MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by gortron | 2026-02-24 17:00:36+00:00
I've had similar concerns with letting agents view any credentials, or logs which could include sensitive data.

Which has left me feeling torn between two worlds. I use agents to assist me in writing and reviewing code. But when I am troubleshooting a production issue, I am not using agents. Now troubleshooting to me feels slow and tedious compared to developing.

I've solved this in my homelab by building a service which does three main things:
1. exposes tools to agents via MCP (e.g. 'fetch errors and metrics in the last 15min')
2. coordinates storage/retrieval of credentials from a Vault (e.g. DataDog API Key)
3. sanitizes logs/traces returned (e.g. secrets, PII, network topology details, etc.) and passes back a tokenized substitution

This sets up a trust boundary between the agent and production data. The agent never sees credentials or other sensitive data. But from the sanitized data, an agent is still very helpful in uncovering error patterns and then root causing them from the source code. It works well!

I'm actively re-writing this as a production-grade service. If this is interesting to you or anyone else in this thread, you can sign up for updates here: https://ferrex.dev/ (marketing is not my strength, I fear!).

Generally how are others dealing with the tension between agents for development, but more 'manual' processes for troubleshooting production issues? Are folks similarly adopting strict gates around what credentials/data they let agents see, or are they adopting a more 'YOLO' disposition? I imagine the answer might have to do with your org's maturity, but I am curious!
by runjake | 2026-02-24 17:00:51+00:00
My experience was very similar to yours. I was definitely not prodigious. I was slightly gifted, for the most part, and exceptionally gifted in other non-notable ways.

I think one thing that hurt me, in particular, is that I repeatedly got told "you're really going to go places some day!". And, so I waited for things to happen.

It took me way too long to realize I had to make things happen.

If you're reading this and you're young and gifted, you need to make things happen. You'll have people help you along the way, but odds are, you will never be discovered and have riches lavished upon you.
by buescher | 2026-02-24 17:00:56+00:00
Altium has taken over a lot of small to medium sized shops. Mostly because the price is right for its capability. It has a history of being the least bad compromise between the odd mixtures of excellence and user-hostility Cadence and Mentor tend to come up with, and they've done a good job in the last decade+ of marketing it to those shops. Cadence and Siemens nee Mentor (and maybe Zuken? I've never seen Zuken in the wild, but it always makes these lists) have been neglecting the entry level and smaller organizations and aggressively trying to move their customers to their higher tier offerings during that time. But while it's Altium's flagship product, it is not top tier. It is really entry-level for a professional PCB-level design package, like PADS and OrCAD as opposed to Xpedition and Allegro.
by sergiishcherbak | 2026-02-24 17:00:56+00:00
I've just published tethered, a Python package for runtime network egress control, which is dependency-free, zero-infrastructure, and very easy to set up. It takes one function call to restrict which hosts your code can connect to.

Use cases:
- Supply chain defense. A compromised dependency can't phone home if egress is locked to your known services.
- AI agent guardrails. Constrain LLM-powered agents to only the APIs they need.
- Test isolation. Ensure your test suite never accidentally hits production endpoints.
- Least-privilege networking. Declare your app's network surface the same way you declare its dependencies.

github.com/shcherbak-ai/tethered
by aapoalas | 2026-02-24 17:01:08+00:00
I have very fond memories of Kansai airport. First time I went to Japan I ... Uhh, I didn't have a visa despite going there for exchange.

The Kansai airport immigration office uttered a lot of "oohs" and "eehs", but they came through and in less than 45 minutes my appeal for deportation was accepted and I was granted a 1 year student visa. Always makes me happy when I pass through there :)
by collingreen | 2026-02-24 17:01:54+00:00
Yes! When they are letting kids off it becomes a defacto crosswalk where kids might come out to cross the street in front of the bus but you can't see them because of the bus itself blocking your view.

Many school buses have stop signs that extend when they have the doors open to help remind people of this and prevent the little overzealous street crossers from getting splattered.
by melling | 2026-02-24 17:02:07+00:00
We’ve been discussing it for 30 years.

Having people making the same stupid comment after 3 decades needs to be handled more critically

Let’s go back 40 years and listen to the warning:

https://youtu.be/3NvgJ1b6JXs?si=yUKcegVwfyNGi2rC
by snowhale | 2026-02-24 17:02:38+00:00
the jit angle is actually the most principled framing here -- generate once, cache the compiled artifact, treat it like any other build output. the problem with the naive "call LLM every time" version isn't just cost, it's that you lose referential transparency. same function signature, different behavior on tuesday vs wednesday when the model updates. at least a jit'd artifact is reproducible within a build.
by rayiner | 2026-02-24 17:02:41+00:00
The court system is designed to optimize throughput at the expense of latency, against the background of a system where authority is vested in a relatively small number of presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed constitutional officers. About 350,000 civil cases and 65,000 criminal cases are filed every year, spread out across less than 700 district court judges.

To maximize throughput, proceedings are structured like batch processing systems. You submit work, it waits in the queue until the system gets to it, some intermediate decision is rendered, and then you submit some more work. For constitutional reasons, criminal cases cut in line, which can further increase the latency of civil cases. That means that, in a four-year case, the lawyers don't actually work on the case for four years straight. They do batches of work a couple of months at a time, and then work on other cases while waiting for the output.

Moreover, court case are, to a degree, inherently serial. Motions to dismiss--briefs that argue a case must be dismissed because its legally defective--must be filed before you start deposing witnesses or exchanging documents. You generally need to do depositions of witnesses after you've reviewed all the relevant documents. And all the fact gathering must be done before you file summary judgment motions--briefs that argue a case can be decided on the factual record without a trial.[1]

Part of the inherent delay is that the legal system is already an "exception path" in the ordinary course of business. A lot of time is spent waiting for people outside your organization who don't work for you. For example, when you're deposing a witness, they have work responsibilities, vacation plans, etc., and everyone has to work around that.

It's possible to structure cases where everything can be done in a year. That's what happens at the International Trade Commission, for example. Arbitration proceedings can also be structured like that.

[1] This also means that legal teams aren't very big. Massive corporate cases with billions of dollars on the line are handled with core teams of a dozen or so lawyers--with maybe another dozen or two parachuting in to help with specific phases like trial. Technology was squeezed out a lot of the parallelizable work. The days of 20 junior attorneys sitting in rooms reviewing boxes of paper documents are gone.
Show HN: If Discord, Reddit, X, IRC and 4chan had a baby
by ignasheahy | 2026-02-24 17:02:55+00:00
I have something to show you - it's a unique platform I've been working on and lately it has picked up some pace, so it's now more mature.
Check out https://heahy.com (or special chat made for you: https://heahy.com/c/hackernewschat)
There you can:
-Create public channels and chats by simply entering a name (like IRC), and if it's free, it's yours, or you join it otherwise.
-Each thread is real-time, so you can chat with other people there - no need to refresh for new comments.
-4chan-like reply system - it doesn't use nested comments because that wouldn't work with a real-time chat system, but there is a structure that allows you to manage different conversations. For example, if you click a post, you will see all posts that led to that post on the right sidebar. You can also double-click and that post becomes the root post (kind of like tweets/comments on X.com).
-Create private groups and personal chats with other people.
-Supports P2P live audio/video calls (up to 8 people) in all private chats and in public chats if the channel allows (you can test it by clicking Create call in the @random chat channel)
-Video/image uploads (up to 8MB now) and the ability to save media to your library for later viewing
-You can follow channels, chats, threads and users, and all those posts appear on your feed in a simple chronological order
-Unlike Discord: no tracking, advertisements, AI, paywalls, registrations; nothing is hidden behind a server - just a web page fully accessible and searchable both in the app and by search engines

On the immediate roadmap:
-Mobile apps (Android first)
-Chat Match portal - Create a simple poster with one picture, tags for filtering, and a description of what you are searching for, and match with other posters to start DMs.
-Reactions/GIFs - instead of integrating with Tenor or similar, Heahy will have its own reactions library.
-Long-form text/blogs - Channels will be able to have rich long text threads, basically allowing you to have a blog on Heahy.

I am really looking forward to hearing some feedback and constructive criticism. What do you think?
by ilija139 | 2026-02-24 17:02:57+00:00
"A4 paper sheet-sized ceramic film could hold more than 2 TB of data" Just 2 TB? Makes you appreciate just how much 2 TB of data is.

Also, what's the point of "storing our future" if it is so difficult to read and decode? How would one even know where to look for the data if it's get lost. So besides doing it for fun I don't see the point of this and how it can be ever scaled to be in everyday use.
by Scubabear68 | 2026-02-24 17:04:10+00:00
Many years ago I was doing due diligence on a point of sale hardware company, I had to head up to an acquisition they had done. People bitched and moaned about the level of physical security added, and when I asked them why they were so upset, they told me to go to the loading dock in the back.

The loading dock was kept completely open "because it's hot and we don't have A/C back here!".
by ericmay | 2026-02-24 17:04:20+00:00
Well when you're giving away your product for free... maybe open-source maintainers who want payment for their "free" products should consider going to business school?

I'm in favor of funding the arts, for example, but I'm not sure open-source is something we should tax/fund for. There is real business value in the projects that are created, but open-source maintainers insist on "giving them away for free". Start charging and then we don't need to fund/tax.
by shevy-java | 2026-02-24 17:04:34+00:00
I am not convinced.

Teter Piel (don't want to use the other name) kind of purchased a LOT of influence power via lobbyists. One lobbyist is Sebastian Lurz (also not going to use the real name here; the letter "l" is an in-country humourous take on Lüssel, Lasser and so forth - ex-politicians). The superrich buy influence and worsen the situation for the rest of us. This has to stop. The USA is currently under direct control of them - this also has to stop. I do not buy into Discord's attempt here though - they 100% knew what they were doing. The only reason they respond in this way is because they alienated and scared their user base with their idea to sniff-invade everyone. It was never about protecting kids in the first place - it was to spy.
by otterley | 2026-02-24 17:04:46+00:00
At heart, I do believe that the politicians are well-intended. It's difficult to argue that we shouldn't try to prevent the production and dissemination of CSAM. That traffickers in CSAM are more sophisticated than ever, and encrypted communications combined with the dark web help them cover their tracks are undeniable facts.

Freedom of speech is not, and has never been absolute. For example, it's unlawful to lie about the content of food and drug products. Fraud is unlawful. We also hold people liable for defamation.

You're right that technology would allow governments to cast a broad net over communication and open the door to certain kinds of abuse. It's a completely legitimate concern.

This is where legal and constitutional protections can come into play. The ability to collect communications should be coupled with safeguards to prevent people from being prosecuted for lawful speech. To have one without the other would be a tragedy. And, yes, sometimes despots need to be dealt with through violent means (politics by other means, see Clausewitz).
by verdverm | 2026-02-24 17:04:59+00:00
I think anyone who uses the word "solve" is exaggerating because nothing is ever solved, only mitigated. I'd also be suspect of the source, being a social media influencer and involved with a startup trying to sell this.

What I do think more generally is that AI companies have incentives to address alignment, hallucinations, and factuality on their own, for trust and profits.
by mattmon-og | 2026-02-24 17:05:09+00:00
I once emailed the (former) Logitech CEO asking them to produce a popular keyboard in a different layout than thier current product offering.

I actually got a personal response thanking me for my input!

Then a few years later that keyboard I wanted actually became a product.

Not sure if I really influenced their process or not; but I got that keyboard and its fun to think I did :)
by chihuahua | 2026-02-24 17:05:17+00:00
Amazon is pretty serious about physical access security. Even back in 2002, you had to scan your badge while a security guard watches, to check if you are the same person as the badge picture.

The same guard also checked if your dog was registered (I think my dog got a badge with his picture, although I think that was just for fun, and not functional)

And no easy ability to enter through side doors - you couldn't open a side door with your badge. At the time, you could still lurk outside a side door until someone else opens the door to exit. Eventually (11 years later) they locked all the side doors because they noticed people doing this sort of thing.

More recently, I think you have to scan your badge to leave so they can even track how long you're in the building, and know when you're supposed to work on site but you were there only long enough to have a coffee and then went home to continue working from home. This last part is second-hand knowledge since I haven't work there in a long time.
by vitorlourenco | 2026-02-24 17:05:17+00:00
Speed is easy to measure.
Resilience is not.

We’ve spent the last years optimizing for velocity, automation, AI-assisted output. The result? More code. Faster cycles. Shorter feedback loops.

But very few teams are asking a harder question:
Is the system getting stronger — or just more fragile at scale?

That’s why I’m excited about what we’re building with Endure, a research-driven attempt to analyze structural resilience in modern, AI-accelerated systems:
• Antifragility instead of surface metrics
• Context treated as a dependency
• Hidden coupling detection
• Structural risk beyond code smells

If you’re shipping with AI in the loop, this matters. AI compounds decisions across sprints. Small structural weaknesses don’t stay small.

This is a limited research preview, and we’re being selective.

If you care about long-term system integrity — not just short-term throughput — take a look at the original announcement and see if this resonates.
by forgetfreeman | 2026-02-24 17:05:23+00:00
The infrastructure requirements around routing and switching equipment, transoceanic cables, and satellites mean someone not users has always been in control. Barring some form of anarcho-socialist mass movement around DIY long haul networking infrastructure this seems unavoidable.

The problem with the current system is the intersection of human nature and capitalism. Individuals have willingly adopted technology that aggressively surveils them in exchange for notional convenience and by and large are blandly unconcerned with the implications thereof. This also seems unavoidable as long as data collection and brokerage is permitted and profitable, and people value entertainment over critical thinking. This outcome was very accurately predicted by netizens when online advertisements first started popping up and a lot of time was spent wargaming what would happen if mass adoption lead to the net being a viable sales and marketing target.

After 35 years of observation I've had about enough of global communications systems and everything that comes from them. At this point there is very little one could say to convince me that the internet hasn't been one of our species largest fuckups.
by eesmith | 2026-02-24 17:05:58+00:00
I think the problem-to-solve is a good one. The Google Markdown spec is very clear, with plenty of examples, and I think the problem is well-defined.

I've seen entirely too many examples of how to use TDD which give under-specified toy problems, where the solution is annoyingly incomplete for something more realistic.

And I've seen TDD projects which didn't follow the spec, but instead implemented the developers' misconceptions about the spec.

That's exactly what we see here with Markdown, where there's a spec, along with a lot of non-conformant examples in the training set by people who didn't read the spec but instead based it on their experiences in using Markdown.

The code generated by ChatGPT is almost correct. Seeing the process of how to get from that to a valid and well-tested solution would make for a good demonstration of the full process.

I'll again add that showing how to integrate something like branch coverage or hypothesis testing for automatic test suite generation would be really useful.
by loeg | 2026-02-24 17:05:59+00:00
> If you have an audit target to meet you want target meta?

I don't believe the approach the IRS takes is to set targets and only audit the lowest hanging fruit up to some target. They have different sub-organizations pursuing different goals, and some sort of vision about fairness that means going after tough cases.

> This exactly why ICE agents tends to target illegal immigrants that actually get a job and contribute to the society instead of criminals. Because the former are easy targets.

This is completely orthogonal, but also untrue. It's way easier to go after criminals, as long as states cooperate. The recent Trumpian ICE is more expensive and less effective than earlier regimes.

> adding more IRS agents only cost more tax payer’s money and give regular people more headaches.

Many, many regular people underpay the taxes they owe. Additional IRS agents help close the gap between taxes owed and taxes paid, at a cost lower than the additional revenue. Your argument is just "individual tax cheats should be able to get away with it," which I can't agree with.
by conductr | 2026-02-24 17:06:04+00:00
> There would be no reason to state disagreement unless they thought it was a threat.

No reason to do any of it other than you want to. But, because some broadcasters will want to signal to their audience there is a difference between complying with FCC "mandate" and doing what the mandate says because they were planning on doing it anyway or are independently doing it. Stating disagreement is how you signal to your audience that you are participating but on your own free will.

> And it would have the effects of a child saying they will go to sleep but not because their parent told them to.

Self realization that sleep is healthy, not a bad thing. Patriotism, or simply acknowledging major national milestones, is healthy in my opinion.
by david422 | 2026-02-24 17:06:18+00:00
> For example the washing machine. You dont need real time information because you know how long it takes since you've done it 1000s of times and it beeps. All these things are just managed in our heads subconsciously.

Actually, this is one example of home automation that works very well. My washer will remind me that wash is ready to move to the dryer, and stops reminding me once the washer door opens.

It means that a) I don't have to put it on my mental reminders, b) it works very well with anybody else in the family that does a wash and _they_ forget to move it to the dryer.
by gwern | 2026-02-24 17:06:45+00:00
> I'd note that there are many studies showing that the usual outcomes for gifted kids are not all that great.

No, there's not, and they do do great. And this goes back to Terman: there's a handful of highly selected examples (eg the Australian kids recruited from child psychologist referrals, the self-selected self-diagnosed Mensa adult survey), furious anecdotes, and then every systematic prospective sample like Terman or population registers or SMPY shows the opposite.

And while Tao is, of course, exceptional, the results for accelerated gifted kids are generally great. And Tao was part of SMPY (note the URL path, supporting documentation for https://gwern.net/smpy ) and helped demonstrate this in practice.
by atonse | 2026-02-24 17:06:45+00:00
If a maintainer has chosen to open source and use a permissive license (key word chosen, this isn't a default), they are explicitly saying via their license that they are not charging for the use of the code. What's the issue here?

If a maintainer wants to make money directly from their code, they are free to charge for it, or for services around it (examples: Sidekiq, Oban, Tailwind, not to mention large examples like RedHat or Ubuntu).

Everyone involved is making informed choices.
by ethin | 2026-02-24 17:07:08+00:00
what is such a shame is, well, two things: first, that these companies even do this kind of thing at all (i.e., age verification); and second, that it takes the kind of backlash this event has generated for them to cut ties with these companies. Apparently, it is too much to ask for any corporation to even give a damn about who runs or backs another corporation that they want to associate themselves with these days.
by Joel_Mckay | 2026-02-24 17:07:30+00:00
Currency requires trade to generate tax revenue, and is like holding a bucket of water with a hole in the bottom.

Folks could nationalize gold reserves >1oz like the US did to exit the depression, publish holding-company investment owners, tax investment properties at 6% of assessed value every year, and pass a right-of-first-sale to citizens regardless of bid amount on residential zoned estates like Singapore.

One may wager any such actions are unlikely from the hapless. =3
by GuB-42 | 2026-02-24 17:07:30+00:00
When I visited the Warner Bros studios, they had a huge pile of paper in a corner, representing all the unsolicited ideas they receive.

They told us they took care to not even read the manuscripts. I don't remember if they return them unopened or destroy them, but otherwise if the ideas from the manuscript end up in one of their productions, they open themselves to legal trouble. It may happen even if it is a coincidence, so they don't want to take any chance.