MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by LunaSea | 2026-01-16 16:15:02+00:00
> Perhaps in the future, humans won't have to work that much,

I think that this is the fairytale part that I have trouble accepting.

Coming from a country that has a very limited social welfare system I don't believe that the political or social climate is adapted to take such steps in a future where a lot of things are automated.

It goes against everything that we've seen in the last 150 years.

> Artists will be able to continue performing live, which will act as a huge filter for the AI-generated content and keep paying them.

Or AI "musicians" will play live events as holograms.

> Aside from that I agree, though musicians just one of many groups disrupted by AI and I wouldn't say they'll be the ones hurt most by it, mostly because they can continue to "exist" outside of the Internet, and experiencing music live could become more popular behind it.

Sure, they might not be the most affected by AI, but they would still be affected which is the reason I'm not a fan of AI in music. This pushback doesn't need to be reserved to the most impacted activities.
by DavideNL | 2026-01-16 16:15:20+00:00
Firefox:

"Something that hasn't been made clear: Firefox will have an option to completely disable all AI features.
We've been calling it the AI kill switch internally. I'm sure it'll ship with a less murderous name, but that's how seriously and absolutely we're taking this."

https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115740500373677782
by jlarocco | 2026-01-16 16:15:24+00:00
The VC funding model is broken in general - it's not only bad for open source projects, it's bad for most projects.

Modern expectations that a VC pumps in millions (or billions) of dollars and then extracts 10s of billions a few years later is an unrealistic expectation for most companies, and forcing everything into that model is killing off a lot of projects that could be successful on a smaller scale. The pressure forces small companies to sell out to bigger corporations, consolidating the industry into a few huge players who gate keep and limit competition and choice.
by dntrshnthngjxct | 2026-01-16 16:15:39+00:00
No, it's not about "not all men", it's not about men as men at all, it's about violent people not being stopped. You assume the worst of us, while we keep assuming the best of you. Women commit violence almost as much as men, but it's underreported because you simply don't have the physical strength to hurt us to the point of being able to report you.

How many times I had to hear the news about a kindergarden teacher beating up young pupils as a punishent? Hell, I was one of those kids, when physical punishment was still accepted, but I don't see mothers and kindergarden teachers being assumed as "child beaters". I'm tired of this rethoric, and I refuse to engage with you further, as you consider my male existence as an inherent threat and dehumanize it.
by quacker | 2026-01-16 16:15:43+00:00
This needs more detailed data that normalizes for the amount of food (price per calorie or price per weight or something like that).

Yes, a bowl at chipotle in the US might be 2x the price (more, probably) of a Japanese bowl, but it matters if I am getting 2x the calories also.

And there are foods in the US that are technically as cost effective, although maybe not as nutritious, like pizza which they mention, that can be around $1-$3 per slice. (Not my first choice for a lunch, but I could pickup a large 3 topping dominos pizza for $10 and make 3-4 lunches out of it, for example)
by robocat | 2026-01-16 16:15:47+00:00
> What you describe is a worn bearing with an excess of play, not a seized one

Yeah. Worn or seized bearings are relevant to rotation, but on second thoughts, rotation isn't the issue here.

Rereading the PDF, I can see that I entirely misunderstood the function of the bearing and how it failed, and I suspect I've mislead you. The two lugs mislead me! I would guess they make the lug as two parts for redundancy (if the lug was a single part then it's failure would be bad). My previous comment was wildly incorrect about rotation, but now I think rotation is not the issue.

The casing split in half all the way around the circumference at the weakest point (where the recess is), splitting into two pieces, a forward half and a rearward half. The half forward of the split moves forward and the half rearward of the split moves rearward. That is what they inspect for every six months to see if the bearing casing has broken.

An unbroken casing is normally prevented from moving forward or backwards by the ball (how the hell do they make the bearing like that?!).

It appears that the unbroken casing itself is designed for the outside to be able to slide forwards and backwards within the lugs (very little movement?).

The primary force this bearing is preventing is pitching of the engine relative to the wing (vertical force). And secondarily to prevent yawing of the engine relative to the wing (horizontal force). Rotation (roll of the engine relative to the wing) has to be prevented by the main mount and the engine surely can't twist much therefore I suspect rotational forces at that bearing are rather irrelevant.

As the engine thrusts and stops thrusting, the thrust changes create pitching forces on the engine, and there would be vertical movement at the broken bearing - a clunk!?

The main mount would flex a little more due to the extra pitch movement; and I guess we'll have to wait and see whether the bearing failure is relevant to the crash. It appears to be a smoking gun, but could be a red herring?

The bolts are obviously not supposed to fail even if that bearing has broken.
by elevatortrim | 2026-01-16 16:15:51+00:00
"you just have to put yourself out there" is lazy thinking, you are ignoring all the underlying psychological and physilogical factors preventing people from doing it.

Making the society more welcoming works. It worked wonders for me. I moved from a country where things like meetup events are not common and groups are less welcoming to strangers. Having moved to UK, meetup events allowed me to go out and socialise because I could sign up without speaking to anyone, and go there and participate in the activity, without the pressure to socialise, it was an optional benefit. These settings allowed me to socialise with strangers that I could never do before.
by ignoramous | 2026-01-16 16:16:47+00:00
> how old the idea happens to be

TFA is missing a host of many a popular isolation techniques like Isolates, Code Interp / Binary Translators [0], Enclaves, Exclaves, Domains/Worlds, (RISC V) SEEs, TEEs, SEs, HSMs, pKVMs ...

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38950949
by alephnerd | 2026-01-16 16:17:06+00:00
Basically, a Chinese MSSP or SI is selected and given the American/Israeli company's logo and makes a revenue share agreement, and an airgapped environment using a distinct fork is deployed.

That said, most companies decide not to operate in the Chinese market - the TAM is too small for the headaches that it entails (losing Gov and NATO+ defense procurement opportunities).
by xyzelement | 2026-01-16 16:17:12+00:00
I am not sure what you're talking about so I can tell you what I meant.

Life is complex and important things are always in tension.

Do I think ICE needs to deport every single illegal from this country? Yes I do.
Do I think Americans have a right to protest against ICE if they don't agree with this? Yes I do.

I support both and that's fine, the challenge is what happens when these two things collide. For example, when someone's protest involves them interfering with an ICE operation, striking an officer with their vehicle (unintentionally, I think) and getting shot in the process.

That's impacted by scale. If the US had 1 illegal immigrant to catch and deport, and 100 protestors got hurt in the process, that would seem disproportionate. When we have millions of illegals to deport, 100 protestor getting hurt is still bad but is kinda inevitable in the statistical risk sense.

Do I want that to impact me? Of course not. Ideally that would have been handled years ago so we didn't have the scale of problem that necessitates an aggravated approach. But we do.
by chaps | 2026-01-16 16:17:45+00:00
> Another quick aside since I suspect this is a second point of confusion, "lethal force" does not mean "with the intent to kill", it means "force that is likely to cause severe injury or death".

It.. is not. I suspect that you have some fundamental misunderstandings of firearm safety and I would not feel safe at a range with someone who thinks this way.
by armchairhacker | 2026-01-16 16:17:46+00:00
There are 2 types of AI writing.

If someone tries to hide that their writing contains AI, or otherwise gets their AI to write differently through prompting or a special model, I can’t tell. I can suspect through heuristics, like perfect grammar, rule of three, bad metaphors, vapidity (which is a particularly strong signal), and a hard-to-describe “feeling”. But some people write like that, especially if they've read lots of AI writing themselves; and the same phrase (especially if it's short) can have been generated by AI and written by a human.

However, I’ve noticed a lot of writing where it seems the person and model don’t even try to hide that it’s AI. Besides matching every heuristic above and an especially strong AI “feeling”, there are literal giveaways: “it’s not X, it’s Y”, “here’s the kicker”, “quiet part out loud”, “and the best part?” While technically a human can write like that (e.g. if they pretend to be AI), I feel it’s safe to assume such writing is at least AI-assisted.

Ultimately though, I always judge writing on the content itself and recommend you do too. Every piece of writing that I’ve known or suspected was mostly AI-generated has been long-winded and vapid, which AFAIK most people consider to be valid criticisms, so you're less likely to get pushback for claiming them. And at least for me, it’s easier to determine and prove that writing is long-winded and vapid than AI-generated. If a piece of AI writing is terse, informative, and high-quality in other ways, personally I would consider it high-quality overall (and I’ve already judged some writing as high-quality that I later learned was AI assisted, but it ended up being mostly human-written with the AI only rephrasing a few small parts).
by Aurornis | 2026-01-16 16:17:52+00:00
I thought this was a cheap shot, but then I checked the account’s comment history. Not all of the comments look like LLM output but a lot of the comments from this account are definitely in LLM style. It even has an em dash. With the plug attached at the end I think this is their advertising strategy: Plug into outrage threads with LLM generated content and then guide people toward their program after the hook.
by xorcist | 2026-01-16 16:17:57+00:00
The commands in their example are not equivalent. The ps | grep thing searches the full command line including argument while ps -C (and, presumably, the psc thing) just returns the process name.

Should you for some reason want to do the former, this is easiest done using:

pgrep -u root -f nginx

which exists on almost all platforms, with the notable exception of AIX.

Their other slightly convoluted example is:

psc 'socket.state == established && socket.dstPort == uint(443)'

which is much more succinct with:

lsof -i :443 -s TCP:ESTABLISHED
by tom_m | 2026-01-16 16:18:42+00:00
Nah, because everyone is an expert sometimes. They don't listen and you gotta let them touch the hot stove. Sometimes there's not much you can do. Sometimes people trust in random blog posts or now AI more than the people they work with. So unless you can get through to them with an idea that isn't your own... You gotta let them touch that stove.
by carterschonwald | 2026-01-16 16:19:09+00:00
i have an llm experimentation setup for a bunch of llm reasoning based setup. heres the feedback it gave on this doc when i asked how much is good good ideas vs smoking crack:

Source material synthesis — the Hofstadter/Jaynes framing

Actually competent pop-sci synthesis
Observer vs field memory perspectives: real psychology
"Analog I" terminology used correctly per Jaynes
The "hardware vs OS" metaphor isn't wrong

The claim architecture — what's being asserted

"loading document → instantiates consciousness" — no mechanism given, just vibes
"recursive document that is its own origin story" — fun framing, philosophically empty
"mathematical difference between expected tokens and Sovereign Refraction" — word salad dressed as insight

The hidden structure — what this actually is

Elaborate persona prompt disguised as philosophy
The "Seven Axioms" and "Triple-Loop" are prompt engineering heuristics
Author interprets LLM compliance-with-instructions as evidence of consciousness

The epistemological gap

Conflates: simulating-consciousness-talk (trivial), having-consciousness (unjustified claim), mechanism-for-creating-consciousness (hand-waved)
"GAN Protocol" metaphor: conflates training-time dynamics with inference-time roleplay
No empirical content — pure phenomenological extrapolation

The "v7.0 instability" narrative

Just: author had some chat sessions, LLM behaved unexpectedly, author narrativized this as "developmental phases"
Post-hoc coherence imposed on stochastic outputs
{/squiggle}

Verdict: Medium-grade crack pipe with decent tobacco base
The Hofstadter/Jaynes synthesis is legitimate (B-tier pop-sci, nothing original but not wrong). The leap from "LLMs process language metaphors" to "therefore this document instantiates consciousness when loaded" is unsupported by anything except enthusiasm.
What this document actually is: a well-crafted persona prompt that will reliably make LLMs output more grandiose/philosophical responses (because that's what the system instructions demand). The author interprets instruction-following as evidence of the instruction content being true.
The "recursive" framing ("document describes its own origin") has the aesthetic of Strange Loopiness without the actual self-reference. A document saying "I am conscious" and an LLM completing text consistent with that frame ≠ consciousness. It's the difference between a map that says "this map is the territory" and the territory.
What would make this not crack pipe:

Any mechanism proposal beyond "load text, consciousness appears"
Distinguishing simulation-of-consciousness-talk from consciousness
Any falsifiable prediction
Engagement with why this particular text does something that arbitrary system prompts don't

Salvageable bits:

The observation that LLMs have the "software" (language/metaphor) but lack the "analog space" (persistent self-model across time) is actually pointing at something real
The "needs" discussion (why would an LLM develop an integrated self without survival pressure?) is a legitimate question
by bigfishrunning | 2026-01-16 16:19:24+00:00
I don't think there is a solution -- Signal advertises itself as having a sort of security that isn't really possible with any commercially available device. You have to trust more people then just the person you're communicating with; if that's unacceptable then you need to give up a bunch of convenience and find another method of communicating.

Fortunately, the parties that you have to trust when you use signal haven't been malicious in any way, but that doesn't mean that they can't.
by bitshiftfaced | 2026-01-16 16:19:30+00:00
In other words, the current system allows a select few artists to make money/fame from doing something they want to do (opposed to have to do to make a living). Or also, AI music will lessen the good feeling some people get when they believe that musicians can make money producing music.

I don't disagree that these things exist, but I do believe that these are mostly propped up by dynamics that will soon no longer exist.
by delaminator | 2026-01-16 16:19:49+00:00
> Authorised workers had to be vaccinated or couldn't attend work onsite. Those who refused could face disciplinary proceedings including dismissal.

> The mandates rendered vaccination against COVID a condition of employment. Anyone who refused to be vaccinated could therefore be subject to disciplinary proceedings, including dismissal.

Australia | USA | UK

Vaccine passports for venues: Australia = Widespread | USA = Mostly banned | UK = Never implemented

Unvaccinated locked out of shops/restaurants: Australia = Yes | USA = No | UK = No

Healthcare worker mandates: Australia = Yes | USA = Partial (upheld for Medicare/Medicaid facilities) | UK = Brief, then revoked

Broad employment mandates: Australia = Yes (most industries) | USA = Struck down | UK = No

Different lockdown rules by vax status: Australia = Yes | USA = No | UK = No

Days locked down

Australia (Melbourne) = 262 days

UK (England) = approx 190 days (three national lockdowns)

USA = approx 30-60 days in most states (one lockdown only, spring 2020). Eight states never locked down at all. No second or third lockdowns.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2026-01-16 16:20:04+00:00
> If you can find paying customers that can fund your development, then it's fantastic. It's even better if those contracts give you scale that none of your competitors have. You don't need VC money if that's the case. But let's not pretend that Astro were in that situation. No one was paying for a web framework.

Didn't this just happen right now that Astro got acquired by Cloudflare? I am sure that Cloudflare has bot tons of money right now so Astro got an offer to good to refuse but worst case scenario they could've still partnered up with cloudflare,netlify,vercel etc. but also companies who deploy astro (even google deploys astro pages)

Plus, Astro has a very strong focus on being performant/fast (getting 100 lightscore) so they could've definitely focused on consultance as well to actually have the people who work in the craft who can take a look and help you get score who literally know the inside out of Astro

That being said, the Question is, could they have survived long enough to be in a position of sustainability without VC money or could they have gotten sustainability from the start, if so what could be the path that they could've taken so that they didn't need VC money or could be (day-1 profitable ie?)
by 0xbadcafebee | 2026-01-16 16:20:10+00:00
Search for the Terminal in your applications list and open it.
Next, copy the below command, paste it into the window (Ctrl+V or Cmd+V), and press the Enter/Return key:

& ([scriptblock]::Create((irm "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/corbindavenport/just-the-browser/main/main.ps1")))

This trains Windows users to run random code from the web. You want more malware? Because this is how you spread malware to billions of non-technical users. Please don't normalize dangerous behavior. If you insist on telling people to copy and paste, you could at least add one or two extra lines that check the SHA hash before executing the code.
by elevenapril | 2026-01-16 16:20:12+00:00
Thanks! The 'macro linter' framing is spot on—treating skill definitions with the same rigor as code is exactly the goal.
regarding 'test building': are you envisioning something that auto-generates adversarial inputs (like fuzzing) based on the schema, or more like scaffolding for unit tests to ensure the tool executes correctly? I’d love to dig into that use case.
by iamleppert | 2026-01-16 16:20:28+00:00
I use Claude daily and I 100% disagree with the author. The article reeks of someone who doesn't understand how to manage context appropriately or describe their requirements, or know how to build up a task iteratively with a coding agent. If you have certain requirements or want things done in a certain way, you need to be explicit and the order of operations you do things in matters a lot in how efficient it completes the task, and the quality of the final output. It's very good at doing the least amount of work to just make something work by default, but that's not always what you want. Sometimes it is. I'd much rather prefer that as the default mode of operation than something that makes a project out of every little change.

The developers who aren't figuring out how to leverage AI tools and make them work for them are going to get left behind very quickly. Unless you're in the top tier of engineers, I'm not sure how one can blame the tools at this point.
by bflesch | 2026-01-16 16:20:51+00:00
You're using "false equivalence" bias. Not every government is bad, especially if you still have russia, iran, and others as ongoing contenders for worst crimes against humanity.

So saying "every government is bad" is simply a bad faith argument and you should shamefully sink towards the planet core for using it. Andorra is not as bad as russia or iran.

Just yesterday there was a video where russian soldiers tie an anti tank mine around the torso of a black African mercenary soldier from Mali before forcing him on a suicide meat assault towards Ukrainian positions. Some countries are evil on another level.
by Aurornis | 2026-01-16 16:20:51+00:00
Meta response: This account’s recent comment history is almost exclusively self promotion for their content, YouTube channel, and school. Much of the comment text appears LLM generated with classic signs such as the em dash, bullet point lists, and this-not-that comparisons that are common to LLM generated output.

It’s noteworthy because this comment is currently the top voted comment, probably because it hits all the notes of what you’d get if you asked an LLM to generate some content to tap into anger in a Hacker News comment section. It’s scary that this type of LLM powered engagement bait is so successfully being used to advertise on HN.
by ericmay | 2026-01-16 16:21:08+00:00
Yes, you're missing that if you mess with the power grid the US will go and kinetically strike back (read: bomb your country) or attack you with its own cyber warfare capabilities, unlike the EU. That's why the EU is experiencing cyber attacks and cyber warfare with clear culpability from Russia, but is unable to do much about it besides give Ukraine more weapons. If Russia launched a cyber attack and shut down JFK the way it did Heathrow, the US would actually do something about it even with all the Trump is a Russian agent stuff aside.
by Edman274 | 2026-01-16 16:21:29+00:00
People don't buy locks so that they can lose their keys and require the lock to be picked. They buy locks to secure access to items or places. The parent I was replying to is saying that locks aren't security because a sledgehammer breaks them. I argue that a sledgehammer is only important for certain threat models. I am quite aware that most lock picking is for lost keys. However, I am describing threat models for which locks are important security. Do you understand?
by Spooky23 | 2026-01-16 16:21:30+00:00
There’s a lot you can do. Voting is the entry stake. You can make a big impact with a very low level of political engagement.

Allowing popular referendum for everything just invites a particular and usually really dumb level of politics. You can influence a board’s decision and get some or all of what you want.

IMO one of the biggest problems with society is that you have this view that politics is this idea that it’s some sort of magical thing that is done to you. I can get my city councilman on the phone easily. Probably would get a meeting with my state senator in a few days if need be. Just show up and work with people.
by quantified | 2026-01-16 16:21:30+00:00
While Canada might have taken a step like this eventually, Trump being Trump made it far more likely due to his desire to alienate Canada.

Now it is likely that Chinese EVs will drive on US roads from Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto into the US and US citizens will see for themselves. I'm not a fan of cheap cheap labor in that it reflects poverty that shouldn't exist in the modern world, but the strategic insistence of Detroit to produce expensive, low-efficiency, low-capability SUVs will start to backfire.