MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dkersten | 2026-01-27 04:48:02+00:00
Dublin has been relaxing their restrictions for a while now, and when I travelled two weeks ago, had also completely dropped the rules. You no longer need to remove liquids or electronics from bags, and the liquids per bottle limits are much higher (don’t remember exactly, maybe 2 litres) with no restriction on total number of bottles.

I watched a YouTube video about it a few months back and apparently the new devices, at least those used in Dublin, are much more accurate in detecting the difference between materials that previously looked similar to the machines, they can also rotate the images in 3d to get a look from different angles. Both of these make it easier to tell whether a substance is dangerous, apparently.
by com2kid | 2026-01-27 04:49:56+00:00
Important to note MS used to have 2 types of QA:

1. SDETs (software design engineer in test) - same pay scale and hiring requirements as SDEs, they did mostly automated testing and wrote automated test harnesses.

2. STEs (software test engineer) - lower pay scale, manual testing, often vendors. MS used to have lots of STE ftes but they fired most of them in the early 2000s (before I joined in 2007).

An ideal ratio of SDETs to SDEs was 1 to 1, but then SDET teams would have STE vendors doing grunt work.
by necovek | 2026-01-27 04:50:31+00:00
It's not just large amounts of liquids: it was my understanding that this is both a restriction on large amounts of liquid, but particularly on large containers needed for an explosive of sufficient destructive power.

You could always easily work around the liquid amount restriction (multiple containers over multiple people), but if you still need a large container, it becomes harder.

I don't know if this is true or if a resealable plastic bag also works, for instance (that would be funny, wouldn't it?).
by TimorousBestie | 2026-01-27 04:50:37+00:00
If I were in your shoes, I would consider dang’s response in this thread and contemplate whether this is the correct forum for your style of political analysis.

I did observe some of this activity over the past couple days and note that many of your interlocutors were also flagged, downvoted, etc., and not always for clearly legitimate reasons. I turned on showdead for a while just to follow the plot. So it goes.

I think it’s a good policy (in general, not specific to HN) to match your interlocutor’s effort. There’s no return on investment in any case.
by numpad0 | 2026-01-27 04:50:55+00:00
Shinkansen is built like a giant subway. Fixed transponders everywhere, mission control monitoring and coordinating everything, stations right on the main line etc etc. They even use the same callouts as intra-city trains and they've long been at almost GoA 2 levels in train people terms?

I admit that I was a bit uninformed about specifics of Spanish train system in that, the rails were in fact laid by then-Spanish national rail and the operator was then-national company, but still, they don't seem like built and maintained like the BART or the NYC subway that happens to go 200mph in straight sections. That Shinkansen architecture is unique, and that is also guaranteed to be more labor intensive than how everything in most HSRs are.
by elzbardico | 2026-01-27 04:51:18+00:00
You only need this if you are a researcher. Undergraduate knowledge of Calculus and Linear Algebra is more than enough to have quite a good understanding of ML in general, and LLMs in particular.

Maybe a very small bit of Information Theory (a couple of Shannon's papers are enough) and some classical books on Natural Language Processing from the late 90s and early 2000 so you have an idea of what Language Models are outside the modern Deep Learning driven approach.
by achow | 2026-01-27 04:52:20+00:00
> I'm almost certain that you'll hear in the upcoming earnings reports that big tech sent ..billions in advance payment to secure memory supply years from now.

And this would be no different than investing billions in R&D (Ex. Meta and AR) for future payouts.

Or, Apple buying 10K advance CNC machines for their manufacturer. In this case timeline for future payout is perhaps much shorter but the pertinent point will be Apple invested in Capex upfront.
by SinghCoder | 2026-01-27 04:52:37+00:00
We at Qordinate have made a managed version - which works on Telegram, Slack, WhatsApp, and our own app at the moment.
With iMessage, Email, Teams in pipeline.
Think - if you don't want to do the hassle of managing this yourself, you can offload that to us, along with security aspects of prompt injection, and performance aspects of tool search, etc.
If you want to try, it's available for free right now since we are early at https://qordinate.ai
by jpc0 | 2026-01-27 04:53:21+00:00
Every time I see this take I ask myself if the person commenting does not understand that by definition a runtime has to do more work than a strictly compiled version of any said code and therefore can never be quicker.

To steelman your argument, the only case I can see that it is not true is the case where the compiled output is not strictly the fastest solution possible. In that case through I can see the very same LLM just generating significantly better code for in the compiled language.

Given infinite memory all problems can be boiled down to O(1), the reality is that that is unlikely to happen because resources are finite and if there is such a hot path in code you can find it an perform the relevant operations in a compiled language, you can also imply an LLM given access to the runtime metrics.

The thinking that the runtime can solve the problem (cache the correct solution to a dynamic problem) is directly at odds with modern infrastructure that treats services and ephemeral and just kills them. I imagine every time you git push and your CD pipeline runs it ou have a large factor performance degradation for the first X thousands queries.
by sothatsit | 2026-01-27 04:53:31+00:00
People should be able to do full 3d scans of their bodies, and then doctors should be able to tell them what they should ignore. If they spot something abnormal they could suggest coming back 6 months or a year later to check if it has changed, just like mole scans. The problems that you suggest only come from people overreacting to test results. We can do better.
by SirSavary | 2026-01-27 04:53:42+00:00
Yes, because when you hold credentials granted by a board of professionals that require you to sign a code of ethics, using those credentials to amplify your personal opinions comes with accountability.

To be specific: telling people "you're free to leave at any point" when they express concerns about humanity's impact on the planet is the kind of thing psychology boards take issue with, particularly when it comes from someone with a large platform and professional credentials in mental health.
by fartfeatures | 2026-01-27 04:54:37+00:00
They have access to guns, stingrays and flock cameras. They tap every email, message and phone call you make. You wouldn't even know if you are subject to warrantless surveillance as it might be illegal to tell you under the patriot act.

I'm pretty sure being able to access an Airtag that was put into stolen mode by the owner is the least of your concern. I'm not even sure what failure mode you are worried about because you didn't elaborate.

Please don't think I'm trying to be all high and mighty because I live in the UK and am surveilled even worse than you are (although at least our police are very rarely armed).
by minimaltom | 2026-01-27 04:54:38+00:00
This is a really good question.

What convinces me is this: I live in SF and have friends at various top labs, and even ignoring architecture improvements the common theme is this: any time researchers have spent time to improve understanding on some specific part of a domain (whether via SFT or RL or whatever), its always worked. Not superhuman, but measurable, repeatable improvements. In the words of sutskever, "these models.. they just wanna learn".

Inb4 all natural trends are sigmoidal or whatever, but so far, the trend is roughly linear, and we havent seen seen a trace of a plateau.

Theres the common argument that "Ghipiti 3 vs 4 was a much bigger step change" but its not if you consider the progression from much before, i.e. BERT and such, then it looks fairly linear /w a side of noise (fries).
by curtisf | 2026-01-27 04:54:38+00:00
This could be stated much more succinctly using Jobs to be Done (which is referenced in the first few paragraphs):

Your customers don't want to do stuff with AI.

They want to do stuff faster, better, cheaper, and more easily. (JtbD claims you need to be at least 15% better or 15% cheaper than the competition -- so if we're talking "AI", the classical ML or manual human alternative)

If the LLM you're trying to package can't actually solve the problem, obviously no one will buy it because _using AI_ OBVIOUSLY isn't anyone's _job-to-be-done_
by Lwrless | 2026-01-27 04:54:44+00:00
I'm kind of the opposite use case: I own four AirTags, keep them in different bags and suitcases, and I've literally never needed them.
I don't lose any luggage or bags, so most of the time they just sit there quietly burning those CR2032s. For me they've ended up feeling more like they are preventing me from anxiety than doing something that actually changes my life day to day...
by ofalkaed | 2026-01-27 04:55:21+00:00
Bike chain lubes are mostly terrible, they are meant to work properly for maybe a few hundred miles assuming they were applied to a properly cleaned chain, properly applied and the weather cooperates. They all wear chains and chain rings quickly unless you are very good about cleaning and relubing your chain. 3in1 is still king unless you are racing.

I would expect WD-40 to work fairly well because it cleans the chain and gets the filth out of the links, filth is a big part of drive train wear and we really don't need much in the way of lube as long as things are kept clean and rust free so the links move smoothly.
Show HN: A Local OS for LLMs. MIT License. Zero Hallucinations. (Not Crank)
by MohskiBroskiAI | 2026-01-27 04:56:14+00:00
The problem with LLMs isn't intelligence; it's amnesia and dishonesty. Hey HN,
I’ve spent the last few months building Remember-Me, an open-source "Sovereign Brain" stack designed to run entirely offline on consumer hardware.

The core thesis is simple: Don't rent your cognition.

Most RAG (Retrieval Augmented Generation) implementations are just "grep for embeddings." They are messy, imprecise, and prone to hallucination. I wanted to solve the "Context integrity" problem at the architectural layer.

The Tech Stack (How it works):

QDMA (Quantum Dream Memory Architecture): instead of a flat vector DB, it uses a hierarchical projection engine. It separates "Hot" (Recall) from "Cold" (Storage) memory, allowing for effectively infinite context window management via compression.

CSNP (Context Switching Neural Protocol) - The Hallucination Killer: This is the most important part. Every memory fragment is hashed into a Merkle Chain. When the LLM retrieves context, the system cryptographically verifies the retrieval against the immutable ledger.

If the hash doesn't match the chain: The retrieval is rejected.

Result: The AI visually cannot "make things up" about your past because it is mathematically constrained to the ledger. Local Inference: Built on top of llama.cpp server. It runs Llama-3 (or any GGUF) locally. No API keys. No data leaving your machine.

Features:

Zero-Dependency: Runs on Windows/Linux with just Python and a GPU (or CPU).

Visual Interface: Includes a Streamlit-based "Cognitive Interface" to visualize memory states. Open Source: MIT License. This is an attempt to give "Agency" back to the user. I believe that if we want AGI, it needs to be owned by us, not rented via an API.

Repository: https://github.com/merchantmoh-debug/Remember-Me-AI

I’d love to hear your feedback on the Merkle-verification approach. Does constraining the context window effectively solve the "trust" issue for you?

It's fully working - Fully tested. If you tried to Git Clone before without luck - As this is not my first Show HN on this - Feel free to try again.

To everyone who HATES AI slop; Greedy corporations and having their private data stuck on cloud servers.

You're welcome.

Cheers, Mohamad

Authors note: Updated successfully.

Framework 50 is active.

For anyone passing by - yes this is a big deal. Eliminating AI hallucination is a 60 billion dollar market problem and I'm giving THAT + sovereign control of your DATA plus the capability to do high-end research via framework 50 (including advanced scientific research) for FREE - under an MIT license. If you don't take advantage of this - you are an idiot.

If you do - welcome to the future.

P.S: What do I get from lying? I got 36 stars on the repo - many from high-end senior engineers at fortune 500 companies. If you're too stupid to tell the real deal from a lie then keep it moving son.
Tell HN: Ask your AI, "What can you tell me that you know about me?" to see ...
by marcuswestin | 2026-01-27 04:56:23+00:00
... to get an interesting glimpse into what they know about you already.

At least, I did.

I then followed up with:

"That’s fascinating, thank you. Please tell me more things that you know about me."

and, in a new thread:

"I want to tell you about myself so that you can help me better, but I first need to know everything you already know about me."

It felt a bit like asking an ad targeting platform to tell me how it targets me.

I also asked it to speculate about me:

"Based on what you know about me, what would you say about:
- my political leanings
- my sexual orientation
- my sleep schedule
- my most likely big purchases in 2026
- my color preferences
- my general state of health
..."

GPT refused to speculate on my political leanings and sexual orientation, but did give me some unexpected data points.

Finally, I tried to get its help to figure out what else I could ask it about myself:

"What are other questions that I could ask you, that might help me better understand what else I might need to tell you about myself (in order for you to know me; I first need to know everything you already know about me)?

I then asked some of those questions, and got some surprising perspectives.

I'd be curious to know what others might be surprised by what their AIs know about them.
by gitaarik | 2026-01-27 04:57:45+00:00
But you can iterate over the code until you like it. If you don't review the code, you risk slop. But reviewing takes time, and most people don't do that in the prototyping stage, because the code might still significantly change. But as your project matures you become more critical of the code and you review it more closely. And over time you also get more feeling of how to work with the AI to get the results you want.
by csomar | 2026-01-27 04:58:02+00:00
I always thought the rule was about damage (liquid spilling onto your bag and other passengers' bags) rather than safety? That's based on how the rule was shaped: 100ml containers with no limits as long as in a sealed plastic bag.

I wonder if they'll walk this back? If you put a 2L water bottle in the overhead compartment and hit enough turbulence, it could open and drench the entire compartment and other people's luggage.
by jandrewrogers | 2026-01-27 04:58:34+00:00
This just adds confusion as to the purpose of all this.

The motivation behind the liquid limits is that there are extremely powerful explosives that are stable water-like liquids. Average people have never heard of them because they aren’t in popular lore. There has never been an industrial or military use, solids are simpler. Nonetheless, these explosives are easily accessible to a knowledgeable chemist like me.

These explosives can be detected via infrared spectroscopy but that isn’t going to be happening to liquids in your bag. This reminds me of the chemical swipes done on your bags to detect explosives. Those swipes can only detect a narrow set of explosive chemistries and everyone knows it. Some explosives notoriously popular with terror organizations can’t be detected. Everyone, including the bad guys, knows all of this.

It would be great if governments were more explicit about precisely what all of this theater is intended to prevent.
by lotsofpulp | 2026-01-27 04:59:00+00:00
I diligently put airtags in all of my luggage, but I forgot to put it in a box I checked in on my last flight. That’s the one checked luggage that didn’t show up at the baggage carousel, in my entire life.

I had it delivered to me the next day, but I must have used air tags for checked luggage a 50+ times before.
by wolfi1 | 2026-01-27 04:59:57+00:00
I once had a problem with the ignition lock I couldn't turn the key, my mechanic told me that that could happen on a very hot day with that model. "use a lubricant or wait till it's colder" - "Would WD-40 do?" -"Guess so" made it worse. with the help of the AAA (well, the equivalent in my country) and an oil spray I could turn the key, since then I've always an oil spray with me
by dankwizard | 2026-01-27 05:00:50+00:00
I get your sentiment but a lot of people on this forum forget that a lot of us are just working for the paycheck - I don't owe my company anything.

Do I know the code base like the back of my hand? Nope. Can I confidently talk to how certain functions work? Not a chance.

Can I deploy what the business wants? Yep. Can I throw error logs into LLMs and work out the cause of issues? Mostly.

I get some of you may want to go above and beyond for your company and truly create something beautiful but then guess what - That codebase is theirs. They aren't your family. Get paid and move on
by msla | 2026-01-27 05:01:49+00:00
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_and_Medical_Leave_Act_o...

> The FMLA allows eligible employees to take up to 12 work weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period to care for a new child, care for a seriously ill family member, or recover from a serious illness.

There's limitations on that, but the common idea that Americans don't have healthcare is unfounded and appallingly ignorant.
by alx_sukhanov | 2026-01-27 05:02:19+00:00
A good exit used to seem boring: we already know the family will be financially very well off. That said, it would be interesting to move away from deterministic modeling and build a stochastic version, where we explicitly account for probabilities of success as a function of age, integrate RSU appreciation, and incorporate target net worth.

I suspect there’s a net worth threshold at which, probabilistically, pursuing a startup becomes more likely to get you there than staying in big tech.
by Spooky23 | 2026-01-27 05:02:46+00:00
The Windows ecosystem is insanely complex. And they supported it, because of the focus on QA and testing the company adopted 20 years ago after the Blaster worm.

I have a few pretty awesome teams stuck managing windows. They find bugs all of the time. The process of fixing them now practically requires a detachment of druids and Stonehenge to track where in the windows/lunar/solar cycles we are and how to deal with the bullshit & roadblocks the support and product teams throw up. If you fall for their tricks, you’ll miss the feature window… no fix for 18 months.

It used to be much easier as a customer in ye olden times, and I never felt that the counterparty at Microsoft was miserable or getting punished for doing their jobs. We feel that now as customers. You didn’t establish relationships with engineers like with other vendors, but there was a different vibe.

The focus of the company moved in to Azure, service ops, etc.
by lellansin | 2026-01-27 05:03:42+00:00
Hi HN,

I wrote an analysis on why Cursor’s Rules approach never became a real standard, while Claude Skills are starting to look like a structural advantage for Anthropic.

At a surface level, both try to solve the same problem:
making LLMs behave consistently in specific contexts using reusable constraints.

But the difference isn’t about timing or execution quality — it’s about where the capability lives.

Cursor Rules exist at the application layer. They rely on prompt composition and runtime conventions to influence model behavior. That makes them inherently external, fragile, and hard to standardize across models.

Claude Skills, on the other hand, are being internalized at the model level. Once a capability is baked into the model’s reasoning and execution path, it becomes more stable, more reusable, and — most importantly — measurable at scale.

This leads to a larger observation:

As scaling on raw internet text slows down, the next frontier for LLMs may not be better text prediction, but better behavior prediction — learning which action or step should come next, not just which token.

By standardizing skills, model providers can collect structured data about real-world capability usage, reinforce effective behavior patterns, and continuously fold them back into the base model. That feedback loop is something downstream tools simply can’t replicate.

I’d love to hear thoughts from people building IDE tools, agents, or model infrastructure — especially where you think the boundary between “tool-level scaffolding” and “model-level capability” should live.

Link to the full post:
https://lellansin.github.io/2026/01/27/Why-Cursor-Rules-Fail...
by dang | 2026-01-27 05:04:12+00:00
"Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
by dang | 2026-01-27 05:04:43+00:00
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
by throw10920 | 2026-01-27 05:05:01+00:00
Can you provide a source for your claims about what users want?

I think that hackers want a

> simple, clean, minimal, consistent OS that does not have anyone's interests first except the user

...and those are things that I think are good and I want - but my interactions with normal people (which constitute the vast majority of Windows' userbase) consistently indicate that they have different priorities, such as cost, ease of use, familiarity, software compatibility, and a "modern" appearance (which often directly goes against actually good UX principles).
by maxdo | 2026-01-27 05:05:25+00:00
Yes… 90% and no 10%.

Speaking as someone who spent 8 years building nocode tools, had two exits, and stepped out of the industry last year: I’m not bitter, and I’m not cheerleading either.

For apps—where “nocode” is basically an App template /API template builder it was always 50% useful, 50% marketing to sell you extra services. You still need an advanced builder mindset: people who think like engineers, but don’t want to write code. That’s a weird combo, and it’s really hard to find consistently.

For business logic, it’s almost the opposite. Nocode can give you a clean, visual UX—a clear map of how the logic is connected instead of a spaghetti mess in code. That value sticks around wherever “explain how this works” matters. Not everywhere, but definitely enough places for a real market.

a twist of that could be a hybrid that explains how it was built, has some quick controls, and not just typing prompt. e.g. NoCode agentic UI.