MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by nelsonfigueroa | 2026-01-27 03:30:28+00:00
Some I like:

https://www.writesoftwarewell.com/ - very good software posts, mostly around Ruby on Rails.

https://crankysec.com/ - Cybersecurity rants mostly, fun to read.

https://www.wheresyoured.at/ - Ed Zitron's writings. Good counterpoints to all the AI hype these days.

These come up often on HN but I'll call them out anyway:

https://jvns.ca/ - Julia Evans, good technical content all around.

https://xeiaso.net/ - Xe Iaso, good technical content all around once again
by throwaway201606 | 2026-01-27 03:31:13+00:00
"Sure, but the difference between one particular formulation of mineral oils and another cannot possibly be that important to the formula."

Formulation matters and is very important.

A1 jet fuel, propane, regular 87 gas and vaseline are four different formulations of some version of mineral oil (petroleum).

Which do you want in a car you are driving? On your parched lips? In your plane engine? Coming into your kitchen stove?
by ehnto | 2026-01-27 03:31:23+00:00
I fail to imagine a single bit of business software that cannot be achieved with open source software, outside of specific proprietary processes. But your average office technology work, I see being very plausible to move to open source. There is definitely going to be a breadth of quality across the tools, but the outputs can all be the same I believe. Even on a personal level, it's worth cultivating self-reliance on tools you control. But at a national scale it feels perhaps existential, worth what learning pains there may be. You also cultivate local software industries.
by mrandish | 2026-01-27 03:32:21+00:00
> The recent film feels like any other generic sci-fi movie.

While that's true to some extent, as I noted in my sibling comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46775053), it's partly because 2049 lives in a world where, for over 30 years, most other sci-fi visions of urban environments were strongly influenced by OG Blade Runner. It's hard to appreciate how much the 1982 original visually impacted everything that came after.

Denis Villeneuve faced an almost impossible challenge in balancing faithfulness to the original production design while evolving the original's vision of 2019 forward 30 years to its own related but visually distinct descendant. Almost every visual choice risked either being "nearly a copy of the original" or "hardly related to the original".

I'm a huge fan of the original - so much so, in 1992 I bought a plane ticket to fly across the country for one evening just to see the limited run of the original workprint in Westwood. In 2017, I was so concerned any attempt at a sequel to such a seminal classic was doomed to fail that I didn't even go see 2049 until I heard reviews from fans I trust. But I was pleasantly surprised that, given the near-impossible task, 2049 was a success on its own terms. Despite the limited budget, Denis managed to not only avoid tarnishing a classic, he did it credit by not camping on its coattails. And Roger Deacon's cinematography definitely deserved the Oscar he won.
by motohagiography | 2026-01-27 03:32:49+00:00
briefly: cap gains reductions. at will employment. competitive top line corporate rates that attract HQ's and IP the way Ireland did. reduce the public sector talent tarpit, tariff goods from countries that use slave labor. abolish the dairy, wheat, and syrup boards and other agriculture cartels. enforce money laundering laws against retail businesses to normalize commercial rents. reduce immigration to levels where people can integrate and actually want to make things for each other and to take the pressure off home prices. pro natal policies that create more young people with a stake in their country. make math education a national project. to name a few.

if you talk to anyone in canada who is from here and doesn't work in the public sector, the conversation quickly turns to whether they're planning to leave and how far along they are. the way it's going, they're going to have to bar the exits.
by rtpg | 2026-01-27 03:33:44+00:00
There's a problem with older Macbooks on older MacOS/factory reset where they can't access the App Store, so they can't directly download newer MacOS, you gotta go sidecar it

Of course this is completely opaque to people who have to do this, it just ends up prompting you to login and things like that.

I think newer MacOS avoids this stuff by not having OS updates be linked to the App Store
by igor47 | 2026-01-27 03:34:07+00:00
I'm not sure what the rhetorical gamble of "anyone with sense agrees with me" is called, but it's lazy. Maybe a no true Scotsman? I believe I have general intelligence and it's not at all obvious to me.

Putting your hopes on taste is cope. At best AI will just let you brute force 1000 projects to discover the delicious ones.
by odie5533 | 2026-01-27 03:35:25+00:00
I think solutions like Plasmic, Refine, and React-Admin probably have a strong place in this AI future. They combine being able to work LLM-first while still offering agility by providing a solid foundation to build on. Otherwise you're stuck to the whims of untested AI slop for everything from security to component design. There's a reason people writing AI code still use libraries and it's the same reason we used libraries pre-AI. They're tested, they're stable, they have clear documentation. Just because the cost of code is zero doesn't mean the cost of software systems is zero.
by al_borland | 2026-01-27 03:35:34+00:00
There was an old launch video for an Apple laptop where Jony Ive was doing voice over and said something to the effect of, “there isn’t one thing we could remove to make it any better.”

That hit me like a ton of bricks the first time I heard it and drastically changed how I view solving problems. On a call with 20 people trying to figure out what process we need to add to avoid issue Y from happening again, I’m the sole voice asking if we can remove Z, so Y becomes irrelevant. Over time, this leads to a cleaner process with less work. The alternative is a nightmare of bureaucracy.

There also needs to be enough slack in the system for people to ask questions like this, or to take the time to refactor something to remove cruft. The quick low-effort answer is always to add something. When time is scarce, low-effort answers are all you get.
by mannykannot | 2026-01-27 03:36:56+00:00
You might find these points helpful:

1) when an airliner lands, the undercarriage legs, which are telescopic sprung and damped struts, spread the vertical deceleration over a finite period (I cannot say how long it lasts, but I would say of the order of a second or so.)

2) At the point of touchdown, the wings are generating lift about equal to the aircraft’s weight. This decreases quite rapidly, largely on account of the decease in angle of attack as the nosewheel comes down and from the deployment of spoilers, but it would be mistaken to think that the runway is immediately supporting the full weight of the airliner after touchdown.

3) On takeoff, until the nosewheel is lifted to initiate rotation, a significant fraction of an airliner’s weight is being supported by the runway. During rotation, as the angle of attack increases, the lift increases [1] until it exceeds the weight, at which point the airliner lifts off.

4) If we ignore the fact that the undercarriage is sprung, then the airliner has no vertical velocity until it lifts off. Right at that point, however, when the lift exceeds the weight, it gains a vertical acceleration.

I hope this helps!

[1] Plus a vertical component of the engine thrust, but no airliner rotates to anything like 45 degrees - in fact, if it has not left the ground at the angle of maximum coefficient of lift (~10 - 15 degrees), it is not going to.
by hackerdood | 2026-01-27 03:37:19+00:00
It’s been a bit since I’ve read Amusing Ourselves to Death but I believe in the book the phrase ”Now this” is used disparagingly to refer to the fact that with tv you can go from a horrific news story like a local family being murdered to a completely unrelated story, both in content and emotion in the span of seconds. This doesn’t allow ample time for the viewer to process the former and essentially forces them to turn their brain off as the cognitive dissonance of holding both stories (and more) simultaneously would be impossible.
by AnonHP | 2026-01-27 03:37:57+00:00
I wonder what exactly Microsoft did with “New Teams” that was supposedly written in Rust and uses the system browser engine or whatever instead of Electron. On release it seemed better, but now it seems as bloated, slow and annoying as the Electron one. MS Teams seems to have some incurable infection.

If I could, MS Teams would be the second tool I’d eject out (after Outlook and Exchange). But the company I work in is tied to MS 365 and will not give up on Teams and its useless cousin SharePoint.
by hackerdood | 2026-01-27 03:38:41+00:00
It’s been a bit since I’ve read Amusing Ourselves to Death but I believe in the book the phrase ”Now this” is used disparagingly to refer to the fact that with tv you can go from a horrific news story like a local family being murdered to a completely unrelated story, both in content and emotion in the span of seconds. This doesn’t allow ample time for the viewer to process the former and essentially forces them to turn their brain off as the cognitive dissonance of holding both stories (and more) simultaneously would be impossible.
by leonidasv | 2026-01-27 03:39:03+00:00
I use Claude Code daily to work on a large Python codebase and I'm yet to see the it hallucinating a variable or method (I always ask it to write and run unit tests, so that may be helping). Anyway, I don't think that's a problem at all, most problems I face with AI-generated code are not solved by a borrow-checker or a compiler: bad architecture, lack of forward-thinking, hallucinations in the contract of external API calls, etc.
by alsetmusic | 2026-01-27 03:39:06+00:00
It was when I found it. I opened the page and left it in the background a few hours ago while I tended to another task. Just got back to it now.

Edit: Sorry, it was on the second page. I opened a few tabs to catch up on news since yesterday and got mixed up about which one was in front when I clicked. My mistake. /edit

> Must have been flagged by some embarrassed individuals.

They aren't embarrassed. They used to be. Not anymore. Now they just actively cover up what is inconvenient.
by nomel | 2026-01-27 03:39:15+00:00
> I know it when I see it.

This isn't a reasonable answer. No action can be taken and no conclusion/thought can be made from it.

> Do you agree with that restriction?

People should be able to perform and be informed about their own blood measurements, and possibly bring something up with their doctors outside of routine exams (which they may not even be insured for in the US). I think the restriction on medical advice/conclusion, that results in treatment, is very good, otherwise you end up with "Wow, look at these results! you'll have to buy my snake oil or you'll die!".

I don't believe in reducing society to a level that completely protects the most stupid of us.
by luisfkandriolo | 2026-01-27 03:40:40+00:00
Hey guys, I just created a new personal project. A data-driven briefing covering the most critical global military developments and geopolitical newsletter.

The difference my is the language option, where you can choose the better language for you to receive your future newsletters, for while we have only English, Portuguese and Spanish.
But we'll add more soon!

Subscribe it!
by hrudolph | 2026-01-27 03:40:55+00:00
# Roo Code 3.43.0 Release Updates

@everyone This release updates Intelligent Context Condensation, removes deprecated settings, and fixes export and settings issues.

## Intelligent Context Condensation v2

Intelligent Context Condensation runs when the conversation is near the model’s context limit. It summarizes earlier messages instead of dropping them. After a condense, Roo continues from a single summary, not a mix of summary plus a long tail of older messages. If your task starts with a slash command, Roo preserves those slash-command-driven directives across condenses. Roo is less likely to break tool-heavy chats during a condense, which reduces failed requests and missing tool results.

Settings changes: the Condense prompt editor is now under *Context Management* and Reset clears your override. Condensing uses the active conversation model/provider. There is no separate model/provider selector for condensing.

## QOL Improvements

- Removes the unused “Enable concurrent file edits” experimental toggle to reduce settings clutter.
- Removes the experimental *Power Steering* setting (a deprecated experiment that no longer improves results).
- Removes obsolete diff/match-precision provider settings that no longer affect behavior.
- Adds a `pnpm install:vsix:nightly` command to make installing nightly VSIX builds easier.

## Bug Fixes

- Fixes an issue where MCP config files saved via the UI could be rewritten as a single minified line. Files are now pretty-printed. (thanks Michaelzag!)
- Fixes an issue where exporting tasks to Markdown could include `[Unexpected content type: thoughtSignature]` lines for some models. Exports are now clean. (thanks rossdonald!)
- Fixes an issue where the *Model* section could appear twice in the OpenAI Codex provider settings.

## Misc Improvements

- Removes legacy XML tool-calling code paths that are no longer used, reducing maintenance surface area.

## Provider Updates

- Updates Z.AI models with new variants and pricing metadata. (thanks ErdemGKSL!)
- Corrects Gemini 3 pricing for Flash and Pro models to match published pricing. (thanks rossdonald!)
by skoocda | 2026-01-27 03:42:07+00:00
The one thing I really disagree with is the notion that there will be millions of identical AI images.

The next big step is continual learning, which enables long-term adaptive planning and "re-training" during deployment. AI with continual learning will have a larger portion of their physical deployment devoted to the unique memories they developed via individual experiences. The line between history/input context/training corpus will be blurred and deployed agents will go down long paths of self-differentiation via choosing what to train themselves on; eventually we'll end up with a diaspora of uniquely adapted agents.

Right now inference consists of one massive set of weights and biases duplicated for every consumer and a tiny unique memory file that gets loaded in as context to "remind" the AI of the experiences it had (or did it?) with this one user / deployment. Clearly, this is cheap and useful to scale up initially but nobody wants to spend the rest of their life with an agent that is just a commodity image.

In the future, I think we'll realize that adding more encyclopedic knowledge is not a net benefit for most common agents (but we will provide access to niche knowledge behind "domain-specific" gates, like an MoE model but possibly via MCP call), and instead allocate a lot more physical capacity to storing and processing individualized knowledge. Agents will slow down on becoming more book smart, but will become more street smart. Whether or not this "street smart" knowledge ever gets relayed back to a central corpora is probably mostly dependent on the incentives for the agent.

Certainly my biggest challenge after a year of developing an industrial R&D project with AI assistance is that it needs way, way more than 400k tokens of context to understand the project properly. The emerging knowledge graph tools are a step in the right direction, certainly, but they're not nearly integrated enough. From my perspective, we're facing a fundamental limitation: as long as we're on the Transformers architecture with O(n^2) attention scaling, I will never get a sufficiently contextualized model response. Period.

You might notice this yourself if you ask Claude 4.5 (knowledge cutoff Jan 2025) to ramp up on geopolitical topics over the past year. It is just not physically possible in 400k tokens. Architectures like Mamba or HOPE or Sutton's OAK may eventually fix this, and we'll see a long-term future resembling Excession; where individual agents develop in enormously different ways, even if they came from the same base image.
by Denatonium | 2026-01-27 03:42:20+00:00
I tried it during the summer between 8th and 9th grade after discovering a Datura Stramonium plant growing at a beach on Cape Cod. Fortunately the plant was growing in sand, and the alkaloid content of the plant was very low. I boiled an entire pod down in a soda can and gave it a try. In terms of effects, I did not become delirious, but my perception of gravity was greatly enhanced; I felt like I weighed 600lb. My eyes were also completely incapable of focusing on anything close-up for several days. I never tried Datura again, and I never will. I was lucky I didn't wind up dead, in jail, or in the hospital.
by ElectronCharge | 2026-01-27 03:42:42+00:00
I'm surprised the author of this article thinks Go is a "system language".

Go uses GC, and therefore can't be used for hard real time applications. That's disqualifying as I understand it.

C, C++, Rust, Ada, and Mojo are true system languages IMO. It is true that as long as you can pre-allocate your data structures, and disable GC at runtime, that GC-enabled languages can be used. However, many of them rely on GC in their standard libraries.
by lovich | 2026-01-27 03:43:23+00:00
Ah, more laws and regulations that cannot be followed by most people.

I couldn’t tell you every single “social media” account I’ve made over the years as various startups failed after I tried them.

I definitely couldn’t get all my family’s information, even if constrained to just immediate family.

I bet Palantir and three letter agencies have that information though, so this will be another lever they can use to selectively enforce punishment on their enemy of the day.
by jesterson | 2026-01-27 03:43:24+00:00
> you're not an "illegal" when you drive with an expired license are you?

You are. Why do you think licenses have expiration dates? It legally authorises you to perform specific activity within specific timeframe. Any activity without license is illegal.

By same logic you can't stay in the house you legally rented previously.

Surprised those simple concepts need elaboration.
Show HN: Obsidian plugin that uses your existing LLM CLI tools
by hardbyte | 2026-01-27 03:44:16+00:00
I built an Obsidian plugin that connects to Claude Code, Gemini CLI, or Codex - whatever you have installed. No API keys to configure in the plugin; it just delegates to the CLI tools you already use.

The LLM gets full access to your vault - it can read notes, create files, search. Ask "what did I write about X last month" and it finds and reads the files.

Uses ACP (Agent Client Protocol) for structured data passing and persistent connections.
by socketcluster | 2026-01-27 03:44:17+00:00
This ABP framework sounds like a low-code tool to me. The ability to focus only on business logic is basically the entire premise of low-code. Your argument actually supports the opposite conclusion as the author of the article. You're suggesting that LLMs work better if they can only focus on the business logic without having to get tangled into the weeds of technical details.
by alexwennerberg | 2026-01-27 03:44:32+00:00
> it exists for a reason, and often that reason is fairly sensible.

In my view, this is a post-hoc justification. There are certainly reasons why bureaucratic practices exists, and those reasons have an internal self-justification, but they are very rarely sensible. I find David Graeber's "The Utopia of Rules" instructive: the primary purpose of bureaucracy is as an instrument of power over people.
by fooker | 2026-01-27 03:44:49+00:00
Yes. I am, however, not willing to spend money to get it fixed.

From the other side, the vast majority of customers will happily take the cheap/free/ad-supported buggy software. This is why we have all these random Google apps, for example.

Take a look at the bug tracker of any large open source codebase, there will be a few tens of thousands of reported bugs. It is worse for closed corporate codebases. The economics to write good code or to get bugs fixed does not make sense until you have a paying customer complain loudly.
by al_borland | 2026-01-27 03:45:37+00:00
When I’m worried about bias in the answer, I do by best to no inject my opinions or thoughts into the question. Sometimes I go a step further and ask the question with the opposite bias and leading thoughts of what I think the answer is or should be, to see if it tells me I’m wrong and corrects me to the thing I secretly thought it would be (or hoped it would be). This gives me more solid footing to believe it’s not just telling me what I want to hear.
by Larrikin | 2026-01-27 03:46:28+00:00
I've cooled significantly on Python now that there are a number of strongly typed languages out there that have also gotten rid of the boilerplate of languages Python used to compete with.

Readability gets destroyed when a function can accept 3 different types, all named the same thing, with magic strings acting as enums, and you just have to hope all the cases are well documented.
by poulsbohemian | 2026-01-27 03:46:29+00:00
Ahem. There are neighborhoods in the US where you leave nothing in your car because otherwise your car will become a target. It's often "the rule" in these places that you also leave the doors unlocked because that way "they" won't break your window trying to get in. They open the door, see there's nothing of value to steal and move on. In other places in the US it's (still but fading) normal to leave your car doors unlocked because "everybody knows everybody and no one would steal from each other." Code switching is knowing which of the neighborhoods you are in and how to adapt.
by awesome_dude | 2026-01-27 03:46:54+00:00
One of the (many) reasons that I moved away from Python was the whole "we can do it in 3 lines"

Oh cool someone has imported a library that does a shedload of really complicated magic that nobody in the shop understands - that's going to go well.

We're (The Software Engineering community as a whole) are also seeing something similar to this with AI generated code, there's screeds of code going into a codebase that nobody understands is full across (give a reviewer a 5 line PR and they will find 14 things to change, give them a 500 line PR and LGTM is all you will see).
by ottah | 2026-01-27 03:46:59+00:00
> Today's agents are better than the median human code reviewer at catching issues

Not my experience

> A human rubber-stamping code being validated by a super intelligent machine

What? I dunno how they define intelligence, but LLMS are absolutely not super intelligent.

> If agents are approving code, it would be quite absurd and perhaps non-compliant to have the agent that wrote the code also approve the code.

It's all the same frontier models under the hood. Who are you kidding.
by fooker | 2026-01-27 03:48:10+00:00
The way it seems to work now is to task agents to write a good test suite. AI is much better at this than it is at writing code from scratch.

Then you just let it iterate until tests pass. If you are not happy with the design, suggest a newer design and let it rip.

All this is expensive and wasteful now, but stuff becoming 100-1000x cheaper has happened for every technology we have invented.
by awesome_dude | 2026-01-27 03:49:00+00:00
My biggest reason for liking Go, over Python can be summed up in one word: Discipline.

Python was supposed to be embracing the idea of "there's only one way to do it", which appeals after Perl's "There's many ways to do it", but the reality is, there's 100 ways to do it, and they're all shocking.