MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Trifectorium | 2026-01-19 20:26:32+00:00
Some people are born into the world with a strange awareness that they’re not beginning anything; they’re continuing something. While others marvel at the newness of life, these individuals carry an echo, an intuition that they’ve done this before. That the faces are different, but the script is familiar. That the world isn’t something to be figured out, but something to be remembered.
by mikepurvis | 2026-01-19 20:27:27+00:00
I was late to the 3d printing game and in part that was just not wanting it to become a junk factory of disposable toys and fidgets. I've definitely printed a bit of that kind of thing but overall I've been pleased with the number of small household fixups that it's been possible to do using it.

Just last night for example my microwave oven stopped registering that the door was closed, and within a few tries I was able to print a replacement for the latch bracket that had broken off. At any previous time in my life that would have been either a whole new door or replacing the entire unit.
by smeej | 2026-01-19 20:27:40+00:00
I think the problem is that I don't think it would end up primarily being about gambling.

I already live in a world where people make odds about whether I'm going to die. They're called "actuaries," and they work at life insurance companies. There are also oddsmakers of the same kind at car insurance companies, etc.

Right now, I hate that people who can actually analyze enough data to make odds about these things can only earn a living working for companies that are incentivized to find ways not to pay out when the odds do break against them. I'd much rather these people be able to make their livings just calculating odds, placing bets, and being right. I would like to have access to their calculations, and not be in a position of "just take it or leave it" when I'm evaluating a prospective plan from a life insurance company, for example.

Yes, by all means, there will be gamblers in these markets. There will always be some amount of noise, just like there is in the stock market. But why would that end up being the bulk of the industry? Just like with Wall Street, I would expect companies to grow up around these markets that specialize in getting the odds of things right, and making money off of their predictions. If the market ever became truly efficient, I think we would have a MUCH better idea than we do now about the likelihood of all kinds of things.

Heck, even if I think of something as apparently mundane as weather forecasting, if somebody came up with a breakout model that was right substantially more often, I would expect they would be able to raise all sorts of capital around it and start winning in all the weather forecasting markets, which would then make their predictions a reliable signal, and we'd finally have better information about what the weather is going to do.

I think one part I must be missing is why so many people are assuming that the primary user of prediction markets would be gamblers instead of specialists, especially once they operated at scale. I just don't see why that would happen. Anywhere there's an opportunity to make money reliably by coming up with better analysis or prediction tools, capital will flock there and incentivize coming up with better analysis or prediction tools.

I think I really would like to live in a world where that was highly incentivized, and I'm confused why people would not want that.

ETA: I don't think the gamblers would ruin this any more than they ruin Wall Street. I don't think they have enough capital to matter. (They are, after all, prone to losing money.)
by sothatsit | 2026-01-19 20:27:52+00:00
There are wide gaps in:

1) the models people are using (default model in copilot vs. Opus 4.5 or Codex xhigh)

2) the tools people are using (ChatGPT vs. copilot vs. codex vs. Claude code)

3) when people tried these tools (e.g., December saw a substantial capability increase but some people only tried AI this one time last March)

4) how much effort people put into writing prompts (e.g., one vague sentence vs. a couple paragraphs of specific constraints and instructions)

Especially with all the hype, it makes sense to me why people have such different estimates for how useful AI actually is.
by mihaaly | 2026-01-19 20:27:55+00:00
Ah! The illusion of predictability (for the organisation, of course, because that's what only counts nowadays). Then users get tired/upset of the crap and walk away.

Like long lasting customers of my employer.

Still, the new investor pushes the method further, into infinity, price strategy 'modernization' and whatnot, so numbers and charts in categories of buzzwords look as they want in the sheets. For a while.

Functionality? Secondary, tertiary, or even lower priority annoyance.

I wonder why they invest in troublesome R&D and not in selling sugary water or something from that beatifully simple alley instead, that would be better playfield for them.
by appreciatorBus | 2026-01-19 20:28:12+00:00
I don't think morality has anything to do with HN's action/lack of action here. They are likely just balancing risk & reward.

How much work to enable auto paywall busting? >$0

How much reward? $0

How much extra risk that a publisher will make your life difficult, regardless of morality or the letter of the law? >0%

I can't imagine why they would bother when HN users seem happy enough to do the work for free.
by MrScruff | 2026-01-19 20:29:50+00:00
Contrast is worse, it's a trade off. For me in most environments there will be bright reflections on the glossy screens, even indoors - your brain actually does a good job of ignoring them to the point you're not even conciously aware most of the time, but when you smear them out with the nano texture display it's just way more comfortable to look at, for me at least.

If I was focused on watching movies, or grading photos in a dark room then glossy would be the way to go.
by andyjohnson0 | 2026-01-19 20:30:07+00:00
> Apple’s Unwanted Tracking (UT) alerts show a notification when a suspicious device is detected moving with the user for at least 840 meters and 10 mins. [...] This suspicious lost device must be an AirTag or AirPod that is separated from its owner and broadcasting rolling public keys.

So if I turn my phone off and get onto a bus or train with a tracking tag, other passengers will get an alert?

Also, the wording indicates that the tag needs to be marked as lost. But could that be used as plausible deniability -- that someone had stolen it -- by a person engaged in illicit tracking?
by crazygringo | 2026-01-19 20:30:20+00:00
I solved this for myself when I discovered "prism glasses":

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=prism+glasses

The comfortable reading position is lying on your back on your bed (or long sofa) with a pillow under your head. You're looking upwards at the ceiling while holding the book upright on your belly.

There's even a clip-on version you can attach to existing prescription glasses.

So simple. Zero strain. You look absolutely dumb, of course, but it lets you read until your brain gets tired, not your neck or lower back or whatever.

If you want to go for truly infinite comfort, use an e-reader held upright by a stand sitting on a breakfast tray with legs placed over and around your belly, with a Bluetooth clicker for page turning. At that point, you basically might as well not even have a body...
by InitialLastName | 2026-01-19 20:30:30+00:00
> You also almost double your odds of success by not using violence.

Admittedly having not read the 400-page study, I don't think that's a causation that is necessarily supported by the correlation. It would be extremely surprising if the prior of "how likely is this movement to succeed" were not a determining factor in whether a movement tends to use violence, with the a priori less-promising movements being more likely to take violent action.

C.F. the difference between me demanding you give me an apple or your car.
by mikepurvis | 2026-01-19 20:30:42+00:00
Facebook's utter failure to moderate itself (as documented many places but especially Careless People) is bigger than just a few weirdos advocating violence. The much more important piece is the fake news that says over and over again "group X did Y", "group X did Y", "group X, they're out there doing Y again". It's the echo chamber that magnifies and amplifies and reinforces untrue and half-true narratives, chasing engagement and fury and ad impressions with zero sense of civic responsibility.

It may be that no individual report is damaging enough to be censor-worthy, but the total effect is massively radicalizing, so that a huge group of people are primed to eventually interpret even true news stories in the maximally negative light and may even see their own eventual jump to violence as being justifiable self-defense given what they believe has preceded it.
by kshri24 | 2026-01-19 20:31:12+00:00
Far from getting a break, you guys are paying tax on tax. You indirectly pay for import taxes every time your companies import raw materials needed to finish their goods (added value) and then that final value (cost of import + added value) has its own sales tax. AFAIK there are no input credits for US sales tax. Then you also have VAT but at least VAT is only on the added value.

Income tax is way better as you can reduce the tax burden by including expenses/deductions. You cannot do the same for tariffs, sales tax and VAT as an end consumer. VAT is only beneficial to businesses as they can subtract inputs from outputs.
by undeveloper | 2026-01-19 20:31:54+00:00
> King vs. Malcolm

Popular history idolizes Dr. King, but without the stick of Malcolm X, King would have been cast aside. Only with both did the movement succeed. An ahistorical false dichotomy. Nonviolence wasn't simply some magic bullet that was magically better than force, it was a political tool that seemed nicer compared to the alternative of force.

> [R]iots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. [...] But at the same time, it is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities [...]. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. [...] [A] riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.

- Dr. MLK.

> India in relation to nonviolence

The Indian case is arguably one of the best cases for violence against a colonizing force. Ghandi brought eyes of the common people towards India and created internal pressures, and additionally functioned as a unifying figure, but without indian revolutionaries nothing would have happened.
by specproc | 2026-01-19 20:32:24+00:00
I have an undergraduate degree in Peace Studies, and have spent extensive time in and around conflict or post-conflict zones.

Violence, particularly civil war, is utterly destructive to a society, completely tears apart the social fabric and creates wounds that never really heal.

That said, when you look at America, India, both movements required the threat of violence to succeed. MLK had the Black Panthers, and whilst Ghandi himself preached non-violence he did so against a background of riots in which thousands of British officers were killed and wounded.

The social reforms Western Europe and America saw in the post-war period were an capitulation to the implicit thread of violent communist revolution.

Non-violence is effective as an alternative to violence.
by moomoo11 | 2026-01-19 20:32:26+00:00
aw poor baby

I really like the coyotes here.

Only dumbass mfs who let their pets off leash (I live in Pac Heights, you're supposed to have a leash on your dog at Lafayette Park and yet every day I see morons letting their dogs off leash OUTSIDE THE DAMN DOG PARK AREA. FUCK OFF!!!!) or let their small children go without supervision where they're not supposed to are at risk.

The worst part is that the authorities will put down the coyote (for being a coyote) and I hate reading stories about coyote culling.

Life would be so much better if morons were fined and eventually displaced into oblivion for making dumbass decisions that could have been easily avoided if they were not so negligent.

But yeah its nice to live in a city with cool nature like that. We have parrots, raccoons (there's a little family of them living near my home), coyotes, owls, hawks. Love it!
by CyberDildonics | 2026-01-19 20:33:12+00:00
these command-line editors with a million commands for different edge-cases

Have you ever actually tried vim? You use the keyboard to move around and search for terms. You don't actually need to learn much.

Why not just use VSCode?

Because it's a bloated electron program that takes huge resources to edit text.

To me the kinds of people using these editors are the kinds of people that love making everything more complex to seem smart.

Seems like insecurity if you've never learned it yourself.
by threethirtytwo | 2026-01-19 20:34:11+00:00
It's common knowledge among LLM experts that the current capabilities of LLMs are triggered as emergent properties of training transformers on reams and reams of data.

That is intent of scale. To trigger LLMs to reach this point of "emergence". Whether or not it's AGI is a debate I'm not willing to entertain but everyone pretty much agrees that there's a point where the scale flips from a transformer being an autocomplete machine to something more than that.

That is legal basis for why companies would go for scale with LLMs. It's the same reason why people are allowed to own knives even though knives are known to be useful for murder (as a side effect).

So technically speaking these companies have legal runway in terms of intent. Making an emergent and helpful AI assistant is not illegal, but also making a profit isn't illegal either.
by realitydrift | 2026-01-19 20:34:18+00:00
Modern burnout is often framed as a personal capacity problem, but it can also be understood as a structural one. Many contemporary systems are optimized to continue rather than conclude. Infinite feeds, open-ended work, delayed decisions, and institutions that rarely say no. Human cognition evolved expecting stop conditions. Indicators that a process is finished and attention can disengage.

When those cues disappear, unresolved cognitive loops accumulate faster than the nervous system can discharge them. The result isn’t acute stress so much as diffuse, persistent load. This short note frames that condition in terms of constraint collapse and feedback inversion, and outlines why adding more tools rarely helps while reducing open variables often does.
by altairprime | 2026-01-19 20:34:41+00:00
The title is misleading: this only modifies the desktop rounded corners, not the app window corners (heavily discussed recently at HN and elsewhere).

The blog post about this is slightly interesting, but mostly feels like a candidate’s position paper on rounded corners, rather than an newsworthy or technical explanation: https://medium.com/@makalin/reclaiming-the-screen-a-develope...

The core innovation is the ctx.fill calls here: https://github.com/makalin/CornerFix/blob/main/Sources/Corne...
by skippyboxedhero | 2026-01-19 20:34:52+00:00
Static analysis in trade is very dangerous. I have never understood why these models are used. These had massive political consequence in the UK during Brexit, close to 100% of the predictions made by these models failed, and they were taken as truth (in the sense that: a prediction was made, and that was reported in the same way as an economic release). There was no real examination of why these known bad models were used.

Calling it a "deadweight loss" also doesn't seem justified by the evidence. It is extremely unclear whether there is a total economic loss because tariffs, if maintained, will have long-term economic consequences. You can point to countries where that went very badly (South American import substitution in the 50/60s, leading to economic free fall by the 80s) and ones where it went very well. It has always seemed quite unclear to me.

The stuff with Europe is also very odd because what do they think sanctions on Russia are? Not just a tariff, a blockade with no revenue raise. But the people who tell you that tariffs are a tax will tell you that sanctions have no issues.

I don't think that tariffs are good either btw. It just seems to a policy choice that is made in a context that can be either good or bad. Europe has massive barriers to trade internally (despite being in a political and economic union) that has been very expensive and harmful because it reduces competition/competitiveness. At least some of the protectionist measures of Trump and Biden are likely to work because the US is fundamentally quite competitive.
by nathan_compton | 2026-01-19 20:35:16+00:00
"All Lives Matter" redirects attention away from the specific thing "Black Lives Matter" was meant to draw attention to, which is that, if you are black specifically your chance of getting killed in an interaction with police is higher. There are other racial issues surfaced by black lives matter, as a slogan, eg, having to do with health care, real estate, etc.

No one things that all lives don't matter, but the statement "black lives matter" is used to highlight specific social problems in the US. It would be like if you cut your finger and asked for a bandaid for your finger, and someone kept saying, "But ALL your fingers are important."
Stop resetting your product philosophy every quarter
by jchitla | 2026-01-19 20:35:48+00:00
most product managers operate like they're perpetually starting from scratch. every quarter brings new frameworks, fresh priorities, and pivot-ready roadmaps. after shipping dozens of features with claude and cursor over the past year, I've noticed something: the PMs who consistently ship meaningful products aren't the ones with the most creative ideas; its super boring:

they're the ones who've developed core product principles and can defend them.

early in my career, I'd enter planning meetings armed with the latest product blog post wisdom, ready to ship whatever seemed compelling that week. my roadmaps looked like whatever was trending.

the breakthrough came when I started treating core beliefs like compiler optimizations rather than configuration files. instead of swapping out my entire product philosophy quarterly, I began iterating on a small set of principles.

now when someone proposes a feature that "users are asking for," I don't scramble for ad-hoc justification. I can immediately connect it back to principle #3: "Optimize for user agency over engagement." when engineering pushes back on scope, principle #7 kicks in: "Shipping incomplete solutions beats perfect vaporware."

the technical parallel is obvious. you don't rewrite your entire codebase every sprint. you refactor, optimize, and build on stable foundations. product strategy should work the same way.

what's counterintuitive is how much this constraint actually increases creative output. when you're not burning cognitive cycles on philosophical debates, you can focus on execution nuances. the best product decisions emerge from deep principle iteration, not principle innovation.

most PMs treat their product beliefs like New Year's resolutions. the ones who ship treat them like algorithms worth optimizing.
by nemomarx | 2026-01-19 20:35:49+00:00
Threads seems to be growing, but I'm also interested in a graph of Twitter usership since the acquisition? The one year view here doesn't really show the full trend.

> A year ago, X had twice as many daily active users in the U.S. as it does now

also this just doesn't seem to be true, at least according to the graph. it looks like 150m to 125m?
by bigyabai | 2026-01-19 20:35:53+00:00
But when you're forced to choose the App Store over the many many alternative .ipa distributors, it's perfectly logical and fair?

Android is a hardware alternative - Apple needs upward pressure to make their services competitive. If you use a Mac this is already obvious, you can't buy industry-standard software on the App Store. They all avoid it like the plague when given the opportunity, and Apple deliberately closes this escape hatch on iOS. Apple has known the App Store isn't good enough for over a decade.

It is an arbitrary and deliberate protectionist monopoly of app distribution. How many trophies does Tim Apple need to give Trump before people get the hint?
by shanewwarren | 2026-01-19 20:37:15+00:00
I've really jumped into this since I watched Geoffrey's videos last week. I ended up creating my own version of this, and have been throwing it small projects so far.

I created a small claude skill, that helps create the "specs" for a new/existing project, it adds a /specs folder with a README, that acts as a lookup for topics/features about the app, technical approach and feature set. Once we've chatted it spawns off subagents to do research and present those findings in the specific spec. In terms of improvements there, I'd almost like a more opinionated back and forth between "pm type" agents, to help test ideas and implementation ideas.

I've got the planning and build loop setup in the claude devcontainer, which is somewhat fragile at the moment, but works for now.

In terms of chewing up context, I've noticed that depending on the size of the project the "IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md" can get pretty massive. If each agent run needs to parse that plan to figure out what to do next it feels like a lot of wasted parsing. I'm working on changing that implementation plan to be more granular so there is less to parse when figuring out what to do next.

Overall, it's been fun and has kept me really engaged the past week.
Show HN: GitClassic.com, GitHub circa 2015 without JS & AI
by heythisischris | 2026-01-19 20:37:30+00:00
Hey HN,

Got tired of how bloated GitHub became- copilot everywhere, janky JS, slow loads. So I built GitClassic, a read-only GitHub interface that's pure server-rendered HTML, kind of like old.reddit.com. No JavaScript.

Try it: https://gitclassic.com

Browse any public repo, files, READMEs. Loads instantly, works on any connection. No account needed for public repos.

Stack: Node on Lambda, server-side rendering, cached against GitHub's API. Pro adds private repo access via GitHub OAuth.

Built this in about 3 hours. Would love feedback on what's missing or broken. Issues are next.

Thanks, Chris
Ask HN: When has humanities/history knowledge helped you in tech?
by amadeuswoo | 2026-01-19 20:37:57+00:00
Personally, I've been reading about how historical empires handled delegation and trust—who gets autonomy, who needs oversight, how that scales. Finding it weirdly applicable to how I think about system design and working with AI tools.

Curious if others have pulled from history/humanities in ways that actually transferred.
by mmooss | 2026-01-19 20:38:13+00:00
> I'll never begrudge science that points out the obvious

People have many beliefs, inaccurate to varying degrees - many to a large degree. Science is a solution to our pretty bad intuitions. Sometimes it discovers they are wrong; sometimes science shows they are correct - it's hindsight to say it was 'obvious'.

Also, I don't think it's obvious to 99.x% that cows use tools.