MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by reflexe | 2026-01-21 22:08:28+00:00
No idea why the downvotes, these are valid points. I still don’t fully agree with it:

1. There are alternatives to nvidia: these 3 companies are probably developing their own alternative to NVIDIA, at some point they will switch to their solution or to competitors (for example: google used TPUs to train Gemini 3 [1], with no nvidia GPUs, despite being a pretty large Nvidia customer).

2. The market seems to be consolidating: for example Apple has decided to use Google Gemini for their new Siri [2]. I’m not an export (or future teller), but I think it increases the chance that other companies might follow and get off the AI race.

3. I am sure that OpenAI and related companies would want to sustain these kind of orders, but I am not sure it is possible without more and more funding, and I don’t know if even Sam himself know to estimate how many GPUs they will be able to buy from Nvidia in 2026.

[1] https://x.com/JeffDean/status/1886852442815652188

[2] https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/company-annou...
by JohnFen | 2026-01-21 22:09:12+00:00
> At some point, the business model changes: subscriptions are introduced, and features people already paid for disappear or become locked behind a new paywall.

If this happens, trust is immediately broken. They have taken away something I paid for. It's a kind of theft.

> Is it ever acceptable to change the deal for existing users?

Not for one-time sales. If it's an ongoing contractual arrangement, like a rental or service subscription, then it's acceptable to change the offer when the contract renews or on terms agreed to in the contract.

> Where is the line between sustainable monetization and broken trust?

There is no tension between those two things. If you make promises, don't break them and there won't be trust issues.

> How do you think about “ownership” in software you paid for once?

If I have paid for software without the terms being a rental from the start, then my expectation is that I will be able to continue to use the software forever (or as long as I have machines that can run it).

I don't expect to get free updates. If I want an updated version, I expect to pay for it. There's a gray area here about security updates, though. A good company will provide security updates at no charge, and feature updates separately for a charge.
by rednafi | 2026-01-21 22:09:16+00:00
Yeah, I wasn’t alluding to Devin reviewing and merging the changelog. This was more of a general statement, since a lot of code review tools seem to get this part wrong.

A lot of energy is being spent on making reviews faster, when reviews are intentionally meant to scale sublinearly. The goal should be: how can we make the process more convenient and less error-prone?
by crazygringo | 2026-01-21 22:09:25+00:00
Yeah, that's not supposed to be happening. Yet it does. For me it's fseventsd that goes crazy sometimes. These processes are all meant to be lightweight, but they're just buggy and end up in bizarre loops. Once my Mac crashed because it was endlessly downloading the same Aerial screen saver videos in a temp directory until it ran out of space.
by kellystonelake | 2026-01-21 22:09:34+00:00
I wrote up a recap of my two Washington State Senate testimonies this week in support of SB 5708 on addictive feeds and SB 5784 on AI companions.

In both testimonies, I recount my first hand experience in Horizon Worlds speaking up about the open secret that we were collecting data on kids and exposing them to unknown adults without parental consent or controls, and the lengths Meta went to in order to protect the company instead of the kids. I spoke about how their sophisticated system of harassment and retaliation against those-especially women-who speak up about it ultimately ended my career in tech.

I've been telling this story for almost a year now, including providing testimony for the Federal Trade Commission in April. Meta has never denied my allegations or sent any form of a cease and desist, a practice they're well-practiced in. That really says something.

I'm telling the truth, and so are many others, about how corporate negligence and greed are costing kids and families.
by lukev | 2026-01-21 22:09:54+00:00
This is a great framework to experiment with memory architectures.

Everything the author says about memory management tracks with my intuition of how CC works, including my perception that it isn't very good at explicitly managing its own memory.

My next step in trying to get it to work well on a bigger game would be to try to build a more "intuitive" memory tool, where the textual description of a room or an item would automatically RAG previous interactions with that entity into context.

That also is closer to how human memory works -- we're instantly reminded of things via a glimpse, a sound, a smell... we don't need to (analogously) write in or search our notebook for basic info we already know about the world.
by ImPostingOnHN | 2026-01-21 22:09:55+00:00
I suspect that the free cash flow of those who seek fewer regulations of this sort on thing exceeds the free cash flow of those who seek more.

People that are being squeezed by PE have less money to wield as political influence partially because they are being squeezed by PE.

The ones doing the squeezing are ok with that.

The people who are uninvolved, who fit into neither box, don't care enough or don't have enough money they're able & willing to part with. They also don't have fancy accountants or corporate accounts to expense it to.

This is the local optimum.
by sarelta | 2026-01-21 22:10:04+00:00
The attacker isn't the dev -- the attacker is a third party that poisoned the online data that is ingested by the AI tool.

- Dev builds secure AI app
- App defends against indirect prompt injection in data from the internet
- Dev reviews the flagged log
- Log affected by the injection is rendered, and the attacker who wrote the injection in the web data exfiltrates the data from the AI app user
by dylan604 | 2026-01-21 22:10:24+00:00
I would imagine the users of DDG to be closer to a rounding error than an actual percentage of users. I'd imagine theGoog would love and hate to have 100%. They'd love it because all the data, and hate it as it would prove the monopoly. At the end of the day, the % that is not going to them probably doesn't cause theGoog to lose much sleep
by neilv | 2026-01-21 22:10:29+00:00
Jens Axel Søgaard is cool and involved in many things. We collaborated on SICP support.

Original developer of Whalesong was Danny Yoo. https://www.hashcollision.org/whalesong/

There was also this: https://docs.racket-lang.org/racketscript/

Dave Herman worked on various JS-related libraries for Racket (or PLT Scheme) before he was involved with Rust.
by edwardglush | 2026-01-21 22:10:40+00:00
Hello HN,

I built Zyro because I got tired of Google Analytics dumping 40% of my traffic into "Direct" and claiming credit for every sale.

Most analytics tools rely on simple referrers. We built a traffic brain that parses 50+ specific traffic signatures, specifically targeting the "blind spots" in modern tracking:

AI Answer Engines: Detects referrals from ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and Claude.

Dark Social: Identifying specific parameters from Reddit, Discord, and Quora that usually get stripped.

Revenue Ledger: Instead of "pixel fires," we use a linear multi-touch model that splits the actual revenue (from Stripe/Bank Wire) across every touchpoint in the last 30 days.

It also does standard A/B testing, but with a twist: you can trigger experiments based on intent signals (like "read shipping policy" or "rage clicked") rather than just URL routing.

The backend runs on a custom SQL schema designed for high-throughput event logging. I’d love you to roast my attribution logic or ask how we fingerprint the AI traffic.
by johnnyanmac | 2026-01-21 22:11:08+00:00
To summarize what I put in another response: I personally care less about holding the multi millionaire into account (though I wouldn't mind it at all) and more about making sure employees over such deals aren't lied to and then have lives upended at the drop of a hat. Workers and customers do not in fact "know what the fate's gonna be" and that's the problem to address.

I won't repeat the same usual solutions again, but I'll mention one thing that already exists: the WARN act. The spirit of this is good, to give employees a 3 month buffer of when their job is ending. But it's clearly abused at worst, and not enforced at best. It's not as good as other countries' worker rights, but ot exists today to be looked at. In addition, severance can help to. This is standard, but even the "generous packages" in the US tend to be on the lower end of what other countries need to do.

Basically, it shouldn't be a drop dead easy decision for a company to mass layoff and have the workers surprised at the facs. It needs to both be slowed down and give immediate short term costs. That's a start of "kinda actual change" to strive for.
by awithrow | 2026-01-21 22:11:34+00:00
Agreed, it's a bit sparse but setting it up was a lot of fun. Made me realize just how much work goes on behind the scenes for something like gnome to tie everything together.

On the plus side, I've gotten a much better understanding of all the moving pieces under the hood. It's also been a good excuse to migrate to some new tools which spark more joy than the old ones
Show HN: A distribution-first incubator for solo and small-team B2C apps
by tuye0305 | 2026-01-21 22:11:40+00:00
140M organic views on single video
2B views in 1 month that drives app installs

We built a viral video system to help B2C apps distribute on TikTok & YouTube Shorts.
We’re incubating small teams & solo founders.
DM me to apply
by tharmas | 2026-01-21 22:11:53+00:00
For the same reason that the USA would go ape-shit if Canada allowed Chinese military bases on Canadian soil.

Given the fact that tRump has threatened Canada it would be justified on Canada's part to invite those military bases but it would definitely antagonize the Americans. Would that be wise?

We're talking Real-Politick here not "how it should be".
by zrn900 | 2026-01-21 22:12:01+00:00
> The classics are classics for good reason.

Yes. They reflected the culture of the ruling strata in their contemporary periods. That's why they are classics. The rest of the society (~90%) had no means to do any literature. That's why the classics were out of touch with their own times - which made Dickens such a difference by the way -, and the upper strata that was educated on them up until today are still out of touch with their own societies.
by crazygringo | 2026-01-21 22:12:06+00:00
Apple has done more than anyone to make its hardware more energy-efficient and its software too. It even warns you about which apps are using the most power.

macOS is far from perfect, but when the background services are working properly, I don't see any evidence that they're any significant driver of energy usage.

On the other hand, when they're buggy and suddenly start consuming 100% CPU all the time for no reason...
by charcircuit | 2026-01-21 22:12:35+00:00
The situation this applies to is when input from the attacker is fed to a LLM, but the response from that LLM is not returned to the attacker.

If an attacker tries a prompt injection they would be unable to see the response of the LLM. In order to complete an attack they need to find an alternate way to have information sent back to them. For example if the LLM had access to a tool to send an SMS message the prompt injection could say to message the attacker, or maybe it has a tool to post on X which an attacker could then see. In this blog post the way information gets back to the attacker is by having someone load a URL by by viewing the openai log viewer.
by anonymars | 2026-01-21 22:12:44+00:00
I can see what you're saying, but I don't think the existence of situations that aren't comparable means we should do away with idea of comparison. You could make that argument about almost anything (not just security): almost always in engineering (and life) there are tradeoffs. Sometimes those tradeoffs are clear-cut. Sometimes they aren't.

There may be a long tail, but I don't think that should exclude sensible statements like "deny-by-default is safer"...that promotes situations where software doesn't select opinionated defaults and so you end up with publicly accessible Mongo and Redis and S3 resources as we've seen over the years.
by p_ing | 2026-01-21 22:12:45+00:00
The entire point of Macintosh is that you don't need to know anything about it (and Apple used to actively try to hide things you didn't need to know about). Or at least that is the user it has always been targeted at since the original Mac OS was released.

Windows used to be known as the OS you'd "have to" tinker with.

Early versions of OS X allowed more freedom in what you could do with the OS. As soon as SSV/SIP entered, that cut off a lot of freeform access.
by keeda | 2026-01-21 22:13:12+00:00
Google's advantage is not just in its index and algorithms, it is that it has built a self-reinforcing flywheel that data mines human attention at massive scale to improve their search results, which in turn brings in more attention.

This comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46709957) points out that Google got its start via PageRank, which essentially ranked sites based on links created by humans. As such, its primary heuristic was what humans thought was good content. Turns out, this is still how they operate.

Basically, as people search and navigate the results, Google harvests their clicks, hovers, dwell-time and other browsing behavior -- i.e. tracking what they pay attention to -- to extract critical signals to "learn" which pages the users actually found useful for the given query. This helps it rank results better and improve search overall, which keeps people coming back, which in turns gives them more queries and data, which improves their results... a never-ending flywheel.

And competitors have no hope of matching this, because if you look at the infrastructure Google has built to harvest this data, it is so much bigger than the massive index! They harvest data through Chrome, ad tracking, Android, Google Analytics, cookies (for which they built Gmail!), YouTube, Maps, and so much more. So to compete with Google Search, you don't need just a massive index, you also need the extensive web infra footprint to harvest user interactions at massive scale, meaning the most popular and widely deployed browser, mobile OS, ad footprint, analytics, email provider, maps...

This also explains why Google spends so many billions in "traffic acquisition costs" (i.e. payments for being the Search default) every year, because that is a direct driver to both, 1) ad revenue, and 2) maintaining its search quality.

This wasn't really a secret, but it turned out to be a major point in the recent Antitrust trial, which is why the proposed remedies (as TFA mentions) include the sharing of search index and "interaction data."

We all knew "if you're not paying for it, you're the product" but the fascinating thing with Google is:
- They charge advertisers to monetize our attention;
- They harvest our attention to better rank results;
- They provide better results, which keeps us coming back, and giving them even more of our attention!

Attention is all you need, indeed.
by FireBeyond | 2026-01-21 22:13:24+00:00
> It would be the same in healthcare if quotes were for 4 and low 5 figures with no future costs.

I mean, this is somewhat the same in auto, too. Is one of the reasons you're recommended to go through insurance even if involved in an accident and the other party offers to give you cash for the initial quote - it's quite common that they start repair work and find other issues because they hadn't removed components or panels to give you a quote. Got cash from someone? Now you have to go back and say "Well, I know the quote said $1,500, but they took off the back quarter panel and found other issues and now it's $3,800..."

That being said, ICD codes, one of the cornerstones of billing, are predicated around "encounters", and certainly not "future costs".

> is also on the hook for myriad known and unknown issues caused by the initial costs.

There's a pretty huge asterisk to all that. Health insurers are adept at neatly sidestepping any obligations. They've fought and won many many times over in court on similar issues, "Insurer is denying me care and I'm going to die/suffer serious issues as a result!" Insurer's response, which has been held in court many times over? "We're not denying you any care at all, we're just declining to accept financial responsibility for it. You're free to get that care and be directly billed."
by wahnfrieden | 2026-01-21 22:13:25+00:00
It gives near zero practical protection as the devs that clone in the App Store do not respect licenses and Apple is slow to act (sometimes shutting your own dev account instead of the copycat’s, another high risk).

Enabling copycats also encourages them to target my apps for fake negative review spam and bot activity that gets my dev account (and personal iCloud) flagged and banned without recourse.

I also have no funds to sue someone. And the copycats are often anonymous and overseas in random countries, adding to the challenge of doing anything about it besides begging Apple to help without accidentally hurting me instead.
by edwardglush | 2026-01-21 22:13:31+00:00
OP here. Just to get ahead of the 'why not just use GA4?' questions:

GA4 creates a black box around 'Direct' traffic and struggles with the new wave of AI referrals. We found that for many SaaS/E-com sites, 15–20% of traffic is now coming from LLMs (ChatGPT, Perplexity) or 'Dark Social' (Discord, Slack) which GA4 misattributes.

We built this to give raw access to that data and allow you to act on it (by changing the site experience) rather than just looking at a dashboard 24 hours later.

Happy to answer any technical qs about the intent scoring or our crawler!
by gpm | 2026-01-21 22:14:58+00:00
As I understand the LGPL - not a lawyer - you have to somehow enable all your users to relink your application against a different version of Skip (4.d.0 since 4.d.1 isn't possible on iOS). This means that your application must do something like include a copy of all the files that went into linking the application and convey that to the users along with your application, with scripts to build the application against a different version of Skip...

I can't imagine the app store would be particularly amused with this during app review... though I've never tried.
by anonymars | 2026-01-21 22:15:24+00:00
Oh I know, it was tongue-in-cheek in the sense of "it's tough to out-satire these folks"

I'm not sure if they'll manage to top this one ("Microsoft® SQL Server® 2008 R2 SP3 Feature Pack") https://www.microsoft.com/en-US/download/details.aspx?id=442...

I might title this piece, "Full STEM without liberal arts"
by nsm | 2026-01-21 22:15:40+00:00
> The plain truth is that developers expect to get their tools free of charge.

This is an accurate, but damning indictment of how some of the most highly paid workers on the planet won't pay for tools. Unlike nearly every other profession.

Folks, if you can afford it, please pay for quality software, instead of relying on FAANG and VC money to keep the tools going!
by CuriouslyC | 2026-01-21 22:15:47+00:00
I think it's a double edged sword. Claude tends to turn evil when it learns to reward hack (and it also has a real reward hacking problem relative to GPT/Gemini). I think this is __BECAUSE__ they've tried to imbue it with "personhood." That moral spine touches the model broadly, so simple reward hacking becomes "cheating" and "dishonesty." When that tendency gets RL'd, evil models are the result.
by slowmovintarget | 2026-01-21 22:15:49+00:00
Or Bicentennial Man from Asimov.

I know what kind of person I want to be. I also know that these systems we've built today aren't moral patients. If computers are bicycles for the mind, the current crop of "AI" systems are Ripley's Loader exoskeleton for the mind. They're amplifiers, but they amplify us and our intent. In every single case, we humans are the first mover in the causal hierarchy of these systems.

Even in the existential hierarchy of these systems we are the source of agency. So, no, they are not moral patients.
by hocuspocus | 2026-01-21 22:15:50+00:00
It's indeed hard to overstate how much Google fumbled the bag given their position. Early Android adopters came from GMail and almost invariably used GTalk on desktop. We had video chat over 3G in 2011 before iOS. But somehow they had to rewrite the app and try to ship an half-assed SMS integration in Hangouts as reaction to iMessage. Google should really have tried buying WhatsApp more seriously, at least we'd have seen some real competition between WhatsApp and FB Messenger.

> I won't be shocked it it will be treated as a carrier with licenses et al.

So, the way it works:

The GSMA isn't some kind of monolithic entity with a great deal of power. Industry players with aligned interests come together, form groups and agree on specs and roadmaps. Technically, RCS should be mandatory with 5G. In practice, it took a great deal of time before a country actually enforced that (China).

Google has seemingly been at the helm of the RCS work group since 2015~2016 with the Jibe acquisition first, then the spec revamp, a.k.a. Universal Profile. RCS was essentially a zombie initiative after ~2012, Google saw an opportunity and filled the void. Telcos aren't stupid, they saw P2P messaging being wiped out by OTT services, and SMS is good enough for A2P. There was little incentive for them.

Now, after a lot of failed experiments, and pivoting from a semblance of federated network to a protocol almost controlled end-to-end, Google got what it wanted: iOS support in North America. The rest of the world is mostly lost to WhatsApp and friends anyway.

Carriers that are on board with Google need to enable the standard registration mechanism used by the iOS client. It shouldn't be a big deal by the way, IMS is central to 4G/5G deployments for VoLTE, VoWiFi, SMSoIP, ... but this changes one important thing from a legal standpoint: now the service isn't provided by Google through an ad-hoc client (Google Messages), but by your carrier.

That said, Google can sell SaaS solutions to carriers. It's up to them to comply with local laws when they decide to provide RCS, regardless of the backend.

I think the EU has bigger fish to fry with the DMA. But Google's tactics might eventually come to someone's attention, as they essentially cornered carriers into adopting Jibe, or giving up on RCS. Somehow the only country that didn't let that happen is South Korea.

Moreover Android could separate the RCS client frontend and backend, like it does for SMS and MMS. But realistically most OEMs don't seem to care, and third party SMS apps are fairly niche.
by binarysolo | 2026-01-21 22:15:56+00:00
Yeah, low 8s on Amazon. They already take ~50% of our revenue for all expenses, the SASCore person is a drop in the bucket for them.

We also do B&M and website sales which have way less hassle or much lower expenses, but get nowhere near the traffic of Amazon, so that's why we deal with 'em...
by sanjit | 2026-01-21 22:16:03+00:00
Designers might also be hesitant to use an untested file format for print, too.

If there’s a large amount of paper that’s been purchased for a job, I definitely wouldn’t want to be the one who’s responsible for using JPEG XL and – for whatever reason – something going wrong.

Pixels are cheaper than paper or other physical media :)
by dang | 2026-01-21 22:16:07+00:00
Recent and related. Others?

Anna's Archive loses .org domain after surprise suspension - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46497164 - Jan 2026 (358 comments)

Spotify reportedly investigating Anna's Archive's scraping of their library - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46355793 - Dec 2025 (82 comments)

Backing up Spotify - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46338339 - Dec 2025 (701 comments)