MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mooreds | 2026-02-21 15:13:21+00:00
Good description of OAuth from one of the folks there at the beginning. I think the author doesn't do a great job of answering the question in the concrete, though. This sibling comment does a lot better[0].

I'm partial to this piece[1], which I helped write. It covers the various common modalities of OAuth/OIDC. (It's really hard to separate them, to be honest; they're often.) Was discussed previously on HN[2].

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47100073

1: https://fusionauth.io/articles/oauth/modern-guide-to-oauth

2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29752918
by bubblewand | 2026-02-21 15:13:34+00:00
I read that as “when you use them correctly”.

“Correctly” means building consensus so capitalists can expect the new trade framework they're operating under to be reasonably stable, signaling what you’ll do well in advance, then phasing it in, ideally also with a guide to what a phase-out will look like and why or when you would begin doing that. Also, you’d usually avoid tariffing too widely at once. Focused is far more effective.

The stability is needed to get businesses to invest serious money in new buildings, machines, and training, when it won’t pay off for years.

You signal ahead of time and phase them in to minimize damage done. Gives companies time to adjust their stance before the pressure is on.

You focus them on specifically the goods you want to protect, so you don’t also raise the prices of inputs to those goods more than you have to.

You’ll notice zero of those key components were present in this scheme.
by trcf23 | 2026-02-21 15:13:44+00:00
Well for the OpenAi part, there was another HN thread on it where several people pointed out it was a marketing move more than a technical one.

If Anthropic is able to spend millions for TV commercial to attract laypeople, OpenAi can certainly do the same to gain traction from dev/hacky folks i guess.

One thing i've done so far -not with claws- is to create several n8n workflows like: reading an email, creating a draft + label, connecting to my backend or CRM, etc which allow me to control all that from Claude or Claude Code if needed.

It's been a nice productivity boost but I do accept/review all changes beforehand. I guess the reviewing is what makes it different from openclaws
by phyzix5761 | 2026-02-21 15:14:11+00:00
I've never understood the fear of companies stealing your facial biometrics data. In the US, and I think in other countries, photography in public places is not a crime. Anyone can take your picture and use your facial biometric data without your consent or knowledge. The government could force-audit all databases in the US to try and find hidden facial biometrics data but would that even be feasible or ethical?

I know there are laws against using such data without consent but if no one finds out you have that data how can someone be held accountable?
by dasil003 | 2026-02-21 15:14:14+00:00
This feels like the healthiest take (other than just opting out of social media entirely). I wish there wasn’t this tension between scale and freedom/diversity. I wish the dynamics of tech were a little less winner-takes-all. But such is the nature of global digital distribution. Decentralization and local-first are nice ideas but they create a pretty high barrier to entry that keeps a lot of interesting people out. If I’m going to be on social media I don’t want to be in a cesspool like Twitter but I also don’t want to be an idealogical hobbyist bubble.
by spwa4 | 2026-02-21 15:14:51+00:00
The data I'm finding says that it's still increasing, especially in India. They expect it to start dropping in 2028-2030 due to the buildouts you're mentioning but for now that isn't happening.

Claim is that it's about strategic safety for both countries. Coal is easy, and they have plenty of it (unlike oil, which neither have in any quantity).
by GTP | 2026-02-21 15:15:26+00:00
I'm genuinely wondering if this sort of AI revolution (or bubble, depending on which side you're in) is worth it. Yes, there are some cool use cases. But, you have to balance those with increased GPU, RAM and storage prices, and OSS projects struggling to keep up with people opening pull requests or vulnerability disclosures that turn out to be AI slop. Which lead GitHub to introduce the possibility to disable pull requests on repositories. Additionally, all the compute used for running LLMs in the cloud seems to have a significant environmental impact. Is it worth it, or are we being fooled by a technology that looks very cool on the surface, but that so far didn’t deliver on the promises of being able to carry complex tasks fully autonomously?
by cwicklein | 2026-02-21 15:15:46+00:00
I’ve written a personal system in Common Lisp for building third-party software on macOS (coincidentally somewhat similar to GUIX), and I use sandbox-exec to isolate execution so that only intended requisites affect the build process and so that installation is strictly confined to the configured destination directory, no scribbling outside the lines.

I think Bazel uses sandbox-exec on macOS.
by ljm | 2026-02-21 15:16:58+00:00
Exactly. I'm not saying this person should disclose their identity, but they are very conveniently using anonymity and passive voice to make themselves unaccountable to the 'social experiment' they conducted. And that we all know that if it went differently they'd put their name all over it.

In as many words I'm just calling this person a complete asshole and if I were to ever know this person offline I would be quite clear in explaining that.
by eddd-ddde | 2026-02-21 15:17:00+00:00
I've commented about this before.

The answer is development branches are forbidden but releases still use a kind of branching approach.

When you make a release you use commit A from main, then development continues, commit B adds a feature, and maybe commit C fixes a serious bug.

You don't want to make a new release at C because it includes new non tested features, instead you cherry-pick fixes to your release, test the new release candidates, and release that when ready.

Development still happens in main however.

Another big tool to minimise these problems is to separate the concept of feature release from the concept of binary release. You don't have to make a true deployment to release new features or roll them back, just use a toggle switch.
by Someone | 2026-02-21 15:17:23+00:00
https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=sandbox-exec&aprop...:

“The sandbox-exec command is DEPRECATED. Developers who wish to sandbox an app should instead adopt the App Sandbox feature described in the App Sandbox Design Guide”

That still is the case for MacOS 26.3 (https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=sandbox-exec&aprop...)

MacOS 10.13.6 is from 2017, so this has been deprecated for almost 10 years.
by peterfirefly | 2026-02-21 15:18:26+00:00
The best thing Julia Lawall ever did!

Not the hardest, not the thing with the most sophisticated theories behind it, not the thing that helped her academic career the most... but definitely the best and the most useful.

There must be a lot of other academics who could do things that are less theoretical but more useful than what they normally do.

There must be a lot of undervalued academics who in effect are punished for doing things that useful without requiring quite as much deep theory as their fields can muster.

I'm glad she did something that she wasn't really rewarded for and I'm sad that the academic reward functions are so off.
by loeg | 2026-02-21 15:19:03+00:00
https://www.cppstories.com/2026/shared_mutex/#newer-concurre...

> Since C++17, the concurrency library has expanded significantly. We now have:

> ...

> safe memory reclamation mechanisms (RCU, hazard pointers in C++26)

> These tools focus mostly on thread lifetime, coordination, cancellation or lock-free programming.

> std::shared_mutex fills a different role.

> It is still a mutual-exclusion primitive, explicitly designed to protect a shared state with many readers and few writers. It does not compete with atomics, condition variables, or RCU.

What does it mean to say shared_mutex does not "compete" with atomics/CVs/RCU? There are many situations where RCU or other safe reclamation mechanism is a good replacement for state + shared_mutex. (And some situations where atomics are a decent replacement.)
by runarberg | 2026-02-21 15:20:05+00:00
I suspect the majority of these illegal moves are in blitz or bullet tournaments in game 12 of the third day, and the player touches one peace but moves another, or hits the clock with the hand that didn’t make the move, or hits the clock without making a move. I don‘t think any expert level chess player grabs a captured rook and places it on the board, or moves a light squared bishop to a dark square, unless they are hustling at the park, in which case (it can be argued) moves like this with a slight of hand is part of the game.
by masswerk | 2026-02-21 15:20:17+00:00
For clarification, here's the actual quote from the article describing the process:

> I verified the issue with the minimum access necessary to confirm the scope - and stopped immediately after.

No notion of a script, "every password" out of a set of a single default password may be open to interpretation, no mention of data downloads (the wording suggests otherwise), no mention of actual number of accesses (the text suggest a low number, as in "minimum access necessary to confirm the scope").

Still, some data was accessed, but we don't know to what extent and what this actually was, based on the information provided in the article. There's a point to be made about the extent of any confirmation of what seems to be a sound theory at a given moment. But, in order to determine whether this is about a stalled number generator or rather a systematic, predictable scheme, there's probably no way around a minimal test. We may still have a discussion, if a security alert should include dimensions like this (scope of vulnerability), or should be confined to a superficial observation only.
by ErroneousBosh | 2026-02-21 15:20:42+00:00
> Self driving cars are far more forgiving of occasional mistakes

I would say not, no.

It's almost impossible to crash a plane. There's nothing to hit except the ground, and you stay away from that unless you really really mean to get close.

It's very easy to crash a car, and if you do that most of the time you'll kill people outside the car, often quite a lot of them.

There are no production aircraft fitted with autopilots that can correct for breaking a wing off.
by nsonha | 2026-02-21 15:21:03+00:00
I find it dubious that a technical person claims to "just bought a new Mac mini to properly tinker with claws over the weekend". Like can they not just play with it on an old laptop lying around? A virtual machine? Or why did they not buy a Pi instead? Openclaw works with linux so not sure how this whole Mac mini cliche even started, obviously an overkill for something that only relays api calls.
by YeGoblynQueenne | 2026-02-21 15:21:07+00:00
>> LLMs are inherently statistical interpolators. They operate beautifully in an Open World (where missing information is just "unknown" and can be guessed or left vague) and they use Non-Monotonic Reasoning (where new information can invalidate previous conclusions).

I think LLM reasoning is not so much non-monotonic as unsound, in the sense that conclusions do not necessarily follow from the premises. New information may change conclusions but how that happens is anyone's guess. There's some scholarship on that, e.g. there's a series of papers by Subarao Kamphampathi and his students that show how reasoning models' "thiking" tokens don't really correspond to sound reasoning chains, even if they seem to improve performance overall [1].

But it is difficult to tell what reasoning really means in LLMs. I believe the charitable interpretation of claims about LLM reasoning is that it is supposed to be informal. There is evidence both for and against it (e.g. much testing is in fact on formal reasoning problems, like math exam questions or Sokoban, but there's tests of informal reasoning also, e.g. on the bar exam). However, different interpretations are hard to square with the claims that "we don't understand reasoning"; not a direct quote, but I'm aware of many claims like that by people whose job it is to develop LLMs and that were made at the height of activity around reasoning models (which seems now to have been superseded by activity around "world models") [1].

If LLMs are really capable of informal reasoning (I'm not necessarily opposed to that idea) then we really don't understand what that reasoning is, but it seems we're a bit stuck because to really understand it, we have to, well, formalise it.

That said, non-monotonic reasoning is supposed to be closer to the way humans do informal reasoning in the real world, compared to classical logic, even though classical logic started entirely as an effort to formalise human reasoning; I mean, with Aristotle's Syllogisms (literally "rsasonings" in Greek).

________________

[1] Happy to get links if needed.
by rybosworld | 2026-02-21 15:21:07+00:00
I believe you're referring to the tools array? https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/tools/

This is external tools that you are allowing the model to have access to. There is a suite of internal tools that the model has access to regardless.

The external python tool is there so it can provide the user with python code that they can see.

You can read a bit more about the distinction between the internal and external tool capabilities here:
https://community.openai.com/t/fun-with-gpt-5-code-interpret...

"I should explain that both the “python” and “python_user_visible” tools execute Python code and are stateful. The “python” tool is for internal calculations and won’t show outputs to the user, while “python_user_visible” is meant for code that users can see, like file generation and plots."

But really the most important thing, is that we as end-users cannot with any certainty know if the model used python, or didn't. That's what the alignment faking article describes.
by alexjplant | 2026-02-21 15:21:18+00:00
Most importantly this opens up an amazing future where we get the real version of the classic science fiction MacGuffin of a physical AI chip. Pair this with several TB of flash storage and you have persistent artificial consciousness that can be carried around with you. Bonus points if it's quirky, custom-trained and the chip is one of a kind that you stole from an evil corporation. Additional bonus points if the packaging is such that it's small enough to plug into the USB-C port on your smart glasses and has an eBPF module it can leverage to see what you're doing and talk to you in real time about your actions.

I enjoy envisioning futures more whimsical than "the bargain-basement LLM provider that my insurance company uses denied my claim because I chose badly-vectored words".
by loeg | 2026-02-21 15:21:22+00:00
> What I would really like is the ability to change defaults for all mutexes created in the program, and have everyone use the same std mutexes.

Yes. I imagine subbing out a debug mutex implementation that tracks lock ordering and warns about order inversion (similar to things like witness(4)): https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?witness(4)

> rwlocks are often a bad idea

Yes.

> since you still get cache contention between readers on the counter for number of active readers

There are rwlock impls that put the reader counts on distinct cache lines per core, or something like that (e.g., folly::SharedMutex), mitigating this particular problem. But it isn't the only problem with rwlocks.

> Consider alternatives like seqlocks, RCU, hazard pointers etc instead, depending on the specifics of your situation (there is no silver bullet when it comes to performance in concurrent primtitves).

Yes. :)
by mark_l_watson | 2026-02-21 15:21:22+00:00
Beautifully written, I saved your post to send the next friend or relative who asks me why I am so hard-over on privacy. I enjoyed working at Google hears ago as a contractor, and they are my ‘favorite’ tech company - the only mega-tech company who’s services I regularly use, but I am constantly mindful of their business model as I use YouTube, GCP, and their various dev APIs.
by zozbot234 | 2026-02-21 15:21:45+00:00
The increased hardware prices are temporary and will only spur further expansion and innovation throughout the industry, so they're actually very good news. And the compute used for a single LLM request is quite negligible even for the largest models and the highest-effort tasks, never mind routine requests; just look at how little AI inference costs when it's sold by third parties (not proprietary model makers) at scale. We don't need complete automation of every complex task, AI can still be very helpful even if doesn't quite make that bar.
by shablulman | 2026-02-21 15:22:06+00:00
It’s interesting to see Anthropic lean so heavily into a CLI-first approach for agentic coding. We’ve seen a lot of success with tools like Aider and various IDE extensions, but a first-party tool that can natively leverage the model’s specific tool-use strengths feels like the right direction for reducing friction.

The real challenge with these agents is usually the "context ping-pong"—constantly switching between the editor, the docs, and the terminal to verify changes. By living directly in the shell, this starts to feel less like a chat interface and more like a specialized terminal multiplexer that actually understands the project state. It’ll be worth watching how they balance autonomy with safety as the tool evolves.
by GuB-42 | 2026-02-21 15:22:23+00:00
Because it is not how computers work. It doesn't matter much for high level languages like LUA, you rarely manipulate raw bytes and pointers, but in system programming languages like Zig, it matters.

To use the terminology from the article, with 0-based indexing, offset = index * node_size. If it was 1-based, you would have offset = (index - 1) * node_size + 1.

And it became a convention even for high level languages, because no matter what you prefer, inconsistency is even worse. An interesting case is Perl, which, in classic Perl fashion, lets you choose by setting the $[ variable. Most people, even Perl programmers consider it a terrible feature and 0-based indexing is used by default.
by noisy_boy | 2026-02-21 15:22:33+00:00
This is what the blog writer wrote in email informing about the vulnerability:

> I am offering a window of 30 days from today the 28th of April 2025 for [the organization] to mitigate or resolve the vulnerability before I consider any public disclosure.

> Please note that I am fully available to assist your IT team with technical details, verification steps and recommendations from a security perspective.

He is offering a window of 30 days and that he will consider public disclosure only after that window. He didn't say that this was the full and final window. He didn't say that he will absolutely and definitely disclose. He is being more than co-operative by willing to offer his time and knowledge in this matter, even if he doesn't need to.

If they are not Google, then instead of push-and-shove legal threats, they could have been forthcoming and said something like, "We are not an IT company with expertise in this matter. We will definitely need more than 30 days to resolve this matter. Please let us know if you are agreeable to a longer time Window of <n days> before you consider disclosure."

To top it all, they ask to keep this matter away from the authorities despite:

> The Maltese National Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure Policy (NCVDP) explicitly requires that confirmed vulnerabilities be reported to both the responsible organization and CSIRTMalta.

So he followed the law and that is bad, how?

> I don’t think cc’ing the national agency was that necessary given the scale of the problem that necessary given the scale of the problem.

Children's addresses were publicly accessible via the vulnerability - does the urgency solely require the matter to be large scale to be taken seriously?

> Maybe should’ve just given them a call and have had a friendly chat over the phone. You would’ve helped them and stayed friends.

The same could be said about the company. Why are only people expected to be nice and friendly while it is fine for companies to issue legal threats?
by simonw | 2026-02-21 15:22:42+00:00
It's a new, dangerous and wildly popular shape of what I've in the past called a "personal digital assistant" - usually while writing about how hard it is to secure them from prompt injection attacks.

The term is in the process of being defined right now, but I think the key characteristics may be:

- Used by an individual. People have their own Claw (or Claws).

- Has access to a terminal that lets it write code and run tools.

- Can be prompted via various chat app integrations.

- Ability to run things on a schedule (it can edit its own frontal equivalent)

- Probably has access to the user's private data from various sources - calendars, email, files etc. very lethal trifecta.

Claws often run directly on consumer hardware, but that's not a requirement - you can host them on a VPS or pay someone to host them for you too (a brand new market.)
by netsharc | 2026-02-21 15:22:56+00:00
> UK gov for some unexplained reason decided that they are responsible for housing and feeding them. The money comes from taxing UK citizens.

I see your winginess from your post. You're going to stop reading this because you'll find it disgusting, but hey I'll bother anyway: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/dina-nayeri-un...

She wrote:
> Civilised people don’t ask for resumes when answering calls from the edge of a grave. It shouldn’t matter what I did after I cleaned myself off and threw away the last of my asylum-seeking clothes. My accomplishments should belong only to me. There should be no question of earning my place, of showing that I was a good bet. My family and I were once humans in danger, and we knocked on the doors of every embassy we came across: the UK, America, Australia, Italy. America answered and so, decades later, I still feel a need to bow down to airport immigration officers simply for saying “Welcome home”.

> But what America did was a basic human obligation. It is the obligation of every person born in a safer room to open the door when someone in danger knocks. It is your duty to answer us, even if we don’t give you sugary success stories.

But heck, "civilised people", I'm beginning to doubt very much that Western Europeans deserve that moniker.

You write:

> Poland has hospitals staffed 100% by Polish people. What prevents UK from doing the same?

Maybe because UK kids don't want the underpaid overwork conditions? Why not pay them better and give more of the taxpayer's money for the NHS, oh some of you will moan about that as well? Maybe the NHS will be forced to spend the money for outsourcing, ensuring the Tory-run outsourcing companies earn those nice bucks - hey why not direct your anger at them?

> And they don't work so you now have mostly young males loitering in neighborhoods.

Yeah, perversely refugees applying for permit aren't allowed to earn income, so again it's the government preventing them to work. Allow them to pick those fruits for some income and you'll moan about the government making the country even more attractive for people to run away from bullets and bombs...
by pwdisswordfishy | 2026-02-21 15:23:07+00:00
> You can’t push changes to a non-bare repo – if you try, Git will reject your push.

Sure you can. If the repo has branch foo checked out, but you're changing branch bar, it will happily let you push to bar (or bar->baz). And even if both are working with the same branch, whether or not you get a warning or it's accepted or rejected is controlled by 'receive.denyCurrentBranch'.

> Because nobody can “work” inside a bare repo, it’s always safe to receive pushes from other locations

Mmm... it's "safe" depending on what you're pushing and what's on the other end, which is no different from trying to push to a non-bare repo.