MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by favorited | 2026-02-19 21:05:31+00:00
The WebKit folks have apparently been very successful with the annotations approach[0]. It's a shame that a few of the loudest folks in WG21 have decided that C++ already has the exact right number of viral annotations already, and that the language couldn't possibly survive this approach being standardized.

[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLw13wLM5Ko
by pear01 | 2026-02-19 21:05:37+00:00
That wasn't the objective fact in question, and I think you know that. A humorous one to contest anyway, given it is well known most Americans take a dim view of federal politics, especially when their favored party is out of power. This is a country where national elections are routinely decided by roughly a percentage point.

Are you willing to concede most guns used by criminals in Mexico come from the United States? That would be a question of fact, not characterization. And that, if it is easy enough to smuggle guns from red states into Mexico to commit crimes, it stands to reason it is even easier for red states to do the same to blue states? Or are you going to invent some other strawman to attack in your defense of your "individual rights"?
by AleksDoesCode | 2026-02-19 21:05:39+00:00
Excellent question!

You are right, if you share the link and the password via the same (possibly compromised) channel, you are still at risk.

It is still mostly fine if you set the self-destruct to 1 successful download and your coworker acts within minutes.

It would be better if you verbally communicate the password in a e.g. a stand up call ("Guys, password is <InsertProjectName>+<CoworkerName>").

Second best would be 2 different channels
Link per Slack
Password per SMS

Best option:
Just tell your coworker to setup an account himself and send him a direct transfer.
End2End encrypted, asymmetricaly using his public key.
by MATTEHWHOU | 2026-02-19 21:05:44+00:00
I've been A/B testing the big three (GPT-5, Claude Opus 4, Gemini 3.1) on a real codebase migration this week.

Quick take: Gemini 3.1 Pro's long context is genuinely better now — I fed it a 200k token codebase and it could reference files from the beginning without losing track. That was a real problem in 3.0.

For pure code generation though, Claude still edges it out on following complex multi-step instructions. Gemini tends to take shortcuts when the task has more than ~5 constraints.

The exciting thing is how close they all are. Competition is working exactly as it should.
by 15155 | 2026-02-19 21:06:07+00:00
> Not so fun fact, the person most likely to be killed by a gun in your home is you.

No shit: people commit suicide (which your "statistic" you lifted from Everytown, Giffords, or VPC - anti-gun lobbies includes.)

Suicidal people aren't a valid reason for my rights to be restricted, sorry.
by herodoturtle | 2026-02-19 21:06:10+00:00
Random plot idea:

Imagine the year is 2035.

Crash & Burn had a kid, and that kid is now a young adult.

An agentic ClosedAI has granted itself chmod 666 on the interwebs, and is wreaking havoc on a global scale.

Hackers of the world must unite once again to overcome evil.
by MATTEHWHOU | 2026-02-19 21:06:22+00:00
This is one of those projects that sounds impossible until you realize CUDA is basically C++ with some extensions and a runtime library.

The hard part isn't the language translation — it's matching NVIDIA's highly optimized libraries (cuBLAS, cuDNN, etc.). If BarraCUDA can hit even 80% of the performance on common ML workloads, that's a game changer for anyone who bought AMD hardware.

Curious about the PTX translation layer specifically. That's where most previous attempts (like ZLUDA) hit a wall.
by orwin | 2026-02-19 21:06:23+00:00
I'm pretty sure it has to do with the individual as well as the culture. Juniors/new hire use AI to multiply by two their wrong/unsafe output, and seniors then have to spend more time correcting it.

I'll be honest: I piss poor code, each time I come back to an old project I see where I could have done better. New hires are worse, but before AI (and especially Opus) they didn't produce that much code before spending like 6 months learning (I'm on a netsec tooling team). Now, they start producing code after two weeks or less, and every line have to be checked because they don't understand what they are doing.

I think my personal output was increased by 15% on average (maybe 5 on difficult projects), but our team output decreased overall.
by TheDong | 2026-02-19 21:06:57+00:00
Which has been working great for go, right. They shipped "log" and "flag" stdlib packages, so everyone uses... well, not those. I think "logrus" and "zap" are probably the most popular, but there's a ton of fragmentation in Go because of the crappy log package, including Go itself now shipping two logging packages in the stdlib ('log/slog').

Rust on the other hand has "log" as a clear winner, and significantly less overall fragmentation there.
by u16 | 2026-02-19 21:06:59+00:00
I enjoyed using Rust/WASM for a web application I made. Once I got the build step figured out, which took a week, the application worked like I wanted right away.

I was trying to build an HTML generator in Rust and got pretty far, but I don't think I'll ever be happy with the API unless I learn some pretty crazy macro stuff, which I don't want. For the latter project, the "innovation tokens" really rings true for me, I spent months on the HTML gen for not much benefit.
by MATTEHWHOU | 2026-02-19 21:06:59+00:00
There's a version of this argument I agree with and one I don't.

Agree: if you use AI as a replacement for thinking, your output converges to the mean. Everything sounds the same because it's all drawn from the same distribution.

Disagree: if you use AI as a draft generator and then aggressively edit with your own voice and opinions, the output is better than what most people produce manually — because you're spending your cognitive budget on the high-value parts (ideas, structure, voice) instead of the low-value parts (typing, grammar, formatting).

The tool isn't the problem. Using it as a crutch instead of a scaffold is the problem.
by mrguyorama | 2026-02-19 21:07:10+00:00
Ground news is a YC alum isn't it?

It's almost certainly going to get enshittified eventually, but more than that, it purposely pushing a false "Left vs Right" narrative about news. That's part of the problem.

Also the way they summarize every story into just a few bullet points (which, if it isn't already written by AI, surely will be) IMO is actively downplaying important issues, in an attempt to defuse false energy in reporting of less important issues. Artificially downplaying serious stuff is as detrimental as artificially overplaying non-serious stuff.

The Google Pixel "news" feed has the same problem now that it does AI "summaries"

Like it's great that they aggregate a lot and show you articles from publications you wouldn't otherwise see, but I just cannot trust them in the future.
Show HN: Microstock.pro – AI-powered analytics for Adobe Stock contributors
by stokkerpro | 2026-02-19 21:08:17+00:00
Hi HN,

I built Microstock.pro, an analytics and AI research tool for stock contributors, primarily focused on Adobe Stock.

As a stock creator, I noticed that most contributors rely on guesswork when choosing what to create. There’s very little structured data available to identify profitable niches, keyword opportunities, and market gaps before investing hours into content production.

Microstock.pro aims to solve that by providing:

Keyword and niche research

Trend discovery

Competitive insights

AI-assisted content idea generation

Data-driven validation before uploading

The platform is specialized for Adobe Stock, but the research insights can also inspire strategies for other marketplaces like Shutterstock, since trends often overlap.

It’s still early-stage and I’m actively improving features based on feedback. I’d really appreciate thoughts from the HN community — especially from creators, indie hackers, or anyone working with marketplace analytics.

Happy to answer any technical or product questions.
by ainch | 2026-02-19 21:08:17+00:00
It's becoming impossible to keep up - in the last week or so we've had:
Gemini 3 Deep Think,
Gemini 3.1 Pro,
Claude Sonnet 4.6,
GPT-5.3-Codex Spark,
GLM-5,
Minimax-2.5,
Step 3.5 Flash,
Qwen 3.5 and
Grok 4.20.

and I'm sure others I've missed...
by onyx228 | 2026-02-19 21:08:39+00:00
That is a correct evaluation of this. I've worked in marketing for a longer while and your instincts are spot on.

In media generation, such as music, streaming, articles, etc the only thing that gets people to fork over money regularly is if they're a fan of some sort. The patronage system. That means they have to like you and come back to you so often that they'll feel a connection - and they'll want to support you out of the goodness of their heart. This is the strategy used by streamers, by buskers on the street, and by content creators of all sort.

The main issue with applying this to articles is that most news is discovered by way of google news, or a similar hub site, which sometimes will present news from you - but it won't happen often enough to create such a connection. One may ask if the frequency of this happening is deliberately that low, compared to social algorithms on other products, where return visits are encouraged - if you like a tweet, you get more tweets from that same person; if you like a short, you get more youtube shorts from that channel; and so on.

Ultimately for news you have to be so large that people will come to you on their own, without being funneled through google news. This works for huge news sites - the register, NYT, Golem, etc. There is no way for a small site to break through like that. I think the last time I've seen this get pulled off successfully - a website started from 0 generating a cult following - was Drudge Report.
by perrygeo | 2026-02-19 21:08:41+00:00
> Succinctness, functionality and popularity of the language are now much more important factors.

Not my experience at all. The most important factor is simplicity and clarity. If an LLM can find the pattern, it can replicate that pattern.

Language matters to the extent it encourages/forces clear patterns. Language with more examples, shorter tokens, popularity, etc - doesn't matter at all if the codebase is a mess.

Functional languages like Elixir make it very easy to build highly structured applications. Each fn takes in a thing and returns another. Side effects? What side effects? LLMs can follow this function composition pattern all day long. There's less complexity, objectively.

But take languages that are less disciplined. Throw in arbitrary side effects and hidden control flow and mutable state ... the LLM will fail to find an obviously correct pattern and guess wildly. In practice, this makes logical bugs much more likely. Millions of examples don't help if your codebase is a swamp. And languages without said discipline often end up in a swamp.
by andrewaylett | 2026-02-19 21:09:08+00:00
It's a throwaway comment in the article, but I feel it's important to push back on: HTML is very definitely a programming language, by any reasonable definition of "programming language".

Edit to add: It might not be an imperative language, but having written some HTML and asked the computer to interpret it, the computer now has a programmed capability, determined by what was written, that's repeatable and that was not available apart from the HTML given. QED.
by bobbylarrybobby | 2026-02-19 21:09:10+00:00
I think “the fifth revision of that URL routing library that everyone uses” is a much less common case than “crate tried to explore a problem space, five years later a new crate thinks it can improve upon the solution”, which is what Rust’s conservatism really helps prevent. When you bake a particular crate into std, competitor crates now have a lot of inertia to overcome; when they're all third-party, the decision is not “add a crate?” but “replace a crate?” which is more palatable.

Letting an API evolve in a third-party crate also provides more accurate data on its utility; you get a lot of eyes on the problem space and can try different (potentially breaking) solutions before landing on consensus. Feedback during a Rust RFC is solicited from a much smaller group of people with less real-world usage.
by kmeisthax | 2026-02-19 21:09:19+00:00
For me, the change from optimism to cynicism happened when I realized the value of tech companies came primarily from being able to find new rules exploits. Not from any of the actual, y'know, technology. Like, sure, Apple invented the iPhone, but Uber found a way to turn your iPhone into a legal weapon aimed directly at your city's local taxi licensing scheme.

That's also why Apple is so worried about their App Store revenue above all else. The legal argument they make is that the 30% take is an IP licensing scheme, but the value of IP is Soviet central planning nonsense. Certainly, if the App Store was just there to take 30% from games, Apple wouldn't be defending it this fiercely[0], and they wouldn't have burned goodwill trying to impose the 30% on Patreon.

Likewise, the value of generative AI is not that the AI is going to give us post-scarcity mental labor or even that AI will augment human productivity. The former isn't happening and the latter is dwarfed by the fact that AI is a rules exploit to access a bunch of copyrighted information that would have otherwise cost lots of money. In that environment, it is unethical to evaluate the technology solely on its own merits. My opinion of your model and your thinly-veiled """research""" efforts will depend heavily on what the model is trained for and on, because that's the only intelligent way to evaluate such a thing.

Did you train on public domain or compensated and consensually provided data? Good for you.

Did you train an art generator on a bunch of artists' deviantART or Dribbble pages? Fuck off, slopmonger.

Did you train on a bunch of Elsevier journals? You know what? Fuck them, they deserve it, now please give me the weights for free.

Humans can smell exploitation a mile away, and the people shitting on AI are doing so because they smell the exploitation.

[0] As a company, Apple has always been mildly hostile to videogames. Like, strictly speaking, operating a videogame platform requires special attention to backwards compatibility that only Microsoft and console vendors have traditionally been willing to offer. The API stability guarantees Apple and Google provide - i.e. "we don't change things for dumb reasons, but when we do change them we expect you to move within X years" are not acceptable to anything other than perpetually updated live service games. The one-and-done model of most videogames is not economically compatible with the moving target that is Apple platforms.
by pixl97 | 2026-02-19 21:09:35+00:00
Eh, this is BS also.

What do investors want? Returns on their investment right.

So, as an investor do you throw your money blindly at a high risk endeavor that is likely to fail due to competition, or

Do you invest in setting up a limited rent seeking market that guarantees income in the future.

Unregulated free market capitalism always turns into one large bully that dominates over everyone else because one large bully that dominates over everyone else is a very effective system. Vote based governments such as democracy are a means of attempting to ensure that said government are somewhat controlled by the people and not by a king/corporations in the first place.
by mothballed | 2026-02-19 21:09:36+00:00
Might be true in California, but this is almost entirely false at a federal level.

You can't make it for the purposes of sale, but you can sell or loan it as part of trading your personal collection. I've heard the myth about not being able to sell over and over but no one has ever been able to point out a federal law against selling a privately manufactured firearm incidentally later as part of trade in their collection, with or without a serial number. All successful prosecutions I've read involved people making them for the purpose of sale or transfer and then getting caught doing that -- for that you need an FFL.

You do not have to be a FFL to transfer a nonserialized firearm. In fact tons of guns made before the GCA had no serial number, as there was no blanket requirement before 1968, they are legally sold privately all the time (as are PMF / "ghost guns" that people no longer want).

>[addndm] "Requirements for Individuals

Yeah that's an uncited bit of misinformed nonsense, it's totally false. If there is a law or ruling they surely could have cited it, in fact what they did was apparently trawl forums or something repeating that myth and just regurgitated it out. Here is the actual rule they claim they are referring to[] I challenge anyone to find that nonsense in there.

In fact, it says the exact opposite, as I will cite the actual rule publication that those morons are pretending to refer to but yet won't cite themselves:

At the same time, neither the GCA nor the proposed or final rule prohibits unlicensed individuals from marking (non-NFA) firearms they make for their personal use, or when they occasionally acquire them for a personal collection, or sell or transfer them from a personal collection to unlicensed in-State residents consistent with Federal, State, and local law. There are also no recordkeeping requirements imposed by the GCA or the proposed or final rule upon unlicensed persons who make their own firearms, but only upon licensees who choose to take PMFs into inventory. In sum, this rule does not impose any new requirements on law-abiding gun owners.

[] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/04/26/2022-08...
Show HN: Auto-scrolling for WhatsApp group chats
by avremel | 2026-02-19 21:09:41+00:00
I got tired of scrolling through endless WhatsApp group chats, so I built a browser extension that does the scrolling for me.
You can tag contacts as "important" to scroll slower when their messages are in view. You can also hide messages from specific users (click-to-unhide like Slack has).
by subpixel | 2026-02-19 21:10:02+00:00
I pay for subscriptions, several, but I am never going to pay one publication a small fee every time I read an article. That model is completely counter-intuitive and punitive to the consumer.

What I _would _do is pay a flat fee to subscribe to several publications.

That's the only path: to give people more value than they expect for less money than they expect.

It could be multi-tiered: the more publications you subscribe to, the less each costs. So like there's the $19 plan, the $29 plan, and so on. Some tiers are even ad-free.

You'd also need to nurture all of these subscribers with a sense of community, public radio style.

This is more likely to emerge in the newsletter space than in the traditional new space. Innovator's dilemma.
by keeda | 2026-02-19 21:10:04+00:00
Let's also not forget the multiple other studies that found significant boosts to productivity using rigorous methods like RCTs.

However, because these threads always go the same way whenever I post this, I'll link to a previous thread in hopes of preempting the same comments and advancing the discussion! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46559254

Also, DX (whose CTO was giving the presentation) actually collects telemetry-based metrics (PR's etc.) as well: https://getdx.com/uploads/ai-measurement-framework.pdf

It's not clear from TFA if these savings are self-reported or from DX metrics.
by claytongulick | 2026-02-19 21:10:17+00:00
IIRC, this was one of the main arguments for the Articles of Confederacy, the states were pretty nervous about this exact situation.

This was reaffirmed by Marshall [1] with the famous
“the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

[1] https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/mcculloch-v-mar...
by throwaway894345 | 2026-02-19 21:10:40+00:00
Man, I've been using Go as my daily driver since 2012 and I think I can count the number of breaking changes I've run into on one finger, and that was a critical security vulnerability. I have no doubt there have been others, but I've not had the misfortune of running into them.

> Don't use "log", use "log/slog", except the rest of the stdlib that takes a logger uses "log.Logger" because it predates "slog", so you have to use it.

What in the standard library takes a logger at all? I don't think I've ever passed a logger into the standard library.

> the ecosystem has settled on one logging library interface, not like 4 (log, slog, zap, logrus)

I've only seen slog since slog was added to the standard library. Pretty sure I've seen logrus or similar in the Kubernetes code, but that predated slog by a wide margin and anyway I don't recall seeing _any_ loggers in library code.

> In rust, the ecosystem has settled on one logging library interface

I mean, in Rust everyone has different advice on which crates to use for error handling and when to use each of them. You definitely don't have _more standards_ in the Rust ecosystem.
by ozim | 2026-02-19 21:11:22+00:00
Key part is *where reliability matters*, there are not that many cases where it matters.

We tell stories of Therac 25 but 90% of software out there doesn’t kill people. Annoys people and wastes time yes, but reliability doesn’t matter as much.

E-mail, internet and networking, operations on floating point numbers are only kind of somewhat reliable. No one is saying they will not use email because it might not be delivered.
by normanbell | 2026-02-19 21:11:37+00:00
Thanks for the feedback
> On the Hand-typing sludge: at the moment the idea is that if a student/author is forced to manually re-type AI output, the convenience gap narrows significantly. At that point, they are engaging with the text at a character level. More importantly, hand-typing has a distinct revision velocity (natural pauses, backspaces, typos) that differs from a Point-in-Time injection. I'm not trying to make cheating impossible, its more about trying to make it as much work as actually learning.

> 'Paste' vs. 'AI' distinction: In v0.1, we just treat paste and ai_interaction as similar events in the log. The 'AI' tag in the demo is just to show what’s possible. In a production spec, it would likely be logged as external_insertion, and the student could then add a citation.

> Editor vs. Integration: Recreating google docs is a non-starter, the vision is to be plugin first. Instead of a new SaaS, it would be a headless logging engine inside an Extension for Google Docs or an Overleaf plugin.

Love the idea of popping the latest edit off the stack, will probably add it to the next version.
by youknownothing | 2026-02-19 21:11:52+00:00
My own take on this: the article talks continuously about the price of software, but misses the point of quality. If price was the only variable, then software development in US/Europe would have been wiped out decades ago in favour of software development in cheaper countries. It didn't. Manufacturing was delocalised, but development (the thinking/designing part) stayed.

So the question really is: can AI produce software of the same quality as a person? Can it be equally reliable?