MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Normal_gaussian | 2026-01-07 00:19:25+00:00
No, there isn't a plug and play one yet, but I've have great success with Home Assistant and the Home Assistant Voice Preview edition and its goal is pretty much to get rid of Alexa.

I'd imagine you'd have a bunch of cheap ones in the house that are all WiFi + Mic + Speakers, streaming back to your actual voice processing box (which would cost a wee bit more, but also have local access to all the data it needs).

You can see quite quickly that this becomes just another program running on a host, so if you use a slightly beefier machine and chuck a WiFi card in as well you've got your WiFi extenders.
by CuriousSkeptic | 2026-01-07 00:19:48+00:00
A lot of NVC writing is pretty bad. I recommend going directly to the source https://youtu.be/l7TONauJGfc (3h video, but worth the time)

I think NVC is better understood as a framework to reach deep non-judging empathic understanding than a speech pattern. If you are not really engaging in curious exploration of the other party using the OFNR framework before trying to deliver your own request I don’t think you can really call it NVC. At the very least it will be very hard to get your point across even with OFNR if ot validating the receiver.

Validation being another word needing disambiguation I suppose. I see it as the act of expressing non-judging emphatic understanding. Using the OFNR framework with active listening can be a great approach.

A similar framework is the evaporating clouds of Theory of Constraints: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporating_cloud

Also see Kants categorical imperative: moral actions must be based on principles that respect the dignity and autonomy of all individuals, rather than personal desires or outcomes
by zbentley | 2026-01-07 00:19:54+00:00
Limbo and Turso's other tools seem interesting, but the listed limitation of “no multi process database access” is pretty huge.

If you don’t need that, then great—Turso/Limbo might be for you! But there are a ton of use cases out there that rely on SQLite for simultaneous multiprocess access. And I’m not even talking about things that use it from forking servers or for coordination (though those are surprisingly common as well)—instead, lots of processes that use SQLite 99.9% of the time from one process still need it to be multiprocess-authoritative for e.g. data exports, “can I open two copies of an app far enough to get a ‘one is already running’ error?”-type use cases, extensions/plugins, maintenance scripts, etc. not having to worry about cross-process lock files thanks to SQLite is a significant benefit for those.
by kypro | 2026-01-07 00:20:04+00:00
It's been interesting watching HN shift in my direction on this in recent weeks...

I had been saying since around summer of this year that coding agents were getting extremely good. The base model improvements were ok, but the agentic coding wrappers were basically game changers if you were using them right. Until recently they still felt very context limited, but the context problem increasingly feels like a solved problem.

I had some arguments on here in the summer about how it was stupid to hire junior devs at this point and how in a few years you probably wouldn't need senior devs for 90% of development tasks either. This was an aggressive prediction 6 months ago, but I think it's way too conservative now.

Today we have people at our company who have never written code building and shipping bespoke products. We've also started hiring people who can simply prove they can build products for us using AI in a single day. These are not software engineers because we are paying them wages no SWEs would accept, but it's still a decent wage for a 20 something year old without any real coding skills but who is interested in building stuff.

This is something I wouldn't have never of expected to be possible 6 months ago. In 6 months we've gone from senior developers writing ~50% of their code with AI, to just a handful of senior developers who now write close to 90% of their code with AI while they support a bunch of non-developers pumping out a steady stream of shippable products and features.

Software engineers and traditional software engineer is genuinely running on borrowed time right now. It's not that there will be no jobs for knowledgable software engineers in the coming years, but companies simply won't need many hotshot SWEs anymore. The companies that are hiring significant numbers of software engineers today simply can not have realised how much things have changed over just the last few months. Apart from the top 1-2% of talent I simply see no good reason to hire a SWE for anything anymore. And honestly outside of niche areas, anyone hand-cracking code today is a dinosaur... A good SWE today should see their job as simply reviewing code and prompting.

If you think that the quality of code LLMs produce today isn't up to scratch you've either not used the latest models and tools or you're using them wrong. That's not to say it's the best code – they still have a tendency to overcomplicate things in my opinion – but it's probably better than the average senior software engineer. And that's really all that matters.

I'm writing this because if you're reading this thinking we're basically still in 2024 with slightly better models and tooling you're just wrong and you're probably not prepared for what's coming.
by libraryofbabel | 2026-01-07 00:20:08+00:00
Thanks for posting this. It's a nice reminder that despite all the noise from hype-mongers and skeptics in the past few years, most of us here are just trying to figure this all out with an open mind and are ready to change our opinions when the facts change. And a lot of people in the industry that I respect on HN or elsewhere have changed their minds about this stuff in the last year, having previously been quite justifiably skeptical. We're not in 2023 anymore.

If you were someone saying at the start of 2025 "this is a flash in the pan and a bunch of hype, it's not going to fundamentally change how we write code", that was still a reasonable belief to hold back then. At the start of 2026 that position is basically untenable: it's just burying your head in the sand and wishing for AI to go away. If you're someone who still holds it you really really need to download Claude Code and set it to Opus and start trying it with an open mind: I don't know what else to tell you. So now the question has shifted from whether this is going to transform our profession (it is), to how exactly it's going to play out. I personally don't think we will be replacing human engineers anytime soon ("coders", maybe!), but I'm prepared to change my mind on that too if the facts change. We'll see.

I was a fellow mind-changer, although it was back around the first half of last year when Claude Code was good enough to do things for me in a mature codebase under supervision. It clearly still had a long way to go but it was at that tipping point from "not really useful" to "useful". But Opus 4.5 is something different - I don't feel I have to keep pulling it back on track in quite the way I used to with Sonnet 3.7, 4, even Sonnet 4.5.

For the record, I still think we're in a bubble. AI companies are overvalued. But that's a separate question from whether this is going to change the software development profession.
by Brian_K_White | 2026-01-07 00:20:57+00:00
Very nice framework.

I think there is yet some other thing which has a bit of both your Meaningful and Value. Stuff that you decide you should do not precisely (or maybe precisely and this comment is just not well enough considered) because it's meaningful to you but because you just feel it should be done.

Maybe because you just recognize that someone has to do it and you should at least take your turn if not make it your whole life. Maybe because you want to live in a world where it gets done, even if you live in a society that doesn't provide for it to get done. (no one will pay you or anyone else to do it)

Phrasing these things as meaningful makes it into something someone else can say is simply your choice. If it's important to you, you can do it. And let you shoulder the entire burden for something they absolutely benefit from and should be pitching in their fair share towards in some form or another, if not tax money then time or effort, something.

It is definitely meaningful for some people, the people that are so moved that they actually give their time & energy, but those are people for whom it's actually a large part of their life & identity. I'm not like that. I am not going to volunteer for whole shifts anywhere. I care about a strangers problems intellectually. I care in the sense that I want it dealt with humanely with dignity as if I had the problem myself. I don't care directly and personally, emotionally, unless they are somehow close to me. But I would happily pitch in my fair share if we all were, because it would be small.

It's partially value because we all get value from living in the better world thanks to the various thankless tasks some people perform.

Eh, maybe I'm arguing up the wrong tree and what you expressed already covers this.

I am thinking something like "This thing should get done not because I derive meaning from it.", but really maybe what you're talking about isn't even trying to deny that. The point would still be that I might choose to commit a certain amount of my life capital towards something, because of a certain amount of value and meaning that I, let's say recognize not derive or get, from it.

I'm leaving out fun. You can have fun cooking soup for the homeless. I can not imagine having fun cleaning someone who can't clean themselves and can't pay you to do it.
by thesz | 2026-01-07 00:21:10+00:00
> not sure what you're missing at this point.

We are talking with audience reading our comments. You think you are talking to me but you are talking to much wider audience.

Everyone, including me, are making some assumptions when we are writing something. When it is technical, it is easy to verify - obtain source code, run it, check results. When it is somewhat managerial, it is much harder to verify.

For example, original post emphasizing Stack Overflow being scaling monolith (pun intended) may refer to the point of time when SO were run by basically one man, yet scaling.

You dismiss it, that's okay. You do not answer my or OP points, that's okay too.

Our readers are smart enough to judge OP (and ours) points on their merits.
by threeducks | 2026-01-07 00:21:37+00:00
A while ago, I also implemented a dense eigenvalue solver in Python following a similar approach, but found that it did not converge in O(n^3) as sometimes claimed in literature. I then read about the Divide-and-conquer eigenvalue algorithm, which did the trick. It seems to have a reasonable Wikipedia page these days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide-and-conquer_eigenvalue_...
by ktut | 2026-01-07 00:22:02+00:00
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Remote: Yes or hybrid

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: Typescript, Vue, React, Tailwind, HTML / CSS / JavaScript, Adobe Creative Suite (well-versed in multiple programs), Claude/Cursor, Jest/Playwright/CI/CD, AWS, Google Analytics

Résumé/CV: https://www.rkdvis.com/

Email: ramzidreessen [at] gmail [dot] com

Experienced Frontend Engineer currently working at a major US company in a senior role. Just shipped a major product with thousands of users as the sole frontend developer. 7 years of web dev experience and 5 years of professional design experience. Expert at bridging design and engineering to deliver high-performance, accessible solutions. Product experience across fintech, traditional media and gaming. Currently seeking frontend engineering, design/engineer hybrid roles or a frontend team lead role for a small team.
by hsn915 | 2026-01-07 00:22:03+00:00
I had a similar feeling expressed in the title regarding ChatGPT 5.2

I haven't tried it for coding. I'm just talking about regular chatting.

It's doing something different from prior models. It seems like it can maintain structural coherence even for very long chats.

Where as prior models felt like System 1 thinking, ChatGPT5.2 appears like it exhibits System 2 thinking.
by einsteinx2 | 2026-01-07 00:23:28+00:00
> and blink shell https://blink.sh/ to have a high quality iOS shell with a mosh and ssh client built right in to resume at any time

I really like Termius, have you tried it? I think I tested out Blink when I was trying various SSH/shell apps and
chose Termius over it, but it’s been so long now that I completely forget why.

EDIT: does Blink give you a local shell as well like vs only SSH/mosh?
by artdigital | 2026-01-07 00:23:40+00:00
I switched my subscription from Claude to ChatGPT around 5.0 when SOTA was Sonnet 4.5 and found GPT-5-high (and now 5.2-high) so incredibly good, I could never imagine Opus is on its level. I give gpt-5.2-high a spec, it works for 20 minutes and the result is almost perfect and tested. I very rarely have to make changes.

It never duplicates code, implements something again and leaves the old code around, breaks my convention, hallucinates, or tells me it’s done when the code doesn’t even compile, which sonnet 4.5 and Opus 4.1 did all the time

I’m wondering if this had changed with Opus 4.5 since so many people are raving about it now. What’s your experience?

Claude - fast, to the point but maybe only 85% - 90% there and needs closer observation while it works

GPT-x-high (or xhigh) - you tell it what to do, it will work slowly but precise and the solution is exactly what you want. 98% there, needs no supervision
by Zaskoda | 2026-01-07 00:23:46+00:00
A lot of this work was done by Walter |2| Costinak. He was an absolute legend and he's still doing a bit of design work today. I know because he did the branding for my last company and product. I worked with him a lot at Gathering of Developers back in the day. Together we rebuilt the website for Take 2 Games and they used our work for well over decade before doing a redesign. If you like this style, I recommend you reach out to him. Here's his website:

https://2design.org/
by DavidPiper | 2026-01-07 00:24:22+00:00
Just in case anyone is put off by this comment, I want to second the recommendation of Debt: The First 5000 Years. It's excellent, and it has as a free, chapter-by-chapter audiobook on YouTube.

As for Graeber being controversial: yes, though I vaguely recall "The Dawn of Everything" being (moreso) the trove of interesting historical anthropological hypotheses, rather than "Debt"?

Anyway, it's been a while, but my main point is that I wouldn't let Graeber's controversial-ness stop anyone from reading Debt. If anything, going in with that information makes you think harder about the topics he covers.
by keerthiko | 2026-01-07 00:25:18+00:00
> By doing this, you'll chase the ads into

IMO regulation never was or is going to force this shift: it's already happening in unregulated ad markets, and is going to keep evolving in that direction because it's simply more effective/lucrative than ads done other ways.

> Break up Google. Don't tell content marketplaces how to run ads.

I'm all for breaking up megacorps, but there's no way a government like Vietnam can effectively accomplish that. The entire regulatory weight of the EU (90% of the non-US first-world consumer base) can't break up Google, so inflicting a series of wristslaps that hurt Google more than any small startup is the best way.

I'm no expert on the region, but I can't imagine a small video/social startup in Vietnam will be hurt more than Google by being forced to show a skip button after 5s on their ads — and generally speaking ads as a business model generally doesn't work all that well or mean much for small startups (<1M MAU), their survival and scalability hinges more on VC money and product-market fit than ad arbitrage.
by smj-edison | 2026-01-07 00:27:26+00:00
Gilad Bracha talks about how they're not mutually exclusive concepts, and I mostly agree (OOP can have tailcall recursion and first order functions for example). But, the philosophy seems very different: functional programming is "standing above" the data, where you have visibility at all times, and do transformations on the data. OOP is much more about encapsulation, where you "send a message" to an object, and it does its own thing. So you could totally write OOP code where you provide some core data structures that you run operations on, but in practice encapsulation encourages hiding internal data.

Though on further thought, may be this isn't FP vs OOP, because C has a similar approach of "standing above", and C is the hallmark imperative language.
by mothballed | 2026-01-07 00:27:26+00:00
They don't create wealth out of nothing. They capture, and potentially create, wealth by offering financial services including lending. The differences between the positive interest paid to depositors and the loan interest, after covering risk and other costs, is the wealth they've captured/created for themselves.

I don't think anyone is under the illusion that credit expansion itself creates wealth in the sense of more dollars moving around means more wealth.

I think the relavent point here is that this form of credit expansion does expand the numerical value of deposits which has asymmetric advantages to the bank. Due to having a central bank, the banks are basically acting as arms of the federal government when they do this. The payoff the banks get from this is capturing the interest differential on these expanded credits as well as benefitting from the Cantillon Effect whereby they usually have prioritized access to new money entering the economy.
by Peacefulz | 2026-01-07 00:29:15+00:00
I know it's mostly nostalgia, but this was the best time online for me. I was just a teen exploring GeoCities, tripod, and dot.tk directories. I found a lot of good friends in that time.

I miss the Glitch/GameShark crews that were around. =Bi0= was one of the best ones around.
by cyberax | 2026-01-07 00:29:35+00:00
> Maybe the end-user takes interest in mixing/production for which they then have the higher version allowing them to work with without the faff of having to obtain the better quality works.

16-bit is enough for mixing. 24-bit (or 32-bit floats, even better) are useful _within_ the mixing pipeline, so you don't need to care if one of the steps results in clipping as long as the final result is within the bounds.
Show HN: SMTP Tunnel – A SOCKS5 proxy disguised as email traffic to bypass DPI
by lobito25 | 2026-01-07 00:30:09+00:00
A fast SOCKS5 proxy that tunnels your traffic through what looks like normal SMTP email, bypassing Deep Packet Inspection firewalls.

How it works:
- Client runs a local SOCKS5 proxy (127.0.0.1:1080)
- Traffic is sent to server disguised as SMTP (EHLO, STARTTLS, AUTH)
- DPI sees legitimate email session, not a VPN/proxy

Features:
- One-liner install on any Linux VPS
- Multi-user with per-user secrets and IP whitelists
- Auto-generated client packages (just double-click to run)
- Auto-reconnect on connection loss
- Works with any app that supports SOCKS5

Tech: Python/asyncio, TLS 1.2+, HMAC-SHA256 auth

GitHub: https://github.com/x011/smtp-tunnel-proxy
by jeffjeffbear | 2026-01-07 00:30:30+00:00
I don't really love this solution since it runs into all the usual linked list issues, and is only 'allocation free' in the sense that the pointers are allocated with the structure if doing the intrusive thing they are talking about. Using the std::vector of pointers approach isn't going to be using crazily more memory.

Myself, I like to just allocate a too big block and shove everything into that then deal with indicies into that array if I care about performance. you can even flatten the tree in a way to get better locality if you care about that.
by estearum | 2026-01-07 00:30:34+00:00
The evidence presented:

The State killed a lot of people between the 14th and 20th centuries and also the homicide rate went down.

Wow!

QED

Good thing there weren't other major confounding changes between errmmm... the longbow and the atomic bomb. Or Dante's Divine Comedy and jazz.

I'm convinced. Why'd you even put the note "if not conclusive" with evidence this strong?
by yiren | 2026-01-07 00:30:36+00:00
In SQL Server v21-22, the grid results' scroll indicator is 40% the width of the scroll bar, and the mouse cursor has to hover directly above it in order to click and drag it around. This is in contrast to v19.3, where you can "miss" the indicator to the left or right of it, and still successfully "grab" it.

At least the query pane (upper pane) has a useful and customizable-width "map mode" for the scroll bar that doesn't disappear!
by afavour | 2026-01-07 00:30:39+00:00
No matter how many of us on Hacker News are absolutely exhausted with social media… no, “we” as a society are as addicted as ever.

It is interesting to note, though, that over the years the “social” in social media exists almost exclusively in the comments. We used to have feeds heavily populated by people we actually know. Now algorithmic feeds pump influencers in many people’s faces 24/7. In some ways it’s not that different to old school media, it’s just finely optimized to addict us.
by jsnell | 2026-01-07 00:31:21+00:00
Why is it the people posting positive comments who are "responding to incentives" by posting more, while it's the people posting negative comments who do so by stopping posting? Like, your exact points work equally well with the polarity reversed: the anti-AI influencer/grifter ecosystem is well-developed at this point, and many people desperately want AIs to be useless.

I don't know if the original claim about sentiment is true, but if it is, I don't think yours or blibble's (conflicting) claims about the reason are very believable.
by Capricorn2481 | 2026-01-07 00:31:48+00:00
> With the latest models if you're clear enough with your requirements you'll usually find it does the right thing on the first try

That's great that this is your experience, but it's not a lot of people's. There are projects where it's just not going to know what to do.

I'm working in a web framework that is a Frankenstein-ing of Laravel and October CMS. It's so easy for the agent to get confused because, even when I tell it this is a different framework, it sees things that look like Laravel or October CMS and suggests solutions that are only for those frameworks. So there's constant made up methods and getting stuck in loops.

The documentation is terrible, you just have to read the code. Which, despite what people say, Cursor is terrible at, because embeddings are not a real way to read a codebase.
by jareds | 2026-01-07 00:32:10+00:00
Is there a good place for easy comparisons of different models? I know gpt-oss-20b and gpt-oss-120b have different numbers of parameters, but don't know what this means in practice. All my experience with AI has been with larger models like Gemini and GPT. I'm interested in running models on my own hardware but don't know how small I can go and still get useful output both for simple things like fixing spelling and grammar, as well as complex things like programming.
by biammer | 2026-01-07 00:32:26+00:00
> I find no reference to "aquifers" in that.

Ahh, I see your objection now. That is my bad. I was using my language too loosely. Here I was using 'aquifer' to mean 'any source of drinking water', but that is certainly different from the intended meaning.

> And again, I don't disagree that they're a problem, it's just that the "water" part of the problem is so low down the list of things to worry about as to be a rounding error.

I'm skeptical of the rounding error argument, and weary of relying on the logical framework of 'low down the list' when list items' effects stack interdependently.

> give up beef, dairy, cotton, rice, almonds, soy, biofuels, mining, paper, steel, cement, residential lawns, soft drinks, car washing, and hospitals

In part due to this reason, as well as others, I have stopped directly supporting the industries for: beef, dairy, rice, almonds, soy, biofuels, residential lawns, soft drinks, car washing