MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by plutodev | 2026-01-22 03:30:20+00:00
Nice work the next-edit framing matches how real refactors happen much better than token-level autocomplete.

The diff-format insight is especially interesting. Smaller models struggling with unified diffs lines up with what I’ve seen too simpler original/updated blocks reduce noise and improve intent capture.

On the infra side, training a 1.5B model in ~4 hours on 8×H100 is impressive. For folks experimenting with similar mid-scale models, we’ve been running comparable workloads on decentralized GPU aggregators (I’ve used io.net) to avoid cloud quota limits and keep costs predictable with the tradeoff that you handle orchestration yourself.

Curious if you saw diminishing returns when including older edits as context? That cutoff seems tricky in larger repos.
by billllll | 2026-01-22 03:30:20+00:00
It's less a binary pay/no pay, and more the value of accessing the dev tools. If you consider the fact that AI companies are most likely losing money running the models, then AI tools are incredibly cheap - they're in some ways paying you to use it.

No model maker is going to try to generate a profit off users using their models, they're gonna try to generate it some other way - much like dev tools.
by josephg | 2026-01-22 03:30:22+00:00
> Coming from the perspective of an eclipse fan, why is VS code the defacto answer nowadays?

Is eclipse good now? I used it 15 years ago. It took ages to start. It was a memory hog and it was dog slow besides. My entire team got RAM upgrades on our computers because the default company issued machines (which were quite good at the time) didn't have enough RAM to use eclipse properly.

I can't imagine why it went out of favour...
by bdcravens | 2026-01-22 03:31:12+00:00
For sure, and I definitely like the visual eye of designers, which is why I'm referring to designs created by humans (and to be honest, LLMs do an amazing job of creating decent looking designs).

I guess the bigger question is even ignoring the LLM angle is why this project is worth 10-30x than another design also created by a human. I feel like the Ruby gem and integration is worth a premium, but I'm not sure that the premium matches what you're charging. I've purchased third party themes and paid someone on Upwork to "Railsify" them, leaving me with ownership of the code, and I'm pretty sure I paid less than you're charging for the team level. (I hope you don't take this as a personal attack on your business model, and simply an analysis of X vs Y)
by stevenicr | 2026-01-22 03:31:25+00:00
I've watched a few with Jack Roberts recently, ( https://www.youtube.com/@Itssssss_Jack ) - lately he's done a few showing use of antigravity -

not sure these would qualify for 'good resources' - that really depends on many factors. However at least one or two of his showing 'how to use' does check the boxes of your 1,2, and 3 - surely not a complete "here is everything you can do" - but not sure such a thing exists.

maybe good tips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxMjOqM7DFs&t=541s

I liked info from the talks here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOqgFNlbrYE

I have some open tabs for going through the learning the openai codex has online - I poked into a couple and they seem very good.

Running openai codex inside vscode right now and claude code via web -

will be setting up a new computer do run these things, not sure I trust the power they have to run on main box.
by autoexec | 2026-01-22 03:32:01+00:00
> If voters didn't vote for your candidate, your candidate failed. The voters didn't fail. The candidate did.

Voters aren't immune from failure. Voters fail when they stay home and don't bother to vote at all, when they remain ignorant/uneducated, when they vote for a party/team instead of the candidate, etc.

It's tempting to let voters off the hook when candidates lie to their faces but ultimately it falls on voters to be aware of the track record of the candidates, be educated on the issues, and use a little critical thinking. I certainly can't feel too bad for them when they reelect a candidate who already screwed them over once already. Everyone knows the old saying: "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me... you can't get fooled again."
by tzs | 2026-01-22 03:32:30+00:00
It is possible to have a system that works as follows:

1. People vote on paper ballots by filling in an oval next the candidate they wish to vote for. They fill the oval with a marker provided by the election officials.

2. These ballots can be counted by hand, but they can also be counted by optical scan machines to get fast results. Optical scan machines do not have to be computerized--they have been around since the 1950s long before there were computers small enough and/or cheap enough to use for this. No computer means no software to get hacked.

Almost half of registered voters live in districts that already use that kind of ballot and already count it with optical scan machines.

3. By the use of some nifty chemistry and some clever cryptography an end-to-end auditable voting system can be overlayed on this.

End-to-end auditable voting systems (also called end-to-end voter verifiable systems) have these properties:

• Individuals can verify that their ballot was included in the final count and they vote was attributed correctly.

• Any third party can verify that the ballots were counted correctly. The candidates, the parties, news organization, civil rights groups, and anyone else can check.

• Voters cannot prove to third parties who they voted for. This is called coercion-resistance.

Here is such a system, developed by several well known cryptographers including David Chaum and Ron Rivest [1]. Here's a paper in HTML with the details [2]. Here's a PDF of that paper [3]. Here's a paper showing that it is coercion-resistant.

This is compatible with existing optical scan machines, so the places already using them don't need new machines.

The magic happens in printing the ballots. Inside each oval they print a code in a special invisible ink. When the special marker provided by the election officials is used to fill in the oval that code becomes visible.

If you want to be able to later verify that your particular vote was included and counted correctly you memorize or write down that code. If you don't care about this you can ignore it.

After the voting is done officials can publish all the codes that were revealed and voters can check to make sure their code was included. They officials publish other information that through the use of clever cryptographic techniques allows anyone to use the published codes to verify the totals for all the candidates without revealing the mapping from codes to candidates.

This gives us all the good points of paper systems that can be hand counted, plus fast machine counting that can be done with simple single purpose machines that have no software to be hacked, yet with the kind of end-to-end auditing that usually requires computerized voting systems to achieve. And it is inexpensive to implement and operate.

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

[2] https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/evt08/tech/full_papers/c...

[3] https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/evt08/tech/full_papers/c...

[4] https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/502.pdf
by nick238 | 2026-01-22 03:33:07+00:00
While "The Liberator" (one of the first 3d printed guns) was interesting as a test of the technology and what it means for the law, I don't know if I'd trust using one to not blow up in my hands. Pretty sure you could assemble a zip gun in a Home Depot (they even sell cartridges for powder-actuated tools) that's less dangerous for you, more dangerous downrange.

It is a total mystery how the Washington bill's cited "blocking technology" is supposed to work. If you load a pipe-shaped object into your CAM software, how the hell is it supposed to know if it's an illegal firearm part or just a manifold? Maybe before each time it generates some G-code, you need to submit a signed affidavit to the government, and they'll conduct an investigation. Three months later you can print your fidget spinner.
by dang | 2026-01-22 03:35:01+00:00
Related prior work:

Xor Filters: Faster and Smaller Than Bloom and Cuckoo Filters - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22742905 - March 2020 (25 comments)

Xor Filters: Faster and Smaller Than Bloom Filters - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21840821 - Dec 2019 (81 comments)
by skeptic_ai | 2026-01-22 03:35:44+00:00
Do you think dod would use Anthropic even with lower guardrails?

How can I kill this terrorist in the middle on civilians with max 20% casualties?

If Claude will answer: “sorry can’t help with that “ won’t be useful, right?

Therefore the logic is they need to answer all the hard questions.

Therefore as I’ve been saying for many times already they are sketchy.
by johnnyanmac | 2026-01-22 03:37:06+00:00
That's absolutely not true in pretty much any mid scale software. You can have a team of 5 people make the core of an app, then need 50 people to help with support for customers. scaling up is never cheap, but software scalability is really low despite that.

That's not even true with a car. I'm about to spend 3000 dollars on a big repair for a car I bought 9 years ago used @ 3500. Even if you adjust for inflation we're still talking about 70% of the car's worth just to keep it running. As for a refund, the blue book value tops at 850 dollars.
Show HN: Markdown TOC generator for JavaScript builds.Works recursively for repo
by datalackey | 2026-01-22 03:37:44+00:00
Unlike most tools that auto-generate Table Of Contents (TOCs) for a single
Markdown file, update-markdown-toc also supports:

– recursive TOC updates across all Markdown files within a folder hierarchy

– a --check mode for CI use, which only passes if all TOCs in all Markdown files
are up-to-date with respect to the section headers in their respective files

Single-file operation is still supported, but the primary motivation for this
tool was repository-wide correctness in CI and build-system workflows.

Behavior is intentionally conservative:
– explicit start/end markers (no heuristic detection)
– deterministic output
– idempotent writes
– strict single-file mode vs lenient recursive traversal

Posting in case this is useful to others with similar workflows.

Repo + docs:
https://github.com/datalackey/build-tools/tree/main/javascri...

npm:
https://www.npmjs.com/package/@datalackey/update-markdown-to...
by JanisErdmanis | 2026-01-22 03:39:38+00:00
> It’s difficult to make an E2E-VIV checking app that’s both trustworthy and receipt-free. The best solutions known allow checking only of votes that will be discarded, and casting of votes that haven’t been checked; this is highly counterintuitive for most voters!

Actually, Benaloh's challenge also does not offer receipt freeness. The adversarial strategy in such a model is to outsource the challenger itself in a hash function which decides whether to accept or discard the vote. It may look impractical at first, but one can build an app that could do that efficiently.

It can be said that all existing end-to-end verifiable remote e-voting systems compromise individual verifiability when reconciling it with receipt-freeness by introducing an assumption about the hardware-based protection of voters' secrets. If they leak or are predetermined by a corrupt vendor implementation, the malware on the voter's client can manipulate the vote at submission, and the adversary later fakes verification for the voter by exploiting that knowledge.

Still, I believe it's a solvable problem which needs more attention. Bingo evoting system is almost there, for instance, with verifiably random generated trackers, but needs a voting booth with a Bingo machine taken at home.
by toast0 | 2026-01-22 03:39:56+00:00
> There's also nothing to prevent bad actors from destroying ballots in large quantities.

Around here (WA state), you can check to see if your ballot was received and accepted. If a bad actor destroys ballots in large quantities on their way to voters, many voters will notice and complain. If a bad actor destroys ballots in large quantities on their way to to the counting facility, some voters are likely to notice and complain.

Same goes if you return ballots for other people. Either the actual voter notices their ballot is missing or the vote counters notice they got two ballots from the same voter or a larger than usual number of bad signatures.

Is it foolproof? No. And there's usually no established procedure to cure a tampered election, either. But large scale tampering is likely to leave signs. And small scale tampering would only rarely make a difference in results.

In person voting might be more secure, but it takes a lot more people, and if you want an ID requirement, you need to figure out how to make ID acheivable for all the voters or it's really just a tool to disenfranchise people who have trouble getting ID. In the US, there is no blanket ID requirement, so there are a lot of eligible voters without ID.
Ask HN: CVAT users, how do you QA labels?
by Abderrahman54 | 2026-01-22 03:39:57+00:00
Hi HN, AJ here.

CVAT users: how do you do QA? consistency and regression debugging.

We forked CVAT into CVAT-DATAUP to improve that loop (submit/review/accept, dataset/class insights, and starting on eval + visual error analysis).

Looking for a few early users who use CVAT to work closely with them and iterate with feedback.

Repo: https://github.com/dataup-io/cvat-dataup
by doubled112 | 2026-01-22 03:40:15+00:00
Wanting to be able to use anybody's machine is very strange, agreed.

From a support/IT perspective though, the closer everybody's machine is, the easier the job is.

The last software shop I worked at, we had a default set of tools and configs. It was a known happy path. You were allowed to adventure off of that path, but you were mostly on your own.
Show HN: Roo Code Slack: end to end agentic workflow in Slack
by hrudolph | 2026-01-22 03:40:22+00:00
Roo Code integrates directly with Slack to create an end to end agentic workflow. Start a discussion in Slack, get an actionable plan, modify the plan if needed, and then generate code all within Slack. You can preview changes, push to GitHub, and run tests without leaving your chat. Watch the video linked above for a full demonstration of how it works.
by kasey_junk | 2026-01-22 03:40:35+00:00
It’s not just that the market isn’t deep enough. The current incarnation of EU bonds are not secured the same way typical sovereign bonds are. And they sort of can’t be without the member states ceding more sovereignty.

We’ll see if the EU member countries can approve a framework for bonds that are closer to a treasury in its guarantees, I’m skeptical but it could happen, but they don’t exist right now.
by fsckboy | 2026-01-22 03:40:41+00:00
>We can't "move back", it's where we are.

vote by mail (and similar ballot harvesting, bulk ballot dropoffs with hazy chain-of-custody as from a nursing homes and immigrant communities) are new, based on paper, and open to abuse.

It's not where we were.

traditional absentee balloting was a small scale thing used by college students, military personnel, etc. and if it was messed up, it was not likely to change outcomes or a threat to counting accurately (no election is perfect)
by johnnyanmac | 2026-01-22 03:41:08+00:00
Such consultancies feel like a dying art for the new work force. To consult, you need to be trusted. To be trusted, you need to already have experience working with software at scale. To get that experience you need to go through events like mass layoffs every few years, which limits your expertiese built.

I very much worry for Gen Z. Through no fault of their own.
by jan_Inkepa | 2026-01-22 03:41:13+00:00
>Hence you gain nothing

You're saying you get nothing, but you perhaps underestimate how time-consuming and expensive even the easiest company shut down in the Germany is. (I had a very smooth process winding down my company in the UK - you have my very sincere sympathies that things are a bit rockier for you).

>if your main shareholders and directors are physically in Germany and you reseat the company to where-ever, Germany is going to see and act like this is a de-facto German company. Hence you gain nothing, you get more paper work.

Looking online, here's a german tax-advisor who talks about the strategy of liquidating your company by first merging it with a uk company, saying you can close a company in 4-6 weeks by this process (though they recommend against it after brexit for liability reasons, but mention Ireland and malta as options). In germany you have a year of waiting, and lots of additional notary/accounts work. (OTOH, I don't know how you get it down to 4-6 weeks and avoid the uk's company house gazette notification period - they must pick a different kind of company - if your fees for closing down a company in germany are going into the thousands (or tens of thousands) for notaries, liquidators fees, and the like).

https://www.stmatthew.de/brexit-gmbh-sitzverlegung

Once again, not my specialty area, I just...wanted you to know that it does happen, is a specialty area of work for some companies, and it's presumably not irrational behaviour.
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 | 2026-01-22 03:41:55+00:00
I had guessed it was the WorldCat litigation as Tucows, one of the defendant's registrars, was receiving copies of the pleadings

In that case, the issue of whether "scraping" is a tort under Ohio law seems to be unsettled and the question has been submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court

Anyway, it appears that the largest consumers of these archives are "AI" companies

I have read that Spotify is already full of "AI"-generated garbage
by asdff | 2026-01-22 03:42:16+00:00
Eventually it won’t matter. People will forget what it was like to have authentic content. They’d look at it like how we might view monks in the middle ages copying the bible a hundred times by hand.

Even today people don’t even trust themselves to write an email. You see people on HN and reddit openly admitting they used ai to help make their post because they believe they cannot write. The march to illiteracy and ignorance is already taking foot.
by johnnyanmac | 2026-01-22 03:42:54+00:00
And if no one takes your price, you fail as a business. I think that's the concern. There's not a lot of vectors I feel I can jump in to say "I'll do this for 1000/hr" without getting some bulging eyes. Because I don't have the credibility to back that up.

How to get credibilty? Well, you gotta be in industry. The thing the two consultants here are besmirching. You can't win.
by nl | 2026-01-22 03:43:13+00:00
I just tried this on a production PR and I liked it. It found some things that Claude review missed, but missed some that Codex review found.

I'd rank this the best of the three.

Generally I actually like Gemini reviews a lot (I guess code review tasks stop it going off track drunk like Gemini tends to do when coding?) but at the moment for some reason my Gemini auth is broken and I can't work out how to fix it. Yay Google.
by manquer | 2026-01-22 03:43:41+00:00
> knock-off

Is it though? It feels so better than Google results[1], while being still built partly with Google results.

In the last 3 years as a Kagi customer i have rarely if ever felt the need to use bangs !g and on few occasions i did use them, it was with instant regret.

In the previous decade or so using DDG, using bangs !g Google would be 30-50% of searches, i would have to consciously try the results first instead of starting with !g and then think to myself DDG was at least getting the query data to improve their results.

[1] While the de-cluttered UI is a relief, on just the results list comparison, Google search is so bad that less time saved in not redrafting the queries constantly, filtering out the spam, the AI summaries, sponsored content, all the "cards" , recommended search listicles on is worth more than the $10/month.
by Abderrahman54 | 2026-01-22 03:43:45+00:00
A bit more detail for anyone curious:
CVAT-DATAUP is a CVAT-compatible fork. Today it adds workflow signals (submit/review/accept) + dataset/class distribution views.
Next thing we’re building is “eval close to the dataset”: compare runs, slice failures, click from metric to the exact images/labels.

If you’re using CVAT in production, I’d love to learn:

how you enforce label consistency across annotators

what your QA sampling strategy looks like

how you debug regressions (what do you look at first?)

If you want to try it, be in touch:)
by groundzeros2015 | 2026-01-22 03:43:50+00:00
Everyone thinks their thing is too special for markets. I’m sure you’ve heard the argument for healthcare, education, energy, water, food, science, infrastructure, etc.

We need to realign on this politically; either we use markets to allocate scarce resources or we don’t.

The answer is probably that the public does not believe in markets. But we haven’t made that explicit, and instead have the worst combinations of policies; with worse service and enabling grifters.
by PaulDavisThe1st | 2026-01-22 03:44:42+00:00
> The most important feature of public elections is trust.

I think that perhaps you meant to say that the easiest thing about public elections to undermine is trust. You don't need to actually hack the ballots, send in fake electors, or any other actively nefarious stuff. Just undermine people's "trust" in elections (ironically by talking about how important that "trust" is), and voila, you've done much more harm to an election process than anything we have actual evidence for.
by foofoo55 | 2026-01-22 03:45:51+00:00
Supply management does have its problems, but given the involvement of imperfect humans nothing will be without problems. Canadian pork, beef, and vegetable farmers that I personally know also complain that they can't enact supply management for their sector. They also envy the appearance of high profits, an easy life, and government subsidies & bailouts (yes, Canadian dairy farmers still receive those) for those in a supply managed sector.

At the end of the day, consumers get stable and somewhat realistic prices and supply, while farmers also get stable income.
by vinibrito | 2026-01-22 03:45:54+00:00
Yeah, mine did, when chatgpt 3.5 came out I thought it was a fun incoherent toy and dedicated all of 10 minutes to it.

Last year I started using it as a copilot and in the second semester I started building AI/LLM based sales and marketing systems that now are most of my income.

I'm becoming one of those "and this is just the beggining for AI" enthusiasts :P
by autoexec | 2026-01-22 03:46:45+00:00
> Everyone loves the mom and pop businesses but shops at walmart for those rock bottom prices.

People shop where they can afford to shop. Walmart is famous for not paying people enough to shop anywhere except walmart. The fix is to make sure that people earn a living wage and to actually enforce the Robinson–Patman Act and aggressively go after price fixing. Suddenly walmart's prices won't undercut the mom and pop places and they won't have to charge as much to just barely survive. Opening a store that isn't part of some massive chain would stand a chance at being profitable and affordable. More competition leads to more innovation and more opportunities.
by johnnyanmac | 2026-01-22 03:47:04+00:00
>It's easy for companies to fall into such pits of inefficiency because climbing out of those pits entails utterly gutting the headcount [*].

It's also simply because no one will give you clearance to get out of those pitfalls. When you grow, you're focused on features, not optimization.

Bending spoons' approach isn't to grow, so you finally get to optimize what you couldn't... assuming you weren't already laid off by then.

>Imagine the equivalent for a building

buildings have regulations. And that word is still a boogeyman to many in the field of software.