MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by TMWNN | 2026-01-21 19:54:53+00:00
I sell on both platforms.

>Would Walmart take a lower fee? No, it would be the same as Amazon.

Walmart charges less in two ways:

* No monthly membership fee.
* Seemingly random fee discounts, up to and including 0%. More than once I've sold an item early in a day, then sold it again later that day with a different fee percentage.

>Would Walmart give back its fee if the customer sent the product back for a refund?

When Walmart refunds a customer, it takes from the seller's reserves exactly what was paid for the sale in the first place. No more, no less. It is Amazon that charges sellers a "refund processing fee".

While Walmart definitely has its issues, there are also many virtues vis-a-vis Amazon.
by binarysolo | 2026-01-21 19:54:57+00:00
> The sad part is that I sell a book, Computer Engineering for Babies

Oh no way, I bought your book (I think via kickstarter?). :)

First off -- Amazon's super bureaucratic so all of their processes require a certain language and esclation path. I'll have to ask my team's support specialist on what she thinks, but my gut is telling me your language needs to be "compatible with Samsung" or "Samsung compatible" instead of "for... Samsung TV remote".

I've been doing Amazon for 13 years and have a team + a few brands I own in the ecosystem -- just some basic tips:

1. Get brand registry (or find a maker buddy and put it under their brand) for listing control. Generic is not the way to go for listing control -- you need brand registry. Then you can edit away under your own brand.

2. You shouldn't be losing any money doing this. If you're doing 3D printer stuff you should expect your cost to be like 5-10%, Amazon takes 40-50% between all fees, ads around 10%, and the rest is labor/margin... and if your numbers aren't there you need to figure out what's wrong.

I have lots more thoughts but I realize this can become an essay haha. Feel free to ping me if you need some help, loved your books. :)
by ejo4041 | 2026-01-21 19:55:29+00:00
No problem, I was trying to not take it personally.

OP linked the source, but you need a seller account to view https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/GZUQ6GBB...

Here is the relevant section copy pasted (which his original listing is pretty close to adhering to, it's really just the second brand mention which I was concerned about):

"
When making truthful statements that a product is compatible with a trademarked product. For example, if you offer a cable that is compatible with the Kindle e-reader, you can use the brand name “Kindle” to indicate that compatibility in the text of your detail page. You cannot use a logo to indicate compatibility, only the brand name. Any statement you make about compatibility must be true.
If you want to indicate the compatibility of your product with a product of a different brand in the product title, build your product title using the format below, taking account of the Amazon Brand Name Policy. If you do not apply this format to your product title, your listing may be removed as potentially trademark infringing.

Title format for branded compatible products

[Your Product’s Brand Name] + [Product Name] + "for"/''compatible with''/''fits''/''intended for'' + [Brand of Main Product] + [Main Product Name] + (other product title elements, if applicable)

Examples:

Xandu USB charging cable, compatible with AmazonBasics speaker
TonTon Sleeve intended for Kindle Fire
Title format for generic compatible products

"Generic" + [Product Name] + "for"/”compatible with”/”fits”/”intended for” + [Brand of Main Product] + [Main Product Name] + (other product title elements, if applicable)

Example:

Generic Replacement filter for AmazonBasics Waterfilter A3

Note: When making genuine claims that a product is compatible with a trademarked product, use either of these terms that indicate compatibility as listed above, in the bullet point and product description as well.
"
by kshri24 | 2026-01-21 19:55:41+00:00
The entire library seems to be AI generated [1] [2]. Not sure how much of it was actually written by a human and how much of it was AI.

[1]: https://github.com/ChartGPU/ChartGPU/blob/main/.cursor/agent...

[2]: https://github.com/ChartGPU/ChartGPU/blob/main/.claude/agent...
by coppsilgold | 2026-01-21 19:55:55+00:00
Note that during remote attestation you are deliberately leaking a unique static hardware ID to the one you are attesting to. There is usually some measure of indirection involved (EK -> AIK) such that additional collusion is required to recover the actual HWID (public_key of the fused Endorsement Key in the secure enclave).

Nothing prevents all the parties (the one you are attesting to and the central authority you use for indirection) to save everything and cross reference at any point in the future.

The same problem and often worse is present in DRM systems.

In the case of Widevine DRM you are actually leaking a static HWID to every license server, no collusion required. This is because there is no indirection involved, you give the license server the public key of the private key fused in the secure enclave for this purpose. The only safeguard is that every license server needs a certificate from Google to function (secure enclave will reject forming a request on invalid cert).

There are a lot of license servers.
by Aunche | 2026-01-21 19:56:24+00:00
> I am sick to the back teeth of this narrative that all grievances can be resolved into currency and that paying this hurts taxpayers.

I don't understand. This seems contradictory. If the problem is that we're trying to resolve too many grievances with currency, then doing so does nothing but hurt the taxpayer. Americans are already significantly more litigious against police, yet you get significantly more misconduct. The same goes for doctors, drivers, etc.
by z64 | 2026-01-21 19:56:43+00:00
There is a practical limit that we can't cache results for too long; Search engine users are particularly sensitive to stale data, especially around current events. Without a holistic and realiable way to know when the cache ought to be invalidated, our caching is mostly focused on mitigating "abuse", e.g., someone / bunch of people spamming the same search in a short timespan; no sense in repeating all those upstream calls.

Most "cost saving engineering" is involved in finding cases/hueristics where we only need to use a subset of sources and omitting calls in the first place, without compromising quality. For example, we probably don't need to fire all of our sources to service a query like "youtube" or "facebook".

Marginalia data is physically consolidated into the same infra that we use for small web results in our SERP, but also among other small scale sources besides those two. That line is simply referring directly to https://kagi.com/smallweb (https://github.com/kagisearch/smallweb).
by Imustaskforhelp | 2026-01-21 19:57:22+00:00
> We are talking a very minor infraction - It was something like one of their marketing copywriters putting 'refills can be purchased on our website' on one of their thousands of listings, and Amazon delisting their entire account on the basis that this was moving customers off their platform. No warning - permenant ban that took over a week to remove - c$2m revenue loss (I've changed the details here significantly to avoid disclosing the company)

Holy cow.

What is so wrong with writing refills can be purchased on our website.

Amazon right now feels to me like a large landlord seeking rent kicking people for no reason because they didn't like that some person spilled some water.

Probably gonna share this story online more. I mean I didn't expect the situation to be this extremely bad.
by seanmcdirmid | 2026-01-21 19:57:49+00:00
I have 27" 5K monitors at home since I WFH. One reason I don't really want to RTO is because these monitors aren't standard yet even if they have been out for more than a decade now (and my FAANG employer won't spring for the good stuff). That and my mechanical keyboard would never work in an open office :P.
by infamia | 2026-01-21 19:58:26+00:00
> The correct way is to use EventSourcing, with each change to an otherwise immutable state being recorded as an Event, including a Delete (both of an Event and the Object).

Another great (and older) approach is adding temporal information do your traditional database, which gives immutability without the eventual consistency headaches that normally comes with event sourcing. Temporal SQL has their own set of challenges of course, but you get to keep 30+ years of relational DB tooling which is a boon. Event sourcing is great, but we shouldn't forget about other tools in our toolbelt as well!
by MaxBarraclough | 2026-01-21 19:58:31+00:00
Sounds like the Jevons paradox. From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox :

> The proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.

See also Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
by wffurr | 2026-01-21 19:58:37+00:00
>> If you think being tethered to gold was a good thing

I wouldn't say that. But the memes about 1971 are striking.

>> I wonder if you also believe wealth is a zero-sum proposal

I don't know where that comes from. Pretty clearly it's not. Building stuff that multiplies labor productivity produces more wealth for everyone.

I think the issue in 1971 wasn't the end of the gold standard per se, but the end of the post-war reconstruction boom, the end of cheap oil subsidizing literally everything, and what I didn't mention in my original comment but it also highly relevant is the drastic lowering of top tax rates.

Wealth isn't zero-sum, but dividing up the share of the newly created wealth is. The more of it that goes to capital instead of labor, the more of that share of productivity growth is captured by the rich instead of the workers, who end up not sharing in the broader prosperity of society.
by lordnacho | 2026-01-21 19:58:39+00:00
I have similar observations. The time saved is things like going to some library I wrote to find the exact order of parameters, or looking up some API on the internet and adjusting my code to it. Inevitably if I did that the old way, I would screw up something trivial and get annoyed.

I rarely let it run for over 10 minutes unattended, but the benefits are not just pure time.

Being able to change the code without getting bogged down allows you to try more things. If I have to wait half an hour between iterations, I'm going to run into bedtime quite fast.

On top of this, I'm finding that the thing that takes the deepest attention is often, amazingly, trivial things. Fiddling with a regex takes attention, but it doesn't often decide the success of the project.

By contrast, the actual work, which is making technical decisions, is something I can do without concentrating in the same way. It's strange that the higher value thing feels less stressful.

Put these together and I'm more productive. I can string together a bunch of little things, and not have to be at my sharpest. Work can be scheduled for whenever, which means days are more flexible. More gets done, with less attention.
by einr | 2026-01-21 19:58:54+00:00
I know who runs that blog, but that's a really exaggerated take.

Notepad has had nearly identical UX from Windows 1.0 until 10. Sure, there's a search feature that appeared at some point, ditto with the status bar, at some point they made it able to open files larger than 64K, and apparently you can open files from URLs directly?

Five or so noticable changes in an extremely lightweight and utilitarian application in thirty years is not at all like completely redesigning it into an AI slop machine.
by oh_fiddlesticks | 2026-01-21 19:59:00+00:00
> 1. One is building the index, which is a lot harder without a google offering its own API to boot. If other tech companies really wanted to break this monopoly, why can't they just do it?

FTA:

> Context matters: Google built its index by crawling the open web before robots.txt was a widespread norm, often over publishers’ objections. Today, publishers “consent” to Google’s crawling because the alternative - being invisible on a platform with 90% market share - is economically unacceptable. Google now enforces ToS and robots.txt against others from a position of monopoly power it accumulated without those constraints. The rules Google enforces today are not the rules it played by when building its dominance.
by cogman10 | 2026-01-21 19:59:37+00:00
Windows 7 was effectively just vista but enough time had passed that the required hardware to run it was easy to get a hold of.

The biggest problem with Vista is you had a lot of Windows XP computers running happily running on 256 and 512MB of ram. That made updating to Vista REALLY painful to a lot of people.

I think people forget about how little resources 95, 98, and XP needed to run.

XP was also criticized for being a hog when it first came out. People viewed Windows 2000 as being the good windows right up until memory became more abundant. You couldn't run XP on a machine with 64MB of ram, but you could run windows ME and 98 on that same machine.
Show HN: Retain – A unified knowledge base for all your AI coding conversations
by Bayram | 2026-01-21 19:59:42+00:00
Hey HN! I built Retain as the evolution of claude-reflect (github.com/BayramAnnakov/claude-reflect).

The original problem: I use Claude Code/Codex daily for coding, plus claude.ai and ChatGPT occasionally. Every conversation contains decisions, corrections, and patterns I forget existed weeks later. I kept re-explaining the same preferences.

claude-reflect was a CLI tool that extracted learnings from Claude Code sessions. Retain takes this further with a native macOS app that:

- Aggregates conversations from Claude Code, claude.ai, ChatGPT, and Codex CLI
- Instant full-text search across thousands of conversations (SQLite + FTS5)

It's local-first - all data stays in a local SQLite database. No servers, no telemetry. Web sync uses your browser cookies to fetch conversations directly.
by theideaofcoffee | 2026-01-21 19:59:44+00:00
So many good memories I had running through this way back when and it gave such a good and deep look into how a fully functioning system worked. It removed a lot of the mystery of this distro vs that distro and how all the pieces fit together. I still use some of the knowledge I gained from this in my day-to-day work, some of which is sorely lacking by others doing seemingly the same job as me.

I used the same laptop I went through the first time with the same LFS install for a number of years after that until my day job killed my interest in doing this stuff in my free time. I switched to Debian after that and never looked back.

Like others are saying, I always recommend going through this for those that want a deeper understanding of linux, the kernel, and all its accoutrements.
by miltonlost | 2026-01-21 19:59:57+00:00
> The constitution is a crucial part of our model training process, and its content directly shapes Claude’s behavior. Training models is a difficult task, and Claude’s outputs might not always adhere to the constitution’s ideals. But we think that the way the new constitution is written—with a thorough explanation of our intentions and the reasons behind them—makes it more likely to cultivate good values during training.

"But we think" is doing a lot of work here. Where's the proof?
by traceroute66 | 2026-01-21 19:59:57+00:00
> If hating Microslop was an Olympic sport I'd be on the podium every 4 years,

To be fair, I agree they are overdue for a truly awful release.

I mean, there was Windows Me and then 7 years later Windows Vista.

Those were truly Gold medal awful podium releases.

Even with Windows 11 I don't think we've hit that level in the cycle just yet.
by nomadygnt | 2026-01-21 20:00:26+00:00
I see what you mean, but the problem is that the LLM provider is trying to provide all the value from the book to the user without the user needing to look at the book at all. I agree if the LLM fails to do so then there is a market for the book. But the LLM provider is trying to minimize that as much as possible. And if the LLM succeeds at providing all the value of the book to the user, without providing any value to the book creator, then in the future there is no incentive to create the book at all, at which point the LLM has no value to provide, etc etc etc.
by dijit | 2026-01-21 20:00:31+00:00
Mac OS X Server was..

.. macOS but with a utility to install apache/ldap/smtp/carddav and caldav.

very useful for a home server.

absolutely no benefit over Linux for the majority of the workloads it was designed to simplify.

It wouldn't really give you much unfortunately, certainly didn't run noticeably leaner.

(I think at some point "server" just became an .app that was available via the app store).
by kergonath | 2026-01-21 20:00:41+00:00
> I've never personally understood the point of macOS for power users

I am not sure how much I qualify, but here is my use case: it can run Photoshop and MS Office, it has Keynote, it can compile just about any software I use or I develop for my job (mostly Physics and computational Chemistry stuff). It just works for more than simple tasks.

The alternatives are Windows (which I also use for other tasks), which is a nightmare to deal with and requires tons of faffing about to compile codes, and Linux (which is actually what I use most), which does not have a working Office and is very janky.

That is not even considering the fact that MacBooks are the best laptops by a mile (my Mac is a desktop).

> which makes it worth sacrificing the ability to run your machine the way you want?

I do run my Linux box like I want. I spent hours upon ours ricing it up and fine tuning everything I cared about. Stuff still occasionally breaks after a minor update and I regularly have to roll back because of a misbehaving NVIDIA driver (at least once a year). On my Mac, I don't need to tweak every aspect of KDE because the default is fine. I don't need to be able to change pid1 because launchd is fine (but nowadays so is systemd). I don't need to install drivers because everything that does not work out of the box can be tweaked with SteerMouse and Karabiner (honestly, I would kill to have something that works that well on Linux). The couple of utilities I use are much, much better than the Linux alternatives and break much less often. So in effect I don't sacrifice much, and the tradeoff is very good.

I won't even consider Windows. It's as customisable as macOS, but its default behaviour is terrible so here the tradeoff is absolutely not worth it.

I don't like the direction Apple is currently taking, so I will re-evaluate in the future, but for now my Mac is the most pleasant to use of my current computers.

> In Linux you'd solve OP's problem by just building up from a minimal distro like Arch or NixOS.

And then spending a week to make it work, and then spending hours at unpredictable times when an update breaks something. I know, I already do it on my Linux box. It has some good aspects, but also some bad ones, which is why I use a Mac at home.
by paulpauper | 2026-01-21 20:01:03+00:00
The TOS is worded in such a way that it's almost impossible for them to lose. The best legal minds who are paid 7 figures write these things to be impenetrable. Arbitration is slow, time consuming, likely to not lead to desired outcome. Retain a lawyer just means more money and time down drain, and these companies laugh at legal threats, knowing it it ever got that far they would still win either getting the case dismissed or attrition.
by Dagger2 | 2026-01-21 20:01:04+00:00
There's always somewhere to forward a packet to. The router looks at the dest IP field in the packet header, and that's where it goes.

> If the packet was going to a private RFC 1918 address, there wouldn’t be a way to get it to the router in the first place from the internet.

This is generally going to be true, but it's not relevant to how NAT behaves when it receives inbound connections.
by jy-tan | 2026-01-21 20:01:09+00:00
Thanks! And yeah, these are complementary layers. Fence is at the OS/network boundary, while API-level policies (endpoints, parameters, token budgets) need something that actually understands the protocols.

I think Fence should stay a thin wrapper around OS primitives (sandbox-exec, bubblewrap, Landlock), so not much beyond what it does today. The one extension that probably makes sense is basic resource limits (CPU, memory, fork bombs, etc). But API semantics and MCP tool restrictions belong in a different layer.
by mattkevan | 2026-01-21 20:01:26+00:00
Hey I’m a designer and I love UI frameworks. Why design and build something from scratch if someone’s already doing it for you?

Unless there’s a very specific business case that requires a custom UI it’s not worth the hassle. I want to be delivering value for the business and for users, not maintaining a UI library.

One place I worked at had built an entire responsive CSS framework, which was hard to use and took a lot of maintenance. I threw it all out for Bootstrap (as was the style at the time). Some of the senior devs were upset I’d killed their baby, but everyone else was able to move so much faster.
Show HN: ChartKit – 14 React charts in 15KB, zero dependencies, LLM-ready
by toddynho | 2026-01-21 20:01:28+00:00
Hey HN,

I built ChartKit, a lightweight React charting library for dashboards.
- 14 chart components (lines, bars, donuts, candlesticks, heatmaps, etc.)
- 17 curated themes (dark + light)
- ~15KB gzipped, zero dependencies
- Pure SVG, TypeScript-first
- LLM-ready with llms.txt for AI-assisted development

I built this because existing chart libraries are either massive (D3-based, 100KB+) or require tons of configuration to look good. ChartKit is designed to look polished out of the box.

Example:
```tsx
<LineChart
data={data}
series={[{ key: 'value', label: 'Revenue', area: true }]}
theme="midnight"
curve="monotone"
responsive
/>

Live demo: https://chartkit.dev/demo

Docs: https://chartkit.dev

GitHub: https://github.com/toddynho/chartkit

npm: npm install @derpdaderp/chartkit

Would love feedback, especially on the API design and theme quality.
by spwa4 | 2026-01-21 20:01:31+00:00
The problem is that if this argument is allowed to stand, art, as a human endeavor will shrink 99% or maybe even 100%.

Oh and this happens in a very underhanded way. Courts, governments and companies (including OpenAI and others) demand copyright is respected by humans. They impose great penalties when humans cheat, and then this happens:

https://torrentfreak.com/nvidia-contacted-annas-archive-to-s...

https://torrentfreak.com/authors-accuse-openai-of-using-pira...

https://torrentfreak.com/meta-torrented-over-81-tb-of-data-t...

If these companies were forced to abide by the rules courts impose on humans, they would have to buy billions worth of books. But of course, "that's not how copyright works". Of course, these companies ARE using copyright to avoid reciprocating:

https://openai.com/policies/row-terms-of-use/

So this is yet another "rules for thee, not for me" situation involving companies worth billions of dollars. A situation that's really hurting people's livelihoods ...
by DoctorOetker | 2026-01-21 20:01:37+00:00
What I don't understand about this type of argument: wouldn't it have been more cost-effective policy BEFORE out-sourcing and offshoring jobs, to condition off-shoring etc on full documentation of all the workflows, all the trade secrets, paying for reverse engineering of tools they did not make themselves, ... after spending that cost they are free to offshore jobs, BUT all of this information is available to any citizen and free of charge, through say normal or university libraries. If another national sees how to automate parts of the offshored company they can have at it, they can gang together to figure out how to reimport the jobs profitably.