MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by sukinai | 2026-02-04 15:12:07+00:00
I built Nemp Memory because I got tired of re-explaining my project to Claude Code every session. Auth strategy, API patterns, deployment setup, all gone after compaction or a new session.
Nemp is persistent local memory for Claude Code. Everything is stored as flat JSON files on your machine. No cloud, no database, no embeddings, no API keys.

Why I built it: every memory tool I tried either ate RAM, sent data to external servers, or needed a vector database running in the background. I wanted something simple, not depending on clouds or API keys. So I built Nemp Memory to solve my own problems.

Key features:

/nemp:init — auto-detects your stack from package.json, tsconfig, etc. and builds initial memory in seconds
/nemp:auto-capture — watches your session and stores decisions, patterns, and context automatically as you work
/nemp:auto-sync — keeps CLAUDE.md updated automatically with conflict detection, so Claude reads your context on startup
/nemp:suggest — analyzes your codebase and recommends what's worth remembering

Request you to try it, as its free to use and share feedback
Dont forget to give start to repo, if you like it.
Built this a solo founder and open sourced it so that everyone can use it.
by pc86 | 2026-02-04 15:12:17+00:00
"Government propaganda to help one of the richest companies in the history of the world sell 0.000000001% more phones this quarter" is quite frankly just idiotic.

You only said half the sentence anyway. The full sentence is: "If the government wants to get in they're going to get in, unless they want to utilize the courts in any way, in which case they have to do things the right way."

If this reporter was a terrorist in Yemen they would have just hacked her phone and/or blown up her apartment. Or even if they simply wanted to knock off her source they probably could have hacked it or gotten the information in some other illicit fashion. But that's not what is happening here.
by iepathos | 2026-02-04 15:12:21+00:00
Thought the same thing. There is no legal recourse if the bot drains the account and donates to charity. The legal system's response to that is don't give non-deterministic bots access to your bank account and 2FA. There is no further recourse. No bank or insurance company will cover this and rightfully so. If he wanted to guard himself somewhat he'd only give the bot a credit card he could cancel or stop payments on, the exact minimum he gives the human assistant.
by Brian_K_White | 2026-02-04 15:12:22+00:00
This means there are no valid concerns.

There are just things some people want and the reasons they want them.

So the question that you are so annoyed by remains unanswered (by you anyway), and so, valid, to all of us adults.

@hypfer gives a valid concern, but it's based on a different facet of lockdown. The concern is not that the rest of us should be able to break into your phone for our safety, it's the opposite, that you are not the final authority of your own property, and must simply trust Apple and the entire rest of society via our ability to compel Apple, not to break into your phone or it's backup.
by hulitu | 2026-02-04 15:12:27+00:00
>The reality is by 1992, 93, 94 the workstation market was already being heavily disrupted by Linux

From Wikipedia:

> Linux (/ˈlɪnʊks/ LIN-uuks)[16] is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel,[17] a kernel first released on September 17, 1991, by Linus Torvalds

The first linux was not able to run much.
by SideburnsOfDoom | 2026-02-04 15:12:31+00:00
> Every government can and will compel companies within their jurisdiction to hand over data for legal cases.

I'm not sure of your point. This is an excellent argument as to why the French government should run their government videoconferencing and chat on infrastructure in France, as they plan to do, isn't it? Using software that they have vetted. Regardless of if this is a "uniquely American" thing or not.
by tgtweak | 2026-02-04 15:12:32+00:00
The crux of it is that radiative cooling in space is dependent on exposed surface, not total surface area like a radiator or heatsink on earth - this means if you just put an existing finned heatsink in space it would radiate most of it's heat back to itself - the only net cooling you'd have is the amount that can radiate outwards without hitting itself.

For a benchmark - the IIS uses about 4500sqft (420 sqm) of radiators just to keep it's onboard equipment (~70KW) cooled. That's ~150-200 W/sqm.

That means, per GPU, you'd need about 2.5-3.0 sqm of passive radiators.

For a 1MW satellite (~8 datacenter racks of GB200/NVL72) you'd need basically half a football field of bleeding-edge solar panels (that also need to radiate their heat on the reverse side) and a similar sized cooling array of heat radiators for the electronics.

This is on the scale of 40-50 tons - about 10% of the IIS. This should fit on falcon heavy or starship - assuming the solar array and radiators can fold up to fit inside. You could, purely based on weight, launch 2 of these per starship launch.

If you consider the Opex savings (electricity, rent, facilities maintenance) and putting 2 of these on a single starship launch, I still think the ROI would be too long. You're saving about ~$1M per year in Opex but it's costing you $25M to launch it into space and likely an extra ~$50M in satellite equipment (based on starlink satellite costs) on top of the compute. Will those GPUs still be useful in 10 years? Probably not.

I don't think the math is there that justifies the free electricity - even at gigawatt scale (thousands of satellites mass-produced) and at a dramatically lower cost per satellite and per launch. Getting costs down on this would involve tightly integrating the compute and the satellite hardware which would make upgrading the compute independently from the cooling/power infrastructure in the future a significant challenge.
by its-summertime | 2026-02-04 15:12:37+00:00
a data center in space doesn't have a gigantic rock taking up most of its area, a data center in space is 100% data center 0% rock.

If it had the same data center to rock ratio as earth, it would just end up being earth in the end, and earth doesn't seem to be wanting to stick to its equilibrium either right now
by raskelll | 2026-02-04 15:12:40+00:00
Good fit for coarse auth at the edge (who is this? what tenant? basic scopes, and so on). I’d still keep object-level/domain rules in-app. Fail-closed for auth, fail-open for observability is the right mental model. Biggest multi-tenant footguns are header spoofing + tenant-unaware caching. The proxy should own identity headers and include tenant in any cache key.
by brightball | 2026-02-04 15:12:48+00:00
Agreed. For anyone curious, here's the UK report from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) from 2023-2024.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cze3p1j710ko

Reports on sextortion, self-generated indecent images, and grooming via social media/messaging apps:

Snapchat 54%

Instagram 11%

Facebook 7%

WhatsApp 6-9%

X 1-2%
by LegionMammal978 | 2026-02-04 15:12:55+00:00
I'm a bit skeptical about taking the rates of reported soundness bugs between different systems and drawing conclusions about the underlying approaches. There's typically a class of bugs that users can stumble into by doing something unusual, and then another class of bugs that can only really be found by exploiting holes in the implementation. The first class depends on which features get exercised the most, the second class depends on how many eyes are on the source (and how accessible it is), and both classes heavily depend on the overall size of the userbase.

E.g., Metamath is designed to be as theoretically simple as possible, to the point that it's widely considered a toy in comparison to 'serious' proof systems: a verifier is mainly just responsible for pushing around symbols and strings. In spite of this simplicity, I was able to find soundness bugs in a couple major verifiers, simply because few people use the project to begin with, and even fewer take the time to pore over the implementations.

So I'd be hesitant to start saying that one approach is inherently more or less bug-prone than another, except to be slightly warier in general of larger or less accessible kernels.
by djeastm | 2026-02-04 15:13:08+00:00
That would be the more general/traditional way of saying it, but in modern investment circles the focus seems to have turned towards the actual people being "bulls/bears" and not just the attitudes of the market. A person is a bull or a bear, as opposed to a person being either bullish or bearish.

So in this construction, a "bull case" is a "case that a bull (the person) can make".
by insane_dreamer | 2026-02-04 15:13:17+00:00
> let me be upfront about how much access i've given clawdbot: it can read my text messages, including two-factor authentication codes. it can log into my bank. it has my calendar, my notion, my contacts. it can browse the web and take actions on my behalf.

this is foolish, despite the (quite frankly) minor efficiency benefits that it is providing as per the post.

and if the agent has, or gains, write access to its own agents/identity file (or a file referenced by its agents file), this is dangerous
by agentultra | 2026-02-04 15:13:33+00:00
Location: Canada

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: no

Technologies: Haskell, C, C++, Javascript, Typescript, Python, Rust, back-end, distributed systems, databases, infrastructure

Resume/CV: https://github.com/agentultra https://agentultra.com

Email: james at myusername dot com

No crypto, blockchain, or AI please.
by Dangeranger | 2026-02-04 15:14:28+00:00
The AI agent can run `echo $API_KEY` all it wants, but the value is only a placeholder which is useless outside the system, and only the proxy service which the agent cannot directly access, will replace the placeholder with the real value and return the result of the network call. Furthermore, the replacement will happen within the proxy service itself, it does not expose the replaced value to memory or files that the agent can access.

It's a bit like taking a prepaid voucher to a food truck window. The cashier receives the voucher, checks it against their list of valid vouchers, records that the voucher was used so they can be paid, and then gives you the food you ordered. You as the customer never get to see the exchange of money between the cashier and the payment system.
by delbronski | 2026-02-04 15:14:40+00:00
My favorite part of programming is thinking about the whole system before I write a single line of code. How will my data be structured? What does the UI look like? How do I structure the project? What tools do I use? What do I need to take out to make this simpler? Etc.

I think hard about this with a notebook and a pencil and a coffee. And I spend weeks and sometimes months thinking about this. I go deep. And then the actual coding is just the grunt work. I don’t hate it but I don’t love it. I couldn’t care less what language is written in as long as it accomplishes my goal. So AI works great for me in this step.

I think you can still use AI and think deeply. It just depends on your mindset and how you use it.
by whynotminot | 2026-02-04 15:14:42+00:00
Who decided absolute privacy in all circumstances is a fundamental human right? I don’t think any government endorses that position. I don’t know what international law you speak of. You’re basing your argument on an axiom that I don’t think everyone would agree with.

This sounds like a Tim Cook aphorism (right before he hands the iCloud keys to the CCP) — not anything with any real legal basis.
by heliumtera | 2026-02-04 15:15:24+00:00
It is very different with music. Music and images fall into "just shit something and I don't care what is is" category.
Most people prompting for things in this category will be satisfied with anything, they might not admit, but the degrees of freedom the model has is infinite. Now when you pin the output, let's say a character you generated, and ask for modifications WHILE KEEPING lots of characteristics, you reduce the degrees of freedom from infinite to a small, very constrained, set of states. There are workarounds but natively llms can't really do this. You ask the model to rotate an image, the hair becomes blue and the sword becames an axe.

With music this is much more pronounced because most people are musically illiterate, so even the basic mistakes while dragging characteristics over diffs becomes invisible. It's an interesting phenomenon I agree, but it says more about lack of taste and illiteracy of the common individual.

But on the point of "thinking hard", with music and artistic production in general, individuals (human with soul, not npc) crave for ideas and perspective. It is the play, the relationship between ideas that are hard to vocalize and describe but can be provocative. Because we cannot describe or understand, we have no choice other than provoke into another a similar contemplation.

But make no mistake, nobody is enjoying llm slop. They have fantasies that now they can produce something of value, or delegate this production. If this becomes true, instantly they lose and everyone goes directly to the source.

Art is specifically about communicating the inconceivable, cannot be delegated. If the tool is sufficient to produce art, then the expression is of the tool itself, now they ARE.
by gempir | 2026-02-04 15:15:46+00:00
It even supported running as a MySQL Replica at some point.

"MaterializedMySQL"

Sadly that feature seems to have been thrown out, probably due to complexity.

https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/discussions/44887#d...

https://www.percona.com/blog/complete-walkthrough-mysql-to-c...

https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/pull/73879
by digiown | 2026-02-04 15:15:56+00:00
> full-drive encryption

Note that these are not crackable only if you have a strong password (random one will work). Unlike on phones, there is nothing slowing down brute force attempts, only the comparatively much weaker PBKDFs if you use a password. You want at least about 64 bits of entropy, and you should never use that password anywhere else, since they would basically run "strings" on your stuff to attempt the brute force.
by kjshsh123 | 2026-02-04 15:16:02+00:00
I always find it sad when people choose to quote mass murderers and dictators as if they were knowledgeable.

You have access to more knowledge, luxuries, and opportunities than kings in the past. Real wealth is consumption and leisure. Even Marx, though generally wrong, got close to this with his description of use value (he just didn't seem to understand marginal utility or leisure).
by oersted | 2026-02-04 15:16:11+00:00
Indeed, even if in principle AI and humans can do similar harm, we have very good mechanisms to make it quite unlikely that a human will do such an act.

These disincentives are built upon the fact that humans have physical necessities they need to cover for survival, and they enjoy having those well fulfilled and not worrying about them. Humans also very much like to be free, dislike pain, and want to have a good reputation with the people around them.

It is exceedingly hard to pose similar threats to a being that doesn’t care about any of that.

Although, to be fair, we also have other soft but strong means to make it unlikely that an AI will behave badly in practice. These methods are fragile but are getting better quickly.

In either case it is really hard to eliminate the possibility of harm, but you can make it unlikely and predictable enough to establish trust.
by tsunamifury | 2026-02-04 15:16:30+00:00
I’ve noticed it California since legalization use has skyrocketed and everyday intelligence seems to have gone through the floor. Similar to if we as a society started day drinking regularly.

I see people smoke all day all the time now and while driving and it clearly affects their judgement. I don’t know why legalization lead to “no moderation at all” and “I smoke at work”
by PlatoIsADisease | 2026-02-04 15:16:42+00:00
Wittgenstein has an example, imagine you are on a construction site and someone says 'Slab!'

Do they mean 'That is a slab.' or 'Hand me that slab.'?

Context matters. There is no correct answer. There are no metaphysical truth particles that shake 'True!'. Expressivism, how you feel about the statement, is going to decide what you think.

Anyway, I used to intentionally say things like "I love drugs, although its specifically Caffeine."
by pjc50 | 2026-02-04 15:17:44+00:00
Well, yes, it is actually pretty normal for suspected criminal businesses. What's unusual is that this one has their own publicity engine. Americans are just having trouble coping with the idea of a corporation being held liable for crimes.

More normally it looks like e.g. this in the UK: https://news.sky.com/video/police-raid-hundreds-of-businesse...

CyberGEND more often seem to do smalltime copyright infringement enforcement, but there are a number of authorities with the right to conduct raids.
by TGower | 2026-02-04 15:17:56+00:00
I wonder if the author was making similar arguments against solar power 20 years ago. The case for both isn't one of immediate ecenomic advantage, though that may come with sufficient development like solar has had. If you take it as a given that compute demand continues scaling, at some point we will need to shift power generation off Earth, and it's a lot easier to move computed data streams instead of terrawatts of power.
by everforward | 2026-02-04 15:17:57+00:00
> Building a custom robot that can stock shelves at a supermarket won't be worth it for a long time, but programming an existing humanoid platform might work.

This feels inverted to me, but perhaps I’m reading it wrong. A lot of the core challenges are shared, but the humanoid has to solve a bunch of additional challenges. Eg balancing is difficult with moving loads of various weights. Humanoids have to deal with that, while something more forklift-like practically opts out of that issue by just being designed with a high mass and low center of gravity.

I don’t see a universe where a humanoid is ever cheaper, but I could maybe see it generalizing well enough for usage to make it worth it. I’d still be a bit surprised, because operating costs would surely be higher (way more servos or hydraulics to fail, higher power usage hauling around unnecessary parts and weight).

This seems doubly true for factories where opex is so much more meaningful than capex. It’s worth spending $4M on custom tooling rather than $2M on generic tooling if it drops your opex by $500k/year on a factory with a 20 year lifespan.
by bobson381 | 2026-02-04 15:18:24+00:00
So acquiring immunity to a lower-risk version of the service before it's ramped up? e.g. jumping on FB now as a new user is vastly different from doing so in 2014 - so while you might go through the same noob-patterms, you're doing so with a lower-octane version of the thing. Like the risk of AI psychosis has probably gone up for new users, like the risk of someone getting too high since we started optimizing weed for maximum THC. ?
by adrian_b | 2026-02-04 15:18:37+00:00
The idea of using heat pumps to increase the temperature of the radiator is unlikely to allow an increase of the fraction of the original amount of heat that is radiated per heatsink surface, i.e. the added heat may be higher than the additionally radiated heat, though I am too lazy to compute now whether this is possible.

Moreover, a heat pump would add an equipment with moving parts that can fail, requiring maintenance.
by rob | 2026-02-04 15:18:44+00:00
This is another bot I pointed out yesterday:

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Soerensen

Their comment got flagged, but looks like they made a new one today and is still active.

That account ('Soerensen') was created in 2024 and dormant until it made a bunch of detailed comments in the past 24-48 hrs. Some of them are multiple paragraph comments posted within 1 minute of each other.

One thing I've noticed is that they seem to be getting posted from old/inactive/never used accounts. Are they buying them? Creating a bunch and waiting months/years before posting?

Either way, both look like they're fooling people here. And getting better at staying under the radar until they slip up in little ways like this.
by PlatoIsADisease | 2026-02-04 15:18:51+00:00
What is the point of having a study published in a journal when no one can read it? Creds?

It has no cred to me unless I can read it. Appeal to authority is the opposite of science.

Anyway, sounds like induction, it might be probabilistically true, but they don't have the theory to prove it. (Popper ruined me)
by littlecranky67 | 2026-02-04 15:18:53+00:00
Trick is not to use your right index finger as a biometric unlock finger (the button sits on the top right corner of the keyboard). If you are "forced" to unlock, the agents will guide your fingers and probably try that first 2-3 times. 2 more tries, and fingerprint reading gets disabled. Quite good odds.
by ossicones | 2026-02-04 15:18:57+00:00
I sympathize with this. I wonder if the author might find it helpful to reimagine the thinking they do as coming up with good questions, rather than good answers. I was inspired to try to do so myself after reading this essay: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13059-019-1902-1

"[I]f a scientist proposes an important question and provides an answer to it that is later deemed wrong, the scientist will still be credited with posing the question. This is because the framing of a fundamentally new question lies, by definition, beyond what we can expect within our frame of knowledge: while answering a question relies upon logic, coming up with a new question often rests on an illogical leap into the unknown."
by tacoooooooo | 2026-02-04 15:19:34+00:00
LLMs absolutely do not have access to the same tools unless they're explicitly given access to them. Running on a computer means nothing.

It sounds like you don't like LLMs! In that case, you may be more interested in our REST Api. All the same functions, but designed for edge computing, where dependency bloat is a real issue https://tinyfn.io/edge
by anonymous908213 | 2026-02-04 15:19:55+00:00
Article 12 of the United Nation's Declaration of Human Rights:

> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy [...]

which has later been affirmed to include digital privacy.

> I don’t think any government endorses that position.

Many governments are in flagrant violation of even their own privacy laws, but that does not make those laws any less real.

The UN's notion of human rights were an "axiom" founded from learned experience and the horrors that were committed in the years preceding their formation. Discarding them is to discard the wisdom we gained from the loss of tens of millions of people. And while you claim that society has a vested interest in violating a terrorist's privacy, you can only come to that conclusion if you engage in short-term thinking that terminates at exactly the step you violate the terrorist's rights and do not consider the consequences of anything beyond that; if you do consider the consequences it becomes clear that society collectively has a bigger vested interest in protecting the existence of human rights.