MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by quickthrowman | 2026-01-26 23:45:16+00:00
Mostly the extensive subgrade work, as I understand. Similar to a road, there’s a bed of sand and aggregate under the concrete surface.

The concrete they use is very precisely mixed to a specification and then it’s tested for adherence to the spec.

A runway is also going to be 3-4x thicker than a 4-6” thick driveway slab. Probably they also use fiberglass or PVC coated rebar instead of plain steel rebar.

Definitely not an expert here but I can read a civil site plan and hire civil site work subcontractors frequently.

Here’s some information on concrete testing: https://www.concrete.org/frequentlyaskedquestions.aspx?faqid...

Also, Grady is one of the best creators on YouTube, I can’t help but watch his full videos whenever they pop up. I always learn something, even if I’m familiar with the subject.
by melezhik | 2026-01-26 23:45:29+00:00
Thanks for a such detailed review of forgejo actions. Did you check dead simple ci? This is forgejo runner supporting direct general purposes languages syntax instead of yaml for your pipelines, so much easier to write scripts for any custom scenarios and not to be lost down rabbit ( yaml ) hole . I guess your case is pretty much covered with using custom fedora image and then just throwing a few shell tasks . If your interest we have a demo server to play with and I can help you with Fedora QA tasks repository pipeline setup. http://deadsimpleci.sparrowhub.io/doc/demo

~ Alexey
by freedomben | 2026-01-26 23:46:05+00:00
> Despite having access to my weight, blood pressure and cholesterol, ChatGPT based much of its negative assessment on an Apple Watch measurement known as VO2 max, the maximum amount of oxygen your body can consume during exercise. Apple says it collects an “estimate” of VO2 max, but the real thing requires a treadmill and a mask. Apple says its cardio fitness measures have been validated, but independent researchers have found those estimates can run low — by an average of 13 percent.

There's plenty of blame to go around for everyone, but at least for some of it (such as the above) I think the blame more rests on Apple for falsely representing the quality of their product (and TFA seems pretty clearly to be blasting OpenAI for this, not others like Apple).

What would you expect the behavior of the AI to be? Should it always assume bad data or potentially bad data? If so, that seems like it would defeat the point of having data at all as you could never draw any conclusions from it. Even disregarding statistical outliers, it's not at all clear what part of the data is "good" vs "unrealiable" especially when the company that collected that data claims that it's good data.
by cal_dent | 2026-01-26 23:46:18+00:00
That distinction between passive and active is why i've never been able to get on board with podcasts as a true medium for learning/understanding anything. Its a lack of discipline on my part because I'd end up doing something else as well and the information doesn't really truly get through (that feeling when you realise you've had it on for 10 mins but have not really actually listened to it). That's not possible at all with text as a medium, the brain has to latch on.
by convolvatron | 2026-01-26 23:46:41+00:00
I dont think it's the same at all. when weaving was displaced, yes some people were pissed about losing their livelihood, but the quality of the cloth didn't diminish.

when CNC came for machining, no one really bitched, because the computers were just removing the time consuming effort of moving screws by hand.

when computers write code, or screenplays, the quality right now is objectively much worse. that might change, but claims that we're at the point where computers can meaningfully displace that work are pretty weak.

sure that might change.
by varenc | 2026-01-26 23:47:02+00:00
I had this experience too. They beep like this if they're not near an updated iDevice logged into your account.

You'll have the same problem if you do something like: set the AirTag up on an iPad, but then carry around with an Android phone on you or just any phone not logged into your Apple Account. The beeping is the anti-stalking feature since it thinks it's separated from its owner.
by pzmarzly | 2026-01-26 23:47:10+00:00
> In contrast, the ARM world sucks hardcore - there are no standards for board bringup and boundaries

There are standards for ARM, and they are called UEFI, ACPI, and SMBIOS. ARM the company is now pushing hard for their adoption in non-embedded aarch64 world - see ARM SBBR, SBSA, and PC-BSA specs.
by phatfish | 2026-01-26 23:47:10+00:00
The barrier to entry for grifting has been lowered, and for existing grifters they can put together some intricate slop. Of course Google doesn't care, they get to show ads against AI slop the same as normal human generated slop.

A fun one was from some minor internet drama around a Battlefield 6 player who seemed to be cheating. A grifter channel pushing some "cheater detection" software started putting out intricate AI generated nonsense that went viral. Searching Karl Jobst CATGIRL will explain.
by jumploops | 2026-01-26 23:47:16+00:00
> People have said that software engineering at large tech companies resembles "plumbing"

> AI code [..] may also free up a space for engineers seeking to restore a genuine sense of craft and creative expression

This resonates with me, as someone who joined the industry circa 2013, and discovered that most of the big tech jobs were essentially glorified plumbers.

In the 2000s, the web felt more fun, more unique, more unhinged. Websites were simple, and Flash was rampant, but it felt like the ratio of creators to consumers was higher than now.

With Claude Code/Codex, I've built a bunch of things that usually would die at a domain name purchase or init commit. Now I actually have the bandwidth to ship them!

This ease of dev also means we'll see an explosion in slopware, which we're already starting to see with App Store submissions up 60% over the last year[0].

My hope is that, with the increase of slop, we'll also see an increase in craft. Even if the proportion drops, the scale should make up for it.

We sit in prefab homes, cherishing the cathedrals of yesteryear, often forgetting that we've built skyscrapers the ancient architects could never dream of.

More software is good. Computers finally work the way we always expected them to!

[0]https://www.a16z.news/p/charts-of-the-week-the-almighty-cons...
by dangus | 2026-01-26 23:48:11+00:00
Proper testing and benchmarks don’t lie. I’m not sure why you think this is an impossible feat.

https://youtu.be/Xjkzb-j6nKI

12:00 mark, you can see panther lake performs better in Cyberpunk 2077 than the M5 with less power draw.

6:25, Panther Lake is barely behind the M5 chip at Cinebench. Just a slightly lower score at the same wattage.

And don’t forget, the M5 is years away from supporting Linux fully. We are just talking about the M3 getting decent support.

If you’re the kind of person that wants a thin and light laptop for productivity and also wants to fire up some light games here and there, it’s hard to argue that an M5 MacBook Air is the right system for you. Even with recent strides in game compatibility, macOS is a terrible gaming platform that really can’t hold a candle to Windows or Linux x86, and Panther Lake graphics smokes the M5.

Obviously a Mac with macOS is a better choice for things like video editing.
by brailsafe | 2026-01-26 23:49:22+00:00
> It's amazing what 100 levels of abstraction and money can make you do.

I'd say it's more like the Don Draper line "that's what the money is for", but yes ultimately it's a transaction, and rarely are people doing anything at an individual level professionally that would be worth stopping because of a vague sense of guilt by distant association.

If the connection is closer and the actions you take issue with are clearly impacted by your association with them, then there may be no amount of money that's worth it.
by metalcrow | 2026-01-26 23:49:50+00:00
>Luckily we have largely moved past that view.

Have we? I don't think the UN is going to invade Iran over this, especially after it went so well the last time with the US. And sanctions for Iran are already at the "you don't get anything" level, i don't think they can be ramped up any more. Morally sure, people now believe this is wrong while in the distant past they may have not cared, but practically not much has changed. The best we can hope for is an organized resistance that other large nations can funnel money and arms to.
by __tyler__ | 2026-01-26 23:49:59+00:00
In no particular order:

- Anton Zhiyanov

- Register Spill by Thorsten Ball

- Phil Eaton

- Mitchell Hashimoto

- Gunnar Morling

- Jack Vanlightly

- Charity Majors

- Bryan Cantrill

- Marc Brooker

- NULL BITMAP By Justin Jaffray

Another tip is you can subscribe to YouTube Channels and Podcasts via RSS as well. I wrote a little bit about my setup to help reduce doom scrolling: https://tylerhillery.com/blog/how-i-consume-the-internet/
by johnnyanmac | 2026-01-26 23:50:55+00:00
>Those points have nothing to do with tone policing

Dismissing an argument over rhetoric instead of rebutting the main point is about as close to a formal definition of tone policing as you can get. Do I need to expand on why that is the case? I've already explained why I don't think "chaotic" is extreme rhetoric to describe this situation.

> The comment it was responding to was correctly flagged

As was yours. Will you self reflect on why that is?
by 7bees | 2026-01-26 23:51:54+00:00
> The actual ingredients are literally on the safety data sheet

This is an oversimplification, in a way that is likely not obvious to a lot of people on this (software-focused) forum. An SDS does not have to list exact amounts, does not have to disclose some details of how an ingredient or mix of ingredients was processed, and (depending on jurisdiction) may not have to identify some "safe" ingredients at all. Some ingredients may be identified in relatively vague ways, that are sufficient for safety purposes but do not reveal the exact product. As the SDS you linked to says "The specific chemical identity and exact percentages are a trade secret". An SDS is certainly very helpful to reverse-engineering a product, but it doesn't tell you everything.

All that said, yes, the main strength of WD-40 is its marketing and ubiquity, and claims about its secrecy have more to do with marketing than anything practical.
by spike021 | 2026-01-26 23:52:05+00:00
Unrelated to airtags but last year a couple wheels were stolen off my brand new car. My city in California falls under county sheriff jurisdiction and they actually assigned a detective to the case.

Sadly even once he got the subpoena and other paperwork to track down the criminals through Facebook (they had listed my wheels two weeks later on Marketplace) he couldn't find them since they were using VPNs.
by Bender | 2026-01-26 23:52:05+00:00
I would almost agree XP with SP2 was decent for its time. SP3 introduced more bugs I'm guessing because that was the end of the line for XP. Stability as of XP made sense as well given Microsoft split the developers into common code, desktop and server. Both desktop and server became more stable around that time, relatively speaking. Both borrowed heavily from the VMS code base.

Windows 7 later on in its patch cycle was more stable in my opinion. Each time a version gets stable they make a new version full of new bloat, bugs, stability issues, crap most people did not want or need. Near the end of that versions life cycle it gets more stable and debloat scripts work better, then the cycle repeats and new junk comes out. Stability seems to leap-frog. Win 7 decent, 8 crap, 10 decent, 11 crap. I probably just jinxed it. 12 will probably summon the anti-christ and four horsemen of the apocalypse.
by avidiax | 2026-01-26 23:52:11+00:00
LLMs are necessarily linear. If you paste the contract first, the attention mechanism of the model can still process the contract, but only generically. It pays attention to the key points of the contract. If you ask the question first, the attention part of the model is already primed. It will now read the contract paying more attention to the parts that are relevant to the question.

If I ask you to read Moby Dick and then ask you to critique the author's use of weather as a setting, that's a bit more difficult than if I ask you to to critique that aspect before asking you to read the book.
by voxleone | 2026-01-26 23:52:26+00:00
>Has anyone tried creating a language that would be good for LLMs?

I’ve thought about this and arrived at a rough sketch.

The first principle is that models like ChatGPT do not execute programs; they transform context. Because of that, a language designed specifically for LLMs would likely not be imperative (do X, then Y), state-mutating, or instruction-step driven. Instead, it would be declarative and context-transforming, with its primary operation being the propagation of semantic constraints. The core abstraction in such a language would be the context, not the variable. In conventional programming languages, variables hold values and functions map inputs to outputs. In a ChatGPT-native language, the context itself would be the primary object, continuously reshaped by constraints. The atomic unit would therefore be a semantic constraint, not a value or instruction.

An important consequence of this is that types would be semantic rather than numeric or structural. Instead of types like number, string, bool, you might have types such as explanation, argument, analogy, counterexample, formal_definition.

These types would constrain what kind of text may follow, rather than how data is stored or laid out in memory. In other words, the language would shape meaning and allowable continuations, not execution paths. An example:

@iterate:
refine explanation
until clarity ≥ expert_threshold
by jameshilliard | 2026-01-26 23:52:34+00:00
The IRGC[0] and Basij[1] are not small organizations, deliberately targeting large crowds of unarmed civilians with automatic weapons will create massive casualties in a very short period of time, no explosives needed.

> Did the protestors get boxed in somehow?

That did also happen.[2]

> And across so many locations, that seems to require a crazy amount of coordination to kill so many in so little time.

The IRGC's primary purpose is to protect the regime, I'm sure they would have plans in place for suppressing protests.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_Co...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basij

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/01/25/ira...
by janekfollendorf | 2026-01-26 23:53:21+00:00
I built JackSEO after realizing that reacting to news is basically a cheat code for traffic.
Whenever I replied fast to fresh news with SM Post and SEO/GEO optimized content, reach and traffic jumped immediately.

So I built a tool to automate that.

JackSEO tracks real-time news, figures out what matters for your company, and turns it into ready SM posts and articles optimized for search engines and AI answers. At the end it humanizes whole output content.

No prompts. No planning. Just publish while the window is open.

Happy to answer questions or get feedback.
by felixgallo | 2026-01-26 23:53:44+00:00
I wouldn't speak so quickly for the 'uncommon' language set. I had Claude write me a fully functional typed erlang compiler with ocaml and LLVM IR over the last two days to test some ideas. I don't know ocaml. It made the right calls about erlang, and the result passes a fairly serious test suite, so it must've known enough ocaml and LLVM IR.
by throwerxyz | 2026-01-26 23:53:53+00:00
"What percentage of your code is written by AI?"

"I don't know, what percentage of your sweater is polyester?"

"I don't know, I think it's all cotton, why do you ask me such a random question?"

"Well surely you know that polyester can be made far cheaper in a plastics factory than cotton? Why do you use cotton?"
by krapp | 2026-01-26 23:54:07+00:00
>If you redefine success to whatever you want, then sure.

The definition ModernMech actually uses in their comment would seem to be accurate. They did get away with it, they did assume power, and they are waging "information war" on the population. Although I might expand that to say they are waging war, in general, on the population. And government.

They're getting just about everything they wanted except AOC at the end of a rope, that seems like success to me. They're certainly having a better time than liberals or leftists. Or immigrants. Or black people. Or women. Or anyone else.

What part of this definition do you object to, and for what reason?

>If you treat people as enemies, they’ll become one. The arrogance in the assumption that every Republican will allow Trump to get elected for a 3rd term might spite them into it.

...which would mean they were enemies all along and ModernMech's assumption was correct?

People who actually had strong moral objections to Trump would oppose him regardless of the assumptions being made about them. People who lean into the evil because someone assumes they're evil are just looking for a justification.

And the assumption about Republicans seems justified given that they have the power to stop Trump and... haven't. At all.
by aeonfox | 2026-01-26 23:54:21+00:00
> I think the blame more rests on Apple for falsely representing the quality of their product

There was plenty of other concerning stuff in that article. And from a quick read it wasn't suggested or implied the VO2 max issue was the deciding factor for the original F score the author received. The article did suggest many times over the ChatGPT is really not equipped for the task of health diagnosis.

> There was another problem I discovered over time: When I tried asking the same heart longevity-grade question again, suddenly my score went up to a C. I asked again and again, watching the score swing between an F and a B.
by mrxdev | 2026-01-26 23:54:27+00:00
Been working with spec-driven development since it first emerged (OpenSpec fan), and kept running into the same gap: specs get written, AI writes the code, but validating the implementation against the spec is still a manual slog.

So I put together a tool that runs multi-agent code reviews inside agentic AI environments (Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, etc).

The idea is simple – instead of one reviewer, you get a few different perspectives, modeled after common engineering teams: someone thinking architecturally, someone focused on code quality, another with security expertise, a QA engineer paying close attention to testing. They review changes independently, then discuss before synthesizing feedback. You can also configure custom reviewers and adjust redundancy if you want multiple sub-agents for a given role.

I originally built it to complement SDD tools like OpenSpec, but it drops into any codebase within an agentic environment (agentic IDE or agentic terminal).

My team has been running it against some larger codebases (~500k lines) and it's been genuinely useful – not as a replacement for human review, but as a way to catch things earlier. No doubt it has already saved us quite a bit of time.

```bash
npx @open-code-review/cli init
/ocr-review
```

Works as a pre-push sanity check or wired into CI.

Though warning: your token expenditure WILL increase, especially if you ramp up the number of reviewer types or their redundancy configs.

That said, curious what others think – is this useful? What's missing? Happy to hear feedback or ideas.

https://github.com/spencermarx/open-code-review
by krackers | 2026-01-26 23:54:32+00:00
(This works because x/9 = 0.xxxx..., xy/99 = 0.xyxyxy... and so on). And that is true intuitively because when you long divide in order to get a repeating pattern you need the remainder to be the same as what you started with. I.e if you long divide

0.n
-----
a| b.0

You need 10b - an = b which implies 9b = an. If a = 9 (i.e. your divisor is of the form 10^n - 1, then b=n and you not only have a repeating pattern but you repeat digits.
by akersten | 2026-01-26 23:54:41+00:00
I want to get rid of this:

> * The state terraform holds which is what it thinks your infrastructure state is

Why does Terraform need that. Why can't it just call `iac.amazonaws.com/query` (or other magical endpoint) and then diff the terraform code against the actual infrastructure? I am willing to understand if the answer is "well 8 different teams work on AWS so we can't get them all to agree on how to dump their infra as JSON," but this feels like a huge (and obvious) developer experience improvement that could be made.
by hippo22 | 2026-01-26 23:56:00+00:00
My point is that there are plenty of other places to discuss this topic, e.g. Reddit and Facebook. The reason you don’t like those venues is because they produce conversation of the lowest common denominator. What you don’t realize is that’s really the only type of conversation you can have on this topic. So, by advocating for this topic on HN,
you are brining those aspects of Facebook and Reddit which you dislike here.
by anonzzzies | 2026-01-26 23:56:09+00:00
It's very good (in our experience, YMMV of course) when/llm write prototype with python and then port automatically 1-1 to Rust for perf. We write prototypes in JS and Python and then it gets auto ported to Rust and we have been doing this for about 1 year for all our projects where it makes sense; in the past months it has been incredibly good with claude code; it is absolutely automatic; we run it in a loop until all (many handwritten in the original language) tests succeed.
by jacobgadek | 2026-01-26 23:56:11+00:00
The "token and time sink" point is huge. I've found that even when agents can install deps, they often get stuck in reasoning loops trying to fix a "build toolchain issue" that is actually just a hallucinated package name.

I built a local runtime supervisor (Vallignus) specifically to catch these non-converging loops. It wraps the agent process to enforce egress filtering (blocking those random pip installs) and hard execution limits so they don't burn $10 retrying a fail state.

It's effectively a "process firewall" for the agentic workflow. Open source if you want to see the implementation: https://github.com/jacobgadek/vallignus
by dgxyz | 2026-01-26 23:56:36+00:00
Fuck all this pointless noise, verbose analysis, LLMs and other associated crap.

Just someone give me MS Access for the web with an SSO module and let me drive it.

That'd cover 99% of LOB app needs and allow me to actually get shit done without tools that dissolve in my hands or require hordes of engineers to keep running or have to negotiate with a bullshit generator to puke out tens of thousands of lines of unmaintainable javascript crap.

We have achieved nothing in the last 25 years if we can't do that. Everyone who entered the industry since about 2005 appears to be completely braindead on how damn easy it was to get stuff actually done back then.
by pydry | 2026-01-26 23:56:42+00:00
It has nothing to do with luddites.

Software quality about speed of delivery and lack of bugs.

If you're fine with software which gets a little bit harder to work on every time you make a change and which might blow up in unexpected ways, AI is totally fine.

Ive yet to meet many AI champions who are explicit about their desire to make that trade off though. Even the ones who downplay software quality arent super happy about the bugs.
by ggm | 2026-01-26 23:56:58+00:00
It's interesting that a device based on specifically constructed weights, at a scale to fit in a lab bench experiment (or at least a room) were capable of providing this much accuracy compared to a field experiment which used significantly larger masses, but was probably subject to many many more distorting qualities and estimation/rounding errors.

I can imagine that given enough motivation to chase down accuracy, they could have re-scaled the lead weight experiment to fit larger spaces, larger pendulums, assuming they could control for drafts, pigeons living in St Pauls Cathedral...