MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by absynth | 2026-01-29 12:13:16+00:00
All these stories about people using llms and hitting it big almost overnight make me feel dumb. I'm sure others feel the same. Probably FOMO.

My sense of using LLMs for coding is me feeling like a maintenance programmer even though the code is brand new and I'm debugging a LLM misunderstanding. Weird to be working on a 10k codebase that didn't exist a few hours ago and I'm now debugging it over the next 4 hours. Having it done around 16-20 work hours later is really strange.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2026-01-29 12:13:24+00:00
> The data backs this up. 54% of LinkedIn posts are now likely AI-written (Originality.ai). 15% of Reddit posts too, up 146% since 2021. Every competitor has the same capability to generate keyword-optimized, structurally correct, grammatically polished content. In about twelve seconds.

I don't know antything about marketing given that the first paragraph of blog post makes it clear its from marketing context.

But, as a user or literally just a bystander. using AI isn't really good. I mean for linked-in posts I guess. Isn't the whole point to stand out by not using AI in Linked-in.

Like I can see a post which can have an ending by,

Written with love & a passion by a fellow human, Peace.

And It would be a better / different than this.

Listen man, I am from Third world country too and I had real issues with my grammar. Unironically this was the first advice that I got from people on HN and I was suddenly conscious about it & I tried to improve.

Now I get called AI slop for writing how I write. So to me, its painful to see that my improvement in this context just gets thrown out of the window if someone calls some comment I write here or anywhere else AI slop.

I guess I have used AI and I have pasted in my messages in there to find that it can write like me but I really don't use that (on HN, I only used it once for testing purpose on one discord user iirc) but my point is, I will write things myself and if people call me AI slop, I can really back down the claim that its written by a human, just ask me anything about it.

I don't really think that people who use AI themselves are able to say something back if someone critiques something as AI slop.

I was talking to a friend once, we started debating philosophy. He gave me his medium article, I was impressed but observed the --, I asked him if it was written by AI, he said that it was his ideas but he wrote/condensed it with AI (once again third world country and honestly same response as the original person)

And he was my friend, but I still left thinking hmm, If you are unable to take time with your project to write something, then that really lessens my capacity to read it & I even said to him that I would be more interested in reading his prompts & just started discussing the philosophy itself with him.

And honestly the same point goes to AI generated code projects even though I have vibe coded many but I am unable to read them or find the will to read it at many times if its too verbose or not to my liking. Usually though in that context, its more so just prototypes for personal use case but I still end up open sourcing if someone might be interested ig given it costs nothing for me to open source it.
by elif | 2026-01-29 12:13:42+00:00
Here you go HN commenters. Last month when I made the observation that "from what I've read recently, I've started to get the impression that the explosion in mental health problems (depression, autism rates etc) has more to do with the western diet than genetics"[0]

Y'all called me MAHA and down voted me into the negatives. Please, insult your own analytical ability by doing the same here. This time I'll just revel in your ideologically confined science denial this time.

[0] https://scitechdaily.com/simple-three-nutrient-blend-rapidly...
by xerox13ster | 2026-01-29 12:13:59+00:00
This comment is specifically called out as a “do not” in the HN guidelines.

It’s the very last line:

> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.

FWIW, dang et al do a great job and don’t deserve this slander.

PS: you were the first person I saw mention that politician’s name in this thread
by InterviewFrog | 2026-01-29 12:14:17+00:00
It did not feel off at all. I read every single word and that is all that counts.

I think what you are getting wrong is thinking that the reader cares about your effort. The reader doesn't care about your effort. It doesn't matter if it took you 12 seconds or 5 days to write a piece of content.

The key thing is people reading the entirety of it. If it is AI slop, I just automatically skim to the end and nothing registers in my head. The combination of em dashes and the sentence structure just makes my mind tune it out.

So, your thesis is correct. If you put in the custom visualization and put in the effort, folks will read it. But not because they think you put in the effort. They don't care. But because right now AI produces generic fluff that's overly perfectly correct. That's why I skip most LinkedIn posts as well. Like, I personally don't care if it's AI or not. But mentally, I just automatically discount and skip it. So, your effort basically interrupts that automatic pattern recognition.
by abtgraphics | 2026-01-29 12:14:45+00:00
SciChart founder here, we've added ChartGPU vs. SciChart to our performance test suite - it holds up pretty well, but SciChart still about an order of magnitude faster

https://github.com/ABTSoftware/javascript-chart-performance-...

Since the API is so new there may be some errors in the test suite, feel free to correct them

Innovation like this is fantastic btw and is good for the community! WebGPU is an awesome technology. So, this not only pushes us to be better but also consider how to add value to customers/users
by Tor3 | 2026-01-29 12:14:54+00:00
That a lot of software wasn't written in C on VMS is beside the point, the fact is that a totally normal K&R C was available on VMS, just the same as e.g. Pascal was available. And the C compiler was popular among people writing TCP/IP software (and I don't mean re-compiling some Unix ftp client), where they could just sit down with Steven's book and code.
by Lerc | 2026-01-29 12:15:24+00:00
Framing GPT 5 as a loss because of its short run like that is a bit weird. They say "the R&D that went into GPT-5 likely informs future models like GPT-6". but that really understates what is happening here.

Barring solid evidence otherwise you would think that GPT 5.2 was built largely on GPT 5, enough that possibly the majority of the cost of 5.2 was in developing GPT 5.

It would be like if you shipped something v1.0 on day one and discovered a bug and shipped something v1.01 the next day. Then at the end of the year reported that v1.0 massively lost money but you wouldn't believe the profit we made on v1.01 it was the single largest return on a single day of development we've ever seen.
by JumpinJack_Cash | 2026-01-29 12:15:48+00:00
> > It's pure logic that Tesla has to pursue bets that would justify billion dollar valuations and being a car company isn't that.

You can pursue everything with words, even you can pursue Sydney Sweeney but then you have to show the receipts.

The receipts of Tesla (Factories, lines of production, expertise of people hired, 25 years of history...) are one of car company.

But of course, it's all narrative so people will keep outbidding each other to own a piece of this company.

The financialization of hope, that's what it is.
by farathshba | 2026-01-29 12:15:51+00:00
Hey HN – I curate a weekly newsletter of real DevOps, SRE, and DevSecOps roles (no recruiter spam).
This week: 35 positions from the past 2 weeks across USA, Singapore, and Europe.
Highlights:
• Netflix (SRE L5, Remote)
• Cisco Meraki (Senior SRE, $146K-$214K)
• Fidelity (Director SRE, Remote)
• Zelis (Senior K8s Platform Engineer, $139K-$186K)
• GIC Singapore (AVP/VP Observability & SRE)
Salary ranges: $120K–$214K (USA) | €60K–€110K (Europe) | SGD $7K–$9K/month (Singapore)
All links verified, no dead posts.
by eqvinox | 2026-01-29 12:16:19+00:00
That is a valid point. Though I would probably check first what the scaling limits on VRFs actually are; there was some netdev work a while back to fix scaling with 100k to 1M devices (a VRF is a device, though also a bit more than that). It's only the server ("technician") that needs to have all of these (depends on the setup if that helps or not), intermediate devices just need to forward without looking at the tags, and the VPN entry point only cares about its own subset of customers.

I'd probably use the IPv6 + NAT64 setup in your situation.
by xmcqdpt2 | 2026-01-29 12:18:16+00:00
OTOH most model APIs are basically identical to each other. You can switch from one to the other using openrouter without even altering the code. Furthermore, they aren't reliable (drop rates can be as high as 20%) and compliance "guarantees" are, AFAIK, completely untested. As anyone used the Copilot compliance guarantees to defend themselves in a copyright infringement suit yet?

I think you are right that trust and operational certainty justifies significant premiums. It would be great if trust and operational certainty were available.
by pu_pe | 2026-01-29 12:18:28+00:00
> But we can still do an illustrative calculation: let’s conservatively assume that OpenAI started R&D on GPT-5 after o3’s release last April. Then there’d still be four months between then and GPT-5’s release in August,20 during which OpenAI spent around $5 billion on R&D. But that’s still higher than the $3 billion of gross profits. In other words, OpenAI spent more on R&D in the four months preceding GPT-5, than it made in gross profits during GPT-5’s four-month tenure.

These numbers actually look really good. OpenAI's revenue has been increasing 10x year-on-year since 2023, which means spending even 3x the amount of resources to produce another model next year would likely generate a healthy profit. The newer models are more efficient so inference costs tend to decrease as well.

As long as models can keep improving, and crucially if that depends on the amount of compute you put in them, OpenAI and other closed-source AI companies will succeed. If those two key assumptions stop being true, I can definitely see the whole castle of cards crumbling as open source competition will eat their lunch.
by hurfdurf | 2026-01-29 12:18:33+00:00
Some security updates.

Note: Because of dependency on architecture and system changes to any current version of Apple operating systems (for example, macOS 26, iOS 26 and so on), not all known security issues are addressed in previous versions (for example, macOS 15, iOS 18 and so on).

https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/deployment/depc4c80847...
by Imustaskforhelp | 2026-01-29 12:18:34+00:00
Um, I got called on HN three times now accused of being AI for writing comments by hand.

I got so annoyed at the second time that I even created a post about it. I guess I just get really annoyed when someone accuses me who writes things by hands as AI slop because it makes me feel like at this point, why not just write it with AI but I guess I just love to type.

I have unironically suggested in one of my HN comments that I should start making the grammatical mistakes I used to make when I had just started using HN like , this mistake that you see here. But I remember people actually flipping out in comments on this grammatical mistake so much that It got fixed.

I am this close to intentionally writing sloppy to prove my comments aren't AI slop but at the same time, I don't want to do this because I really don't want to change how I write just because of something what other people say imo.
by tinix | 2026-01-29 12:19:11+00:00
Living beings are not devoid of axles and wheels; rather, they are entirely composed of them, at scales and in forms compatible with biology.

At every relevant level, life relies on rotating and cyclic structures coupled through continuous material exchange. The objection to wheels in animals assumes that axles and wheels must be rigid, permanently isolated parts. Biology does not work this way. Instead of discrete components joined once and preserved unchanged, living systems implement rotation through structures that are simultaneously connected, repaired, and replaced.

Cells are full of rotary and quasi-rotary machinery. Flagella are true rotating motors with stators, rotors, bearings, and torque generation via ion gradients. ATP synthase is literally a wheel-and-axle device, converting rotational motion into chemical energy and back again. The fact that these devices operate at molecular scale does not make them conceptually different from macroscopic axles; it shows that evolution favors rotation precisely where continuous repair and material flow are required.

At larger scales, joints function as constrained rotational interfaces. Hips, shoulders, knees, and vertebrae are axles embedded in living bearings, lubricated, rebuilt, and reshaped throughout life. Bone remodeling, cartilage regeneration, and synovial fluid circulation solve the very problem claimed to prohibit wheels: permanent connection combined with continuous maintenance. The difference from artificial machines is not the absence of rotation, but the absence of rigid separability.

Even limbs themselves behave as compound wheels. Gait cycles convert linear muscle contraction into rotational motion around joints, then back into translation. Tendons wrap around bones as belts around pulleys. Muscles do not rotate indefinitely, but unlimited rotation is not a requirement for a wheel; it is a requirement imposed by certain human machines. Biological wheels rotate as much as function demands, then reverse, exactly as many engineered systems do.

The claim that active wheels require exotic motors overlooks that biology already uses fields and flows. Ionic gradients are electric fields. Blood pressure, osmotic pressure, and gas expansion are fluid-based actuators. Electric fish demonstrate macroscopic bioelectric control, and insect flight shows that indirect actuation can drive cyclic motion far from the muscle itself. The distinction between electromagnetic motors and biological motors is one of implementation, not principle.

What evolution did not produce is a detachable, externally replaceable wheel, because life does not outsource maintenance. Instead, it internalizes repair, redundancy, and gradual replacement. From this perspective, an animal is not a wheeled vehicle lacking wheels; it is a dense hierarchy of axles and wheels whose boundaries are soft, whose materials are alive, and whose motion is inseparable from their growth and repair.

Life did not fail to invent wheels. It dissolved them into itself.
by account42 | 2026-01-29 12:19:11+00:00
> I enjoy puzzle games, but often the puzzles boil down to combining everything in your inventory with everything in the game world (in LucasArts terms).

Except they usually don't require you to do that. The so-called "moon logic" in those games might not follow the rules of our world but it is still a kind of logic that you can master nonetheless.
by rikroots | 2026-01-29 12:19:31+00:00
Because corruption is a thing. Also: any government contract can be audited at any time by the National Audit Office, who have criminal prosecution powers if they find malfeasance in the procurement process. Also: being hauled in front of a Select Committee to answer questions about a given procurement is not fun. Also: politicians are always looking to ask questions that get their names in the paper.

Follow the processes. Document everything. Make certain the winning bidder has all the relevant certificates and insurance covers in place before agreeing to anything.

Leaving the Civil Service was one of the best work decisions I ever took.
by ben_w | 2026-01-29 12:19:54+00:00
They can make great phones and still be spying on the user and everyone near them.

They wouldn't be good for intel gathering (either deliberate or incidental, c.f. FitBit or whatever leaking some US military info because of all the soldiers tracking themselves) if they weren't also just straight up good products.

This lack of exclusivity between "quality" and "spying" is also why I found it hard to trust US products even before Trump 2.
by thephyber | 2026-01-29 12:20:18+00:00
The government bans on Huawei were obviously do to three reasons: network security, economic competition, and politics.

Huawei doesn’t only make phones — they also make the cell network infrastructure and they sell it at much lower costs than American companies do. The US put pressure on allied countries to divest from Huawei infrastructure (especially 5G cell networking) to both avoid the security risks and to leave those allies with only American companies to buy from.

And we can’t forget that Trump very publicly used Huawei’s executive as a hostage to a negotiation.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_case_of_Meng_Wanzh...
by datsci_est_2015 | 2026-01-29 12:21:28+00:00
/s if it wasn’t obvious.

When I see the word “facts” used like this, I feel there’s a parallel to the way the word “respect” is used abusively, as outlined in this Tumblr post that has stuck with me for years:

https://soycrates.tumblr.com/post/115633137923/stimmyabby-so...

> Sometimes people use “respect” to mean “treating someone like a person” and sometimes they use “respect” to mean “treating someone like an authority”

> and sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say “if you won’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “if you won’t treat me like an authority I won’t treat you like a person”

> and they think they’re being fair but they aren’t, and it’s not okay.

The word “facts” can be used abusively, as in “My facts prove my worldview, your “facts” are arguments based on emotion.”
by dijit | 2026-01-29 12:21:59+00:00
This is demonstrably false. The data shows the exact opposite.

Transport spending in London was £1,313 per capita in 2023/24, compared with just £368 per head in the East Midlands[0] - nearly 4x the investment. Over the decade to 2022/23, if the North had received the same per person transport spending as London, it would have received £140 billion more[1]. The East Midlands got just £355 per person, the lowest of every nation and region[1].

Yes, London generates a fiscal surplus, but that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. London receives the highest investment spending for both economic and non-economic areas, relative to population size[2]. In 2022, infrastructure construction spend in London was £8.8 billion, whilst Scotland came second with £3.6 billion[3].

It's circular logic:

* invest heavily in London

-> infrastructure drives productivity

-> higher productivity generates more tax revenue

-> claim London 'subsidises' other regions

-> use this to justify more London investment.

Infrastructure investment enhances productive potential[4], but all other regions are systematically denied it.

London has returns on investment because it's the only place that actually gets proper investment. You can't starve regions of infrastructure for decades, watch their productivity stagnate, then point to London's tax surplus as proof the system works, that's fucking stupid.

---

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1134495/transport-spendi...

[1] https://www.ippr.org/media-office/ippr-north-and-ippr-reveal...

[2] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06...

[3] https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity...

[4] https://www.bennettschool.cam.ac.uk/blog/what-role-infrastru...
by pornel | 2026-01-29 12:22:00+00:00
I mean you get one upfront cost for things like allocators, common string manipulation and std::fmt, std::{fs, io, path} helper functions, and gathering of pretty backtraces for panics (which is a surprisingly fiddly task, including ELF+DWARF parsers and gzip to decompress the debug info).

A println!("hello world") happens to pull in almost all of it (it panics if stdout is closed).

Later code growth is just obviously proportional to what you're doing, and you're not getting a whole new copy of std::fmt every time you call print.
by adrian_b | 2026-01-29 12:22:27+00:00
Coriolis forces appear only on objects that have a translation motion relative to the Earth, and which also has a direction distinct from that of the rotation of the Earth, i.e. either a north to south (or reverse) or vertical motion.

If the axis of the spinning top is stationary relatively to Earth, there are no Coriolis forces.

For a big spinning top, there could be non-negligible periodic Coriolis forces acting on the periphery of the spinning top, but they would be compensated by the rigidity of the top and in any case their average over a complete rotation of the top would be null.
by cbolton | 2026-01-29 12:22:40+00:00
> Going from zero to billionaire in two generations actually says something remarkable about our system.

This data point doesn't distinguish between a system that fairly rewards abilities, and a system that works like a lottery. My guess is that the US is in between: it unfairly rewards abilities, and chance plays a large role.

Taking Jeff Bezos as example: 1) he certainly has remarkable abilities but maybe not 1,000,000 times more than the median American, yet he has about 1,000,000 times the wealth; 2) it's plausible that the US population of 350M includes several people with abilities similar to Bezos yet no notable wealth due to various circumstances. Both points suggest an unfair system.
Reducing model drift and finetuning cost without retraining
by sufiyankureshi | 2026-01-29 12:23:07+00:00
Hi HN,

I’ve been working on a small system that takes already-trained ML models and applies a sequence of stability and robustness interventions (no retraining) to reduce representation drift under stress.

I ran this on a couple of pretrained vision models as a sanity check:

– ResNet-18, MobileNetV2
– Pretrained on ImageNet
– Evaluated on CIFAR-10
– Runtime measured in minutes

Observed results:
– ~43–55% reduction in representation drift
– ~5–6× improvement in finetuning efficiency
– Effects held across architectures, including lightweight models

This isn’t accuracy tuning, accuracy was mostly stable. The gains came from preserving internal representation boundaries under controlled stress.

I’m sharing the results + approach because I haven’t seen many tools focus on post-training stability interventions rather than retraining or data collection.

Happy to answer questions or share more details if useful.
by uKVZe85V | 2026-01-29 12:23:15+00:00
You're defeating your own point. CSD in practice breaks a basic feature of the desktop : knowing at first glance which of the windows will receive whatever you type on the keyboard.

For eons the standard was: the only one with the title bar showing the theme accent color. That is consistent, predictable, keeps the user in the flow.

With CSD each app does whatever inconsistent thing they can fancy. You type and oops deleted something in the wrong window.

Alas now even many default SSD setups fail at this (selected and non-selected windows look pretty much the same) and keyboard-first workflow is much hindered.
by eqvinox | 2026-01-29 12:23:43+00:00
That's all true on a statement level, but doesn't make an IPv4:IPv4 NAT solution better than either VRF/encap or IPv6 mapping.

The benefit with VRF/encap is that the IPv4 packets are unmodified.

The benefit with IPv6 mapping is that you don't need to manage IPv4:IPv4 tables and have a clear boundary of concerns & zoning.

In both cases you don't give a rat's ass which prefixes the customer uses. That math/estimation you're doing there… just entirely not needed.