra/decentralized tech

See: http://bencc.nl
by ecb_penguin | 2026-01-07 13:56:55+00:00
> I might spend 10 minutes doing a task with AI rather than an hour (w/o AI), but trust me - I am going to keep 50 minutes to myself, not deliver 5 more tasks

It's wild that you just outright admitted this. Seems like your employer would do best to let you go and find someone that can use tools to increase their productivity.
by wizzwizz4 | 2026-01-07 13:57:31+00:00
Unfortunately, DataGrail is a US-based company using Google Tag Manager to provide personal information about its website users to Facebook, Microsoft, Google, and other advertising companies. Per the Privacy Policy, the company seems to believe that pseudo-anonymization is sufficient to be allowed to keep and use personal data for any purpose, which it is not: per GDPR, data minimisation is necessary, but doesn't exempt you from properly fulfilling deletion requests. I can't find out how they actually use personal information collected from users: the best I can find is:

> If you have any questions about the lawful bases upon which we collect and use your personal data, please submit a request through the DataGrail’s Privacy Request Form or email DataGrail at privacy@datagrail.io.

Informing me of my "right to obtain" certain information without actually providing it is not okay; and the rather selective descriptions of the rights of the data subject feel like a GDPR Article 12 violation. (For example, it partially discusses Article 15(1), but omits Article 15(2).) Having investigated the Privacy Request Form (https://preferences.datagrail.io/form/access), it's requesting I identify myself in order to learn how my personal information's being used. I can't remember the exact reference, but I'm pretty sure this is explicitly forbidden by GDPR: something about not gathering or storing information with "it's needed to satisfy GDPR's bureaucratic requirements" as justification. (Yes, I know I can email instead: that's not the point.)

I could go on, but… it doesn't really matter how good a company's services are (and those services do look pretty good!) if I can't trust the company to begin with. DataGrail appears typical for the industry, rather than exemplary (as I had hoped it would be).