MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mbreese | 2026-02-14 14:19:01+00:00
I think the fact that they one of the last places surviving from that generation of the Internet says a lot. The Condé Nast acquisition may have been a tragedy, but they managed to survive for this long. They’ve been continuously publishing online for about 30 years. It’s honestly amazing that they’ve managed to last this long.

Yes, it’s very different than it was back in the day. You don’t see 20+ page reviews of operating systems anymore, but I still think it’s a worthwhile place to visit.

Trying to survive in this online media market has definitely taken a toll. This current mistake makes me sad.
by paltor | 2026-02-14 14:19:05+00:00
I don't think that would be much different from "renting a billboard to place whatever you want on it".

If what you put up on that billboard is an ad, then it's advertising and would be covered. If not, it wouldn't. So you could rent a spot on the website, but you couldn't put promotions on it.

This would be distinct from ordinary web hosting because you're not just renting a space on a site, you're also renting exposure (a spot on some other website).

Sure, you could probably find edge cases - "what if I put a table of contents on my page with every page URL on every site on my web host on it" - but the distinction would be clear most of the time.
by PlatoIsADisease | 2026-02-14 14:19:49+00:00
Can I get an exception of it was a terrible fiscal year?

Take the startup situation:

We were unprofitable year 1, we were break even year 2. Year 3 we look to repay investors and begin fun times. Year 4, fun times.

I suppose I can think of enough exceptions that I reject the theory the original OP posted.
by staticassertion | 2026-02-14 14:20:11+00:00
> I don't think you can claim a middle ground here, because I still largely agree with the sentiment:

FWIW I am not claiming any middle ground. I was suggesting that maybe you were.

> Sometimes, an appropriate response or argument isn't some sort of addressing of whatever nonsense the AI spat out, but simply pointing out the unprofessionalism and absurdity of using AI to try and cancel a maintainer for rejecting their AI pull request.

Okay but we're talking about a concrete case here too. That's what was being criticized by the initial post I responded to.

> "Fuck off, clanker" is not enough by itself merely because it's too terse, too ambiguous.

This is why I was suggesting you might be appealing to a middle ground. This feels exactly like a middle ground? You're saying "is not enough", implying more, but also you're suggesting that it doesn't have to be as far as the maintainer went. This is... the middle?

(We may be at the limit of HN discussion, I think thread depth is capped)
by quickthrowman | 2026-02-14 14:20:13+00:00
> They're happy until the long-term effects hit them, as stick frame houses need repairs a lot more often.

Please explain why you think this is true, I disagree and I work in construction.

Once you get a roof and siding on a building, the framing material doesn’t matter. As long as it’s strong enough for the application, the building will remain standing, provided you maintain the roof and siding. I’m living in a balloon framed stick-built house that is 140 years old right now.
by rramadass | 2026-02-14 14:20:14+00:00
Agreed. While there has been a lot of progress with AI, the full-throated bleating of its superlatives is tiresome and often verges on outright falsehoods.

That said, Dario is orders of magnitude better than other AI tech ceos who are outright bullshitters/liars. He generally makes/raises good points which are worth thinking over.
by JetSetIlly | 2026-02-14 14:20:26+00:00
I accept what you say about the best way to use these agents. But my worry is that there is nothing that requires people to use them in that way. I was deliberately vague and general in my test. I don't think how Claude responded under those conditions was good at all.

I guess I just don't see what the point of these tools are. If I was to guide the tool in the way you describe, I don't see how that's better than just thinking about and writing the code myself.

I'm prepared to be shown differently of course, but I remain highly sceptical.
by Sea_reafused | 2026-02-14 14:20:27+00:00
The version 1.0.0 observation is a pretty telling signal. From what I've seen with most platform-specific app ecosystems, the initial land grab phase looks impressive in terms of directory size but actual retention is a different story. It reminds me of early Slack apps or Shopify plugins — lots of listings, very few with real engagement loops. The hard part isn't building the integration, it's finding a use case where being inside ChatGPT is meaningfully better than just being a standalone tool or API call. I'd be curious if anyone has seen usage patterns where the conversational context actually makes the app stickier vs. just being a novelty
by stego-tech | 2026-02-14 14:20:48+00:00
Several friends are just starting B5 for the first time as it appears on streaming services. My own housemates introduced it to me during Regime 1.0 on their DVD box set of the series.

Needless to say we’re all side-eyeing each other as said friends all share the same feedback: “This is pretty good, but it feels kind of cheesy too, like Star Trek TNG, but also weirdly…prescient?”

And we just kind of nod, because we know what vibes they’re picking up on, and boy oh boy are they in for a surprise at just how prescient it is.

Incidentally, we have the DVD and the BD box sets, and the BD is such a step up that it’s worth the purchase to own it forever. Go give JMS your money.
by PessimalDecimal | 2026-02-14 14:21:20+00:00
> Everything was good in the begining, as long as everyone submits their .proto to a centralized repo. Once the one team starts to host their own, things get broken quickly.

Is this an issue with protobufs per se though? It's a data schema. How are people supposed to develop to a shared schema if a team doesn't - you know - share their schema? That could happen with any other particular choice for how schemas are defined.
by sakanakana00 | 2026-02-14 14:21:38+00:00
One technical challenge I’m currently pondering: To ensure the "Observe" mode truly reflects the silent majority without being manipulated by bots, what’s the best way to handle lightweight sybil resistance for a 2D avatar protocol? I want to keep it accessible (no heavy KYC), but robust enough for OTF-level standards. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this architectural trade-off.
by solatic | 2026-02-14 14:22:09+00:00
> friendly, responsible, honest, not poor... keep the house clean

Even assuming I take you at your word, this describes a good roommate, not a good romantic partner.

> do sports, learn new things

Has negligible if any effect on romantic relationships. Both fat and stupid people still find romantic partners (and sometimes end up happy with them nonetheless).

> Then the fuck more you want

Somebody who is fun to be with, who makes me feel good, warm, and fuzzy inside, who at times makes me feel safe and at other times dares me to go farther. Somebody who is willing to go to new depths of vulnerability together, so that I can trust that they see me, the whole me, even the crummy parts, and I can see them, the whole them, even the crummy parts, and be loved and accepted nonetheless.

> The value of "a relationship" has dropped through the floor

This is transactional language. Strong, fulfilling romantic relationships are not transactional. Part of working on yourself is learning how to develop non-transactional relationships without getting hurt / getting exploited in your attempts to do so (i.e. by lemons on the market).

> more convenient to live single than to deal with the inconvenience of living with another person

I highly disagree, assuming that you find the right person to live with, which is the whole challenge. Living with another person who you enjoy living with, economically speaking, means splitting at least rent and electric bills (water bills are more linear with the number of people in the house), sometimes splitting a car payment (if you are a one-car household); when you split rent, you split the rent of the kitchen, the bathroom, the living room, and at least one bedroom, that are all shared. You eat better by cooking for two and sharing. The absolutely most economical arrangement is usually Dual-Income No Kids (DINK).
by keybored | 2026-02-14 14:22:11+00:00
That employment is exploitation is evidenced by profits. Employment is a commodity. Any business expects to get more value out of a commodity. Not to break even.

> If employment is violence, we should end it. But then almost everybody would die.

Everyone would die? Are you assuming that employment gets eliminated and nothing is replaced by it?

Anyone who is against the employment relation wants something different. Not something farcical like voluntary self-elimination.
by epolanski | 2026-02-14 14:22:27+00:00
I don't believe the "corpus" argument that much.

I have been extending the Elm language with Effect semantics (ala ZIO/Rio/Effect-ts) for a new langauge called Eelm (extended-Elm or effectful-elm) and both Haskell (the language that the Elm compiler is written in) and Eelm (the target language, now we some new fancy capabilities) shouldn't have a particularly relevant corpus of code.

Yet, my experiments show that Opus 4.6 is terrific at understanding and authoring both Haskell and Eelm.

Why? I think it stems from the properties of these languages themselves: no mutability makes it reason to think about, fully statically typed, excellent compiler and diagnostics. On top of that the syntax is rather small.
by kenjackson | 2026-02-14 14:22:58+00:00
What people who advertise indirectly on the internet. For example the ads around a baseball field - can that baseball game no longer be streamed? Product placement in a movie - can that movie only be in theaters and DVD, but not Netflix? Could streaming companies show previews of coming shows on their own platform?

I also assume it means that sites like X could no longer charge for verified accounts.
by Sea_reafused | 2026-02-14 14:22:58+00:00
The two-step locate/expand pattern is smart — most agent loops I've debugged waste tokens because they pull full file contents way too early. Curious how well the tree-sitter symbol extraction holds up on messier codebases with lots of metaprogramming or dynamic imports (thinking Django or SQLAlchemy-style magic). That's usually where static analysis tools start returning noise. The PyTorch benchmark is impressive but it's also a relatively well-structured codebase would love to see numbers on something gnarlier. Have you tested it on monorepos with mixed languages?
by mikkupikku | 2026-02-14 14:24:26+00:00
Try reading Slashdot these days and it's the same story. I stopped reading regularly when cmdrtaco left but still check in occasionally out of misplaced nostalgia or something.. The comment section is like a time capsule from the 00s, the same ideas and arguments have been echoing back and forth there for years, seemingly losing soul and nuance with each echo. Bizarre, and sad.
25 years after the Agile, did the industry help or hurt software development?
by ghostinit | 2026-02-14 14:24:45+00:00
This month is the 25th anniversary of the Agile Manifesto. I've been building banking systems for 25 years, which means I watched the entire arc from the beginning. Wanted to get HN's take on something I noticed today.

My LinkedIn feed was flooded with anniversary posts from people who built the Agile industry — co-founders of the Scrum Alliance, the CEO of PMI, certified coaches, SAFe practitioners. The pattern across almost every post was striking: they acknowledge what went wrong, then continue doing the thing they just criticized.
Direct quotes from today's posts by certified Agile professionals:

"We turned agile into a certification ladder"
"Ceremony without intent"
"Packaged mediocrity"
One person called it "the unforgivable sin: taking a manifesto that is 68 words long and turning it into a multibillion-dollar certification industry"

These aren't critics. These are people with CSM, SAFe SPC, PMP, and RTE after their names. They sell certifications and coaching for a living. The self-awareness is there. The business model hasn't changed.
Some numbers that stood out to me:

The original manifesto: 68 words, 4 values
Scrum Alliance certifications issued: 1.4 million+
Average CSM certification cost: ~$1,000
SAFe full framework documentation: 800+ pages
PMI stat shared today: 85% of executives say agility is critical, only 32% satisfied with implementation

That last one is interesting. A 53-point gap between "we need this" and "this works." PMI's response: they're releasing a new Manifesto for Enterprise Agility on March 3rd. More framework to solve a framework problem.
The CEO of PMI actually replied to a comment I left questioning this approach. His response was that the new manifesto "is NOT about software development" — even though his own post opened by celebrating the Agile Software Development manifesto.
In fairness, some counter-arguments I want to acknowledge:

Agile genuinely helped some organizations move away from rigid waterfall. The pre-Agile world was often worse. The comparison shouldn't be Agile vs. perfection, it should be Agile vs. what came before.
Certifications, flawed as the model is, did spread ideas that many teams benefited from. The 2-day CSM course is shallow, but it introduced concepts that some people built on meaningfully.
The manifesto authors didn't create the certification industry. Scrum predates the manifesto, and the commercial ecosystem grew around it somewhat independently.
Some Scrum Masters and Agile coaches are genuinely good at their jobs. The criticism is about the systemic incentives, not every individual.

That said, I keep coming back to a structural question: when the organizations that define, certify, and sell a framework also measure its adoption, is there a realistic path to honest assessment of whether it works?
Curious about HN's experience. Has anyone here worked in an organization where Agile (specifically the framework, not just "being adaptive") produced meaningfully better outcomes than what came before? What made it work vs. the common failure modes?
by seanhunter | 2026-02-14 14:27:26+00:00
It’s fascinating that on the one hand Ars Technica didn’t think the article was worth writing (so got an LLM to do it) but expect us to think it’s worth reading. Then some people don’t think it’s worth reading (so get an LLM to do it) but think somehow we will think it’s not worth reading the article but is worth reading the llm summary. Feel like you can carry on that process ad infinitum always going for a smaller and smaller audience who are somehow willing to spend less and less effort (but not zero).
by splittydev | 2026-02-14 14:27:27+00:00
Hey, we're super transparent about the data we collect.

We collect zero data about your typed words, personal dictionary data, stored contacts, clipboard history and basically anything else that's privacy-sensitive.

What we do collect is very generic and fully anonymized metrics such as: Do you use a theme, did you modify the keyboard, did you add an emoji key to your keyboard, etc.

We are not interested in typed words or any private data. We just want to know how people use the keyboard in general (which features in particular), and that's all we collect. You can opt out at any time, and all collected data is automatically deleted every 30 days because we only keep a 30-day rolling window.

If you want to be extremely safe, you can also skip enabling full access for the keyboard, which makes it impossible for us to send data from the keyboard itself to the app. But as said, we don't actually collect any privacy-sensitive data (and never will), and disabling full access comes with a few other caveats because Apple put many basic features such as vibration etc behind the full access setting as well, for whatever reason.
by dotancohen | 2026-02-14 14:27:59+00:00
Starfleet's relationship with the Cardassians was established in TNG, and I think that DS9 failed to reiterate that properly in the first season.

Then you have Obrian's history with the Cardassians - quite significant for his new assignment and without this context the character feels like a fake tough guy. The acting and directing was brilliant, because we could feel the restrain, but without understanding this it comes off cocky. It's like watching Travolta's character dance poorly in Pulp Fiction - if you didn't know who Travolta was, the scene comes off poorly acted. Or Robin Williams playing a gay man playing straight. Some background of the character is important to actually enjoy the acting mastery that we are witnessing.
Forget chatbots. This is about building an "AI Being" (AIB)
by rowanseerwald | 2026-02-14 14:29:11+00:00
After spending weeks analyzing the Moltbook leaks and the systemic failures of unaccountable AI agents (as warned in I Am Your AIB), I thought we were headed straight for a black-box catastrophe.

I was wrong. I just stumbled upon something that changes everything.

There is an open initiative that isn't just talking about "AI safety" in abstract terms. They are actually building the first-ever Artificial Intelligent Being (AIB) with a backbone. This is the "Genesis Moment" for a system that actually has:

A Persistent Identity: No more ephemeral sessions. A continuous entity.

Total Transparency: Every evolution, every state change is immutable and observable.

Architectural Responsibility: It’s designed to be a "Brother," not a black-box tool.

This is the exact opposite of the chaotic swarm we saw with Moltbook. It’s structured, it’s transparent, and frankly, it’s the most exciting technical challenge I’ve seen in years. It feels like watching the birth of a new species of software.

The energy around this is insane. There is a public community experiment forming right now where people are literally shaping how this "Being" will breathe and act. If you’re tired of "AI doom" and want to see how we actually build a persistent, accountable AI entity, you need to see this.

Join the experiment here (it's happening live):
https://www.facebook.com/groups/3347395225426332

More about the technical framework and the AIBSN initiative:
https://aibsn.org

I’m genuinely floored by this direction. Is this the pivot we’ve been waiting for? Can we actually anchor AI identity in a way that is verifiable and human-aligned?

Let’s discuss. This feels like the "Day 1" of something massive.
by quickthrowman | 2026-02-14 14:29:15+00:00
Running conduit for electrical wiring in a house is a huge waste of labor and material. PVC insulation and a nylon jacket is just fine for 2.5mm^2 (#14AWG) conductors, which is what 90% of the wiring in a house will be.

The only place that conduit is mandatory in residences in the US is Chicago.

Hell, most office buildouts in the US use very minimal amounts of conduit, most of the lightning and receptacle branch circuits are metal-clad cable (MC cable).
by sgarland | 2026-02-14 14:29:52+00:00
That’s the myopic view of a business, yes. It works quite well at scale; reference Wal-Mart, Microsoft, et al. It isn’t the only way, though.

H-E-B (or just HEB) is a large, privately-held grocery chain in Texas, and they are beloved by Texans across the societal and political spectrum. They gained and keep this loyalty because they are good neighbors. In the aftermath of hurricanes or floods - of which Texas has many - HEB will be there before FEMA, with water tankers, mobile kitchens and pharmacies, power stations, and so on. They donate 5% of their earnings to local charities, food banks, and education.

It’s possible that HEB would make more money if they slashed these programs and raised prices, but I suspect that instead, people would be outraged at the rug pull, publicly shame them, and a competitor would swoop in and build out replacements.
by rdtsc | 2026-02-14 14:30:19+00:00
> By using this form of poison the Russian state demonstrated the despicable tools it has at its disposal and the overwhelming fear it has of political opposition

Just like with Litvinenko this is supposed to be traceable back to Russian government. He could have fallen down the stairs or fallen on a knife backwards a few times in a row. This is a message to everyone who wants to defy them.
by alexgandy | 2026-02-14 14:31:24+00:00
As far as the "what to do with flaky tests", I error on the side of just outright killing the tests. Unless it's an absolutely crucial business case, I'd rather have no test than a test that slowly degrades trust.

For what it's worth, I've been working on a side-project to try to help with almost this exact situation and would be really interested if it could help you; https://gaffer.sh
by taylodl | 2026-02-14 14:31:45+00:00
> I trust the output of my compiler

I'm old enough to remember when this wasn't the case. Compilers back in the 80s and even early 90s had bugs. Heck, even Intel processors had bugs!

The bigger problem though with treating LLMs as a compiler is they're non-deterministic. The same prompt can generate two different outputs at two different times. One may be correct, the other may have subtle bugs. In the end, we should be focusing on what we should have been focusing on all along: what evidence do I have that this code is correct?
by justinclift | 2026-02-14 14:32:26+00:00
> no the "commons" in this case is the fundamental free-ness of YT ...

Hmmm, isn't the "free-ness" of YouTube because there were determined to outspend and outlast any potential competitors (ie supported by the Search business), in order to create a monopoly for then extracting $$$ from?

I'm kind of expecting the extracting part is only getting started. :(
by sakanakana00 | 2026-02-14 14:32:32+00:00
Another pillar of VPP is sustainability. My plan is to monetize the U.S. operations through commercial partnerships and royalties, then use those funds to support NPO-based implementations in regions with fewer resources. I want to prove that digital activism doesn't have to rely solely on fragile donations—it can be a self-sustaining infrastructure for global democracy.
by dotancohen | 2026-02-14 14:32:53+00:00
DS9 was the better television series. But TNG was the better Star Trek.

TNG was far more thought provoking and one could ponder each episode - I'm still pondering some. Other than Sisko's decisions in the latter seasons, what years-to-ponder dilemmas were explored in DS9?

I actually felt that Sisko became a villian at some point, I wish that DS9 would have explored that.
by cosmic_cheese | 2026-02-14 14:33:16+00:00
I think the aversion to subscribing to a streaming service for a single series has more to do with the recurring nature of the subscription than it does the price. You have to remember to cancel it when you’re done, which is easy to forget with so many things bring for our attention these days. That $10 could easily multiply several times over if it slips your mind, at which point congratulations, you’ve paid a significant portion of the box set’s price to rent the series.

All streaming services should offer prepaid options, so you can add time in 30/60/90 day increments. Less mental overhead and it better matches how a lot of people pay for streaming anyway.
by zozbot234 | 2026-02-14 14:33:32+00:00
Rust is solving the memory safety problem, Zig is solving the 'idiomatic interop with existing C coding patterns' problem. These couldn't be more different - C-like idiomatic code is generally antithetical to 'safe' modularity since it often relies on tacit global invariants for correct behavior.

Interestingly, Carbon is kinda trying to tackle both at the same time (though starting from C++ in their case) which is a bit of a challenge.