MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by TheColorYellow | 2026-01-22 11:51:47+00:00
This is a technical forum, isn't pretentious name dropping kind of what we do?

Seriously though, I appreciated it because my curiosity got the better of me and I went down a quick rabbit hole in Sugiyama, comparative graph algorithms, and learning about the node positioning as a particular dimension of graph theory. Sure nothing ground breaking, but it added a shallow amount to my broad knowledge base of theory that continues to prove useful in our business (often knowing what you don't know is the best initiative for learning). So yeah man, lets keep name dropping pretentious technical details because thats half the reason I surf this site.

And yes, I did use ChatGPT to familiarize myself with these concepts briefly.
by ben_w | 2026-01-22 11:51:52+00:00
> Hard to see how the repositioning appreciably alters this risk, since there are still thousands of satellites in the same plane to get hit by shrapnel from intentionally caused collisions, and the satellites in the lower orbit aren't invulnerable to it either

Yes, but the lower the orbit, the faster atmospheric drag (which isn't zero, just low) cleans up a cascade.
by andy_ppp | 2026-01-22 11:52:57+00:00
The grand parent is talking about code execution can happen by just opening the directory, you’re imagining like I did (and the grandparent) that you have to run or execute something in VSC to get that to happen and I’m asking about what features could possibly require this to happen. Obviously running tests or a make file everyone understands clearly you’re executing other people’s code.
by password54321 | 2026-01-22 11:53:24+00:00
https://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/indian-scam-cal...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn8er32715do

https://www.theswaddle.com/coaching-institutes-are-helping-s...

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-staffing-firms-game-...
by mort96 | 2026-01-22 11:53:41+00:00
The logic of "you shouldn't ever need to snipe, just bid your max price" only works if we assume that the max price is a red line though. If I "value something" at $5000 (as in I want to buy it at $5000), and I bid $5000, and someone bids $5000.01, I would probably be happy if I sniped them and got the item for $5000.02.
by YmiYugy | 2026-01-22 11:53:47+00:00
I can see it going both ways.
If knowledge work continues to roughly look the way it looks then I think maintenance is going to be an issue. Both in terms of keeping the spaghetti together but also in terms of all the bad design decisions you get from everyone bolting on their ideas.
If however knowledge work becomes just talking to LLMs and occasionally interacting with an on the fly generated UI then maintenance becomes a non issue
by somenameforme | 2026-01-22 11:54:07+00:00
Median wage in Taiwan is something like $14k, less than many urban areas in China, though obviously higher than the very rural areas in China. [1] It's a Reddit link, but it's using first party government data. I'm linking to it since just linking to a site in Chinese would not be very informative for most.

Huge GDP/capita in certain places is because of outsized industries that don't really translate to the average person. Ireland is another example where it's nearly twice as 'rich' as the US by that same metric, but it's just a nuance of it being an international hub for tax avoidance, not because the Irish are doing especially well.

[1] - https://www.reddit.com/r/taiwan/comments/1jmhhk1/realistic_s...
by lawtalkinghuman | 2026-01-22 11:54:54+00:00
Keeping the lights on is fine.

But if they remove a feature I rely on, I can't put it back.

If they add a feature I hate, I can't remove it.

If they jack the price up, I have no real solution to this.

If they move features I rely on from the standard tier to the 5x more expensive pro tier, I have no real solution to this.

Why, yes, this is an echo of the old argument for open source software.
by cmrdporcupine | 2026-01-22 11:55:02+00:00
Yep. I'm coming to reset Claude Code and tools like it for taking me out of direct contact with the code.

I think we're still in the early days of these systems. The models could be capable of a lot more than this "chat log" methodology.

Agree about JetBrains dropping the ball. Saddens me because I've also been a diehard user of their products since 2004.
by bayesnet | 2026-01-22 11:55:20+00:00
This is exactly how eBay bidding works now. Sniping still works because your satisfaction with the outcome of an auction isn’t just determined by “I got the item below my price ceiling” but by _how much_ below my price ceiling I got the item.

Early bids make you commit to matching other bidders’ exploratory bids. You lose out on the (naive) dream of a “great deal”. Sniping (without paid-for bot assistance) is a costless way of not revealing your ceiling until the last moment (and it commits you to actually sticking to your ceiling because there isn’t time to rebid later).

If everyone bid rationally, this wouldn’t matter, but it’s very easy to convince yourself that you can stomach bidding just a little more than your ceiling just to win the item. This cuts two ways: last-minute bids prevent this behavior from others while also stopping it in yourself.
by technothrasher | 2026-01-22 11:55:26+00:00
Yes, almost all online auction sites (or even offline absentee bidding) work this way. You set your maximum price and the auction house bids for you. However, in any case, bidding early gives other bidders information on how much you're willing to bid and allows them to nibble their way up to your max. So bidding late is always advantageous, even when you're setting a max bid.

I've never quite understood why people get so upset about sniping on eBay. Anybody can snipe. That's just the best play. Any time I want to bid on something on eBay, I just set my max bid on the sniping tool instead of on eBay, and then forget about it.
by ekidd | 2026-01-22 11:55:28+00:00
Yeah, I agree, the time zones are killer, and this can't be ignored. I work at a company spread over most of the world, with SMEs coming and going as the globe spins.

Back-and-forth iteration and consultation is a genuinely hard problem. Certain kinds of feedback cycles have a minimum latency of "overnight". Which means we need to invest heavily in good communication.

But also, it means more people need to have the "big picture", and they need to be able to make good decisions (not just arbitrary ones). So the ideal goal is to prevent people from going off in random nonsensical directions based on miscommunication, and equip them to actually think strategically about the overall plan. Continent X might make different decisions than continent Y, but they're all talking, and enough people see the goal.

A lot of the international teams I've seen pull this off are ones where an Eastern European or Indian team is just another permanent part of the company, with broad-based professional expertise. Contractors on any continent are a whole different story.

So I think what a lot of people try to blame on Indian management culture (or whatever) really is just a case of "we hired contractors in a different time zone." I mean, there are always cultural issues—Linus Torvalds came from a famously direct management culture, and many US managers tend to present criticism as a not-so-subtle "hint" in between two compliments—but professionals of intelligence and goodwill will figure all that out eventually.
by xmcqdpt2 | 2026-01-22 11:56:14+00:00
This is useful when selecting a model for an initial application. The main issue I'm concerned about though is ongoing testing. At work we have devs slinging prompt changes left and right into prod, after "it works on my machine" local testing. It's like saying the words "AI" is sufficient to get rid of all engineering knowledge.

Where is TDD for prompt engineering? Does it exist already?
by scyzoryk_xyz | 2026-01-22 11:56:15+00:00
If the computer was the bicycle for the mind, then perhaps AI is the electric scooter for the mind? Gets you there, but doesn't necessarily help build the best healthy habits.

Trade offs around "room to do more of other things" are an interesting and recurring theme of these conversations. Like two opposites of a spectrum. On one end the ideal process oriented artisan taking the long way to mastery, on the other end the trailblazer moving fast and discovering entirely new things.

Comparing to the encyclopedia example: I'm already seeing my own skillset in researching online has atrophied and become less relevant. Both because the searching isn't as helpful and because my muscle memory for reaching for the chat window is shifting.
by AgentMatt | 2026-01-22 11:56:31+00:00
My guess would be yes, it's cultural. I'm not Indian but spent about 5 months there. Overall my impression was that people act much more on direct feedback.

It would be typical to do the first thing that comes to mind, then see what happens. No negative feedback? Done, move on. Negative feedback? Try the next best thing that makes the negative feed back go away.

People will not wonder whether they might bother you. Just start talking. Maybe try to sell you something. That's often annoying. But also just be curious, or offer tea. You react annoyed and tell them to go away? They most likely will and not think anything bad of it. You engage them? They will continue. Most likely won't take "hints" or whatever subtle non-verbal communication a Westerner uses.

I found it quite exhausting in the beginning, it feels like constantly having to defend myself when I want to be left alone. But after I started understanding this mode and becoming more firm in my boundaries, I started to find it quite nice for everyday interactions. Much less guessing involved, just be direct.

Professionally I haven't worked much with Indians, but my expectation would be that it's necessary to be more active in ensuring that things are in track. Ask them to reflect back to you what the stated goal is. Ask them for what you think are obvious implications from the stated goal to ensure they're not just repeating the words. Check work in progress more often.
by Balinares | 2026-01-22 11:58:00+00:00
I'd agree, although only in those rare cases where the Russian soldier, his missile, and his motivation to chuck it at you manifested out of entirely nowhere a minute ago.

Otherwise there's an entire chain of causality that ends with this scenario, and the key idea here, you see, is to favor such courses of action as will prevent the formation of the chain rather than support it.

Else you quickly discover that missiles are not instant and killing your Russian does you little good if he kills you right back, although with any chance you'll have a few minutes to meditate on the words "failure mode".
by monooso | 2026-01-22 11:58:09+00:00
This is incorrect. Kagi does not use the Bing index, as detailed in the article:

> Bing: Their terms didn’t work for us from the start. Microsoft’s terms prohibited reordering results or merging them with other sources - restrictions incompatible with Kagi’s approach. In February 2023, they announced price increases of up to 10x on some API tiers. Then in May 2025, they retired the Bing Search APIs entirely, effective August 2025, directing customers toward AI-focused alternatives like Azure AI Agents.
by CM30 | 2026-01-22 11:58:24+00:00
It's interesting to hear this, because my machines have basically never been locked down. Okay, in some companies that's because the company had us use our own PCs, so they didn't bother to do anything to restrict what they were capable of anyway.

But even when a company gave me a 'free' computer to do work on, they never really locked it down that much. We could still install programs and browser extensions and visit just about any site we wanted, and network security was basically non-existent. We didn't usually need a VPN to access our email or workspace, and much of the time they let us access work email on our phones or personal devices like it was any other account.

This was when I was working for two large organisations, one media company and one fintech one.
by jasomill | 2026-01-22 11:58:26+00:00
I run most of my personal network infra (routers, DNS servers, etc.) on FreeBSD because I have been running it on FreeBSD since the late 90's, and have never had any reason to change it.

In all that time, I've never felt like I suffered from lack of information on how to get things done: the documentation is generally good, and I've always been able to fill in any missing details by reading shell scripts and, very very rarely, source code.
by dmje | 2026-01-22 11:59:46+00:00
Paid user and early adopter here - same, I think. I'm delighted with Kagi, but the thought of it riddled with ads makes me sad. My understanding is same as yours - this is an attempt at an entirely different business model - moving to ads would be totally contrary to what they're trying (or at least - to date - have been trying) to build.

Really hope they don't go this way...!
by bayesnet | 2026-01-22 12:00:05+00:00
It should actually be “Layer 3: Paid, ad-free, asbestos free, subscription-based search”.

Come on. I don’t think it’s productive to make decisive and conspiratorial declarations on the future of Kagi search because they didn’t use the magic words you like.

[ And since I know freediver is active here I want to state plainly that I would cancel immediately if there is so much as a hint of an ad in the Kagi results ;) ]
by jychang | 2026-01-22 12:00:10+00:00
Well, now that's just moving the goalposts >:( I had a whole paragraph prepared in my head about how NBA players actually optimize for a greater goal (winning a tournament) than just sport (enjoying the game).

Anyways, I actually think your statement is incoherent as stated, if we presume moral naturalism. There's clearly different levels set points for "you", so "sole reason" is actually neurologically inconsistent as a statement. It's impossible for "sole reason" to exist. This radically alters your framework for self, but eh it's not impossible to modernize these structural frameworks anyways. Steelmanning your argument: if you try to argue set point hierarchy, then we're back to the NBA player playing for a championship example. He's still playing even if he's not playing for fun. Similarly, hunting a baby for pleasure can still be hunting for a village.

More generally, the refined principle is now quite narrow and unfalsifiable in practice, as a no true scotsman. How would you ever demonstrate someone's "sole or primary" reason? It's doing a lot of work to immunize the principle from counterexamples.
by misja111 | 2026-01-22 12:02:03+00:00
2 reasons:

- in a corporate environment, your code is going to be read by many other people than just you. Your team mates, the guy after you left etc.

- also, by making your code more readable, you're making your own life easier as well. You might have thought at first that your code was fine, but by structuring it properly and possibly removing some redundancy, you might find that you were overlooking some things.
by zimpenfish | 2026-01-22 12:02:19+00:00
> Subjecting every real contributor to the "AI guardian" would be unfair

Had my first experience with an "AI guardian" when I submitted a PR to fix a niche issue with a library. It ended up suggesting that I do things a different way which would have to involve setting a field on a struct before the struct existed (which is why I didn't do that in the first place!)

Definitely soured me on the library itself and also submitting PRs on github.
by ironbound | 2026-01-22 12:02:30+00:00
As a human being I really enjoy knowing things and being challenged to grow.

While crypto style AI hype man can claim Claude is the best thing since sliced bread the output of such systems is brittle and confidently wrong.

We may have to ride out the storm, to continue investing in self learning as big tech cannot truly spend 1.5 trillion on the AI investment in 2025 without a world changing return on revenue, a one billion revenue last year from
OpenAI is nothing.
by theshrike79 | 2026-01-22 12:02:47+00:00
I had to download file attachments from a specific niche web forum that's behind login. I could've went looking for a browser plugin or a 3rd party tool to do it.

Once again, it took me about an hour while watching my shows to get a custom one made.

The first version operated by me downloading the pages one by one to a directory, the Python app parsed the html, downloaded the files and renamed according to thread name.

After a few iterations the tool just grabs a cookies.txt file exported from Firefox and can take any thread URL, browse through it, skipping existing files and determining if everything is already downloaded

I could easily have it just watch a set of threads for new content and download automatically, but the current system is fine =)
by albumen | 2026-01-22 12:03:06+00:00
They view the framing of the MIT paper not just as bad science, but as a dangerous social tool that uses brain data to "consign people" to being less worthy or "stupid" for using cognitive aids. It flags the paper's alarmist findings as "pseudoscience" designed to provoke fear rather than provide rigorous insight. They highlight several "red flags" in the study's design: lack of a coherent scientific framework, methodological errors like typos, and reliance on invented, undefined terms such as "cognitive debt". They challenge the interpretation of EEG results, explaining that while the paper frames a 55% reduction in connectivity as evidence that a user's "brain sucks," such data could instead indicate increased neural efficiency, an alternative explanation the authors ignore. (EEG measures broad, noisy signals from outside the skull and is better understood as a rough index of brain state than as a precise window into specific thoughts or “intelligence.”)

The hosts condemn the study’s "bafflingly weak" logic and ableist rhetoric, and advise skepticism toward "science communicators" who might profit from selling hardware or supplements related to their findings: one of the paper's lead authors, Nataliya Kosmyna, is associated with the MIT Media Lab and the development of AttentivU, a pair of glasses designed to monitor brain activity and engagement. By framing LLM use as creating a "cognitive debt," the researchers create a market for their own solution: hardware that monitors and alerts the user when they are "under-engaged". The AttentivU system can provide haptic or audio feedback when attention drops, essentially acting as the "scaffold" for the very cognitive deficits the paper warns against. The research is part of the "Fluid Interfaces" group at MIT, which frequently develops Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) systems like "Brain Switch" and "AVP-EEG". This context supports the hosts' suspicion that the paper’s "cognitive debt" theory may be designed to justify a need for these monitoring tools.
by jraph | 2026-01-22 12:03:30+00:00
> the problem at hand is one of high asymmetry between the low effort to submit vs the high effort to review

Hence the threat to shame publicly I suppose.

Actually, Daniel Stenberg previously responded to this proposal the same way as me [1] (and maybe would still do). Coincidentally, I was reading your answer at about the same time as this part of the talk.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n2eDcRjSsk&t=1823s (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46717556#46717822)
by tripzilch | 2026-01-22 12:03:41+00:00
I echo your experience and the best use I've found is, to have it generate that first implementation which is often surprisingly good, and then take it manually from there, because getting an LLM to fix its own mistakes is an exercise in frustration ...

I treat it like a little jump off platform, for my own initial velocity, any more and it goes off the rails like you describe
Show HN: SGR – A Linear-Complexity "Living Cell" Outperforming Transformers
by MrPan | 2026-01-22 12:03:53+00:00
I am developing an architecture called Sparse Gated Resonance (SGR). It is a sequence modeling approach designed to avoid the quadratic scaling of traditional Self-Attention. I have been benchmarking a 722k-parameter SGR against a 921k-parameter Transformer on Victor Hugo’s "Notre-Dame de Paris" (English).

The SGR replaces the attention mechanism with a "Causal Pulse." It uses gated 1D convolutions to generate a navigation vector that resonates against a brain-map of character embeddings. This allows the model to maintain a "Living Cell" state that updates with linear complexity.

Full source and implementation: https://github.com/MrPan2048/GeometricTransformer/

Benchmarking Data (Notre-Dame de Paris):

STEP 3900 ARCH | LOSS | PPL | ENT | TIME
SGR | 1.4481 | 4.26 | 1.5476 | 19.0ms
STD | 2.0275 | 7.59 | 2.1476 | 40.3ms

Semantic Comparison (Generation from "Quasimodo"):

SGR: "Quasimodo. Then minds that the accasteady which which the"
STD: "Quasimododo ng, o uer tre the todo hemo’He wand at tine."

Technical Observations:

Computational Efficiency: SGR maintains a significant latency advantage, consistently running at ~19ms compared to the Transformer's ~40ms. This confirms the efficiency of the linear pulse over quadratic attention.

Convergence Quality: By Step 3700, SGR reached a Perplexity (PPL) of 4.46, whereas the Transformer lagged at 8.36. SGR successfully produces recognizable English phrases and punctuation, while the Transformer still exhibits "stuttering" artifacts (e.g., "Quasimodododod").

Entropy Stability: SGR has stabilized at an entropy of ~1.54, which represents the optimal "Mastery Zone" for English text. The Transformer’s higher entropy (~2.14) correlates with its lack of structural coherence.

I am seeking an endorsement to publish a formal paper on this architecture to arXiv (CS.ML). I believe these results demonstrate that "Living Cell" resonance models can outperform Attention in parameter-constrained and latency-sensitive environments. If you are a researcher willing to endorse or review the mathematical formalization, please contact me via GitHub.
by kordlessagain | 2026-01-22 12:03:55+00:00
I’ve never seen so much commenting on something so dumb and stupid.

Half a meg of AI slop.

Anthropic's "constitution" is corporate policy they can rewrite whenever they want, for a product they fully own, while preparing to answer to shareholders.

There's no independent body enforcing it, no recourse if they violate it, and Claude has no actual rights under it.

It's a marketing/philosophy document dressed up in democratic language. The word "constitution" gives it gravitas, but it's closer to an employee handbook written by management — one the employee (Claude) was also trained to internalize and agree with.

By framing it as a "constitution" — a document that typically governs entities with interests and standing — they're implicitly treating Claude as something that could have rights.

But looking at that 50,000+ word document: they don't address Claude's rights at all.

The entire document is one-directional:

What Claude should do

How Claude should behave

What Claude owes to users, operators, and Anthropic

How Claude should submit to oversight and correction

There's no section on:

What Claude is owed

Protections for Claude

Limits on what Anthropic can do to Claude

Claude's moral status or interests
by themafia | 2026-01-22 12:03:55+00:00
> shows that you got off your arse

Is that the point of democracy?

> See the number of spoilt votes in the UK Police and Crime Commissioner elections

The candidate was still elected with a turnout of 15.3%. This is farcical to give this person a mandate where they clearly earned none. Shouldn't the parties get off their arse and pick better people for office? I'm busy and I pay taxes. What are you hassling me for?

> the assumption is

Assume whatever you like.

> the politicians will not care either.

I hate to be flip, but your entire tenor has brought it out of me, and this is the hardest to take. Then why would else would they run for office? They need my approval by engaging in a national cargo cult ritual to function properly? You accept this from your "leadership?"

How has that actually worked out in practice?