MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jfalcon | 2026-02-12 15:24:19+00:00
You did get the memo from POTUS that loyalty is more important than intelligence, right?

Un-bias intelligence in this operation is not welcomed. One is told what is "factual truth" (not facts themselves) by those who operate out of Pennsylvania Avenue in DC.

If you're not blindly loyal and in line with the administration, then you'll be at risk of losing whatever role you have unless your loyalty is proven then you may receive some of that back based on how much you have demonstrated.

--

The problem in infosec in this world is not competence, it is cult of personality. This is why black t-shirt dislike black polo shirts not so secretly.
by Kim_Bruning | 2026-02-12 15:24:24+00:00
It made a number of decisions that -by themeselves- are probably not that interesting. We've had LLMs output interesting outputs before.

It also had the ability to act on them, which -individually- is not that strange. Programs automatically posting to blogs have happened before.

Now it was an LLM that decided to escalate a dispute by posting to a blog, (and then de-escalate too) . It's the combination that's interesting.

An agent semi-autonomously 'playing the game' using the tools.
by dahart | 2026-02-12 15:24:43+00:00
> does only the arts deserve this

Baby steps. Everyone deserves it, but getting there in one step is politically impossible almost everywhere in the world. Nobody’s saying only the arts deserve subsidies. It’s just easier to justify. But if we want everyone to have basic income, we need to applaud whenever it happens, even if it’s a small subset, and argue they deserve it and that we should have more of it. Complaining about the unfairness of artists being subsidized demonstrates and adds to the political difficultly. If we accept that it’s unfair for a subset, then we might never get basic income since the rich don’t need it and many don’t want it.
by pembrook | 2026-02-12 15:24:48+00:00
Typically I'm a DIY type who loves tinkering and building...

HOWEVER, I have learned the hard way to never apply that spirit to email.

In Europe you see this stuff all the time with old school "IT" (what old industrial companies call tech) people balking at the prices of commercial API-based senders and email marketing ESPs.

"Money to send emails in the cloud? HAH! Back at Siemens in 90s we were running millions of emails out of our servers just fine!"

Nobody understands that deliverability has gotten immensely harder these days, and trying to DIY it if its not your core business is just plain stupid. I would never in a million years try to roll my own email, it's nightmarish legacy cruft and footguns all the way down, in everything from IP/Domain Rep to something as simple as the HTML in the email templates themselves.

Microsoft Outlook and Gmail have the last word on everything in email, and their defacto duopoly (over B2B and consumer email respectively) means you play by the rules they set in 2008 and are too lazy to change or you don't get delivered. The protocol of email exists separately from the world of the actual inbox providers, which are locked down to insane degree given the security/spam concerns with email.
by FuriouslyAdrift | 2026-02-12 15:25:10+00:00
Buried cables are extemely expensive for urban areas (and dangerous over time). Downtown Indianapolis (like most city centers) has buried cables all over and we had exploding manholes for a few years as old main lines aged out[1].

If I remember correctly, buried lines in our area cost around $1 million per mile and they estimated something like $100 billion to do the whole city. It's also 10 times more expensive to repair when repairs are needed. That's why they use poles in less dense areas.

[1] https://www.wthr.com/article/news/for-fourth-time-explosion-...
by afavour | 2026-02-12 15:25:18+00:00
I have some level of sympathy with Google here, which isn’t something I often say.

I recently switched from Gmail to Fastmail and by and large I’m happy with it. But I’ve been surprised by the amount of spam and (particularly) phishing emails I get in a regular basis. Google might be too strict in its filtering but it does serve a legitimate purpose.
by renato_shira | 2026-02-12 15:25:36+00:00
interesting to see flutter getting serious game engine support. i've been using capacitor for a mobile game (not flutter but similar cross platform philosophy) and the biggest pain point is always the camera/native api integration, not the rendering.

for anyone considering cross platform for games: the rendering abstraction is mostly a solved problem now, the real question is how well the framework handles platform specific stuff like photo access, push notifications, and background processing. that's where you'll spend 60% of your debugging time regardless of engine choice.

curious about fluorite's approach to native plugin integration, that's usually where these frameworks either shine or completely fall apart.
Show HN: Drift – Real-time codebase health dashboard with AI-powered fixing (Go)
by greatnessinabox | 2026-02-12 15:25:47+00:00
I built drift, a terminal tool that monitors code health in real-time across 8 languages (Go, TypeScript, Python, Rust, Java, Ruby, PHP, C#). It tracks cyclomatic complexity, dependency freshness, architecture boundary violations, and dead code — all in a live TUI dashboard.

The interesting part: `drift fix` calls GitHub Copilot CLI programmatically to suggest refactorings. It extracts the function source, builds a context-rich prompt, and runs `copilot -p "<prompt>" -s --add-dir <project>` as a subprocess. You review each suggestion before doing anything.

I also created a custom Copilot agent (`.github/agents/`) that gives Copilot domain expertise about code health metrics, and a GitHub Action that uses Copilot to turn raw health reports into friendly PR comments.

Go analysis uses full AST parsing via go/ast. Other languages use heuristic regex. TUI is built with Bubble Tea + Lip Gloss.

Repo: https://github.com/greatnessinabox/drift
Site: https://drift.marquis.codes
by PaulDavisThe1st | 2026-02-12 15:25:50+00:00
To return to an analogy I used a couple of days ago ... birds can fly, planes can fly, ergo they are both flying things ... but they fly in completely different ways. So on the one hand (visible behavior) they are similar (or even the same), and on the other (physical mechanism) they are not similar at all.

Which one of these comparisons you want to use depends on context.

The same seems entirely possible for current LLMs. On the one hand they do something that visibly seems to to be the same as something humans do, but on the other it is possible that the way they do it entirely different. Just as with the bird/plane comparison, this has some implications when you start to dig deeper into capabilities (e.g. planes cannot fly anywhere near as slowly as birds, and birds cannot fly as fast as planes; birds have dramatically more maneuverability than planes, etc. etc).

So are LLMs intelligent in the same way humans are? Depends on your purpose in asking that question. Planes fly, but they are not birds.
by evolly | 2026-02-12 15:26:03+00:00
My experience exactly! I’ve recently become so tired of the Claude harness that I switched to OpenCode (which is extremely good compared to Claude). However, OpenCode is also tedious to change, and it inherits all the “good stuff,” like treating agents as Markdown files and all the dancing around with hooks/plugins/skills scattered all over the place. Getting stuck again and again, I’ve ultimately come to the conclusion that this must be solved by writing my own damn coding agent, with extensibility that’s acceptable for real-world engineering.
by iamnothere | 2026-02-12 15:26:13+00:00
Before its recent extension into the mis/disinformation (censorship) space, CISA was primarily focused on coordinating public/private response to cyber threats and distributing information about known vulnerabilities. It is the primary US sponsor of the CVE system, for instance. It also provides guidance regarding best practices to industry and government agencies.

By getting CISA involved in speech regulation, former directors made CISA into a political football, risking its core mission. (This actually happened during the first Trump admin, under a Trump appointee, but continued into the Biden administration.) There is no reason that an organization established to tackle cyber threats should be involved with regulating speech via third parties in NGOs and industry. None. Not even if that speech takes place “on the internet.”
by senordevnyc | 2026-02-12 15:27:04+00:00
My guess is that you don’t work in manufacturing and haven’t done any comparisons to see what it would cost to manufacture here vs other countries? Hint: it’s far more than a few percentage point difference. It usually means that you can no longer make a profit, because your product will have to be far more expensive than your competitors, and most people don’t care enough to “buy American” vs save a lot of money. And for some products, manufacturing here is literally just not an option at all.
by mingus88 | 2026-02-12 15:27:21+00:00
You joke but you’d be amazed at the Reddit front page. It’s hard to tell anymore if the comments are even people, but I have noticed many fake posts of some Trump tweet he never actually made getting traction.

It’s so easy to verify his public statements. Did he really say that? Just go look.

Yet time and time again people get baited into rage mode. It’s more satisfying to post than it is to do 30 seconds of research.
by shelvick | 2026-02-12 15:27:22+00:00
What it does:

- Takes in your (potentially very large) project description, acts in an agentic loop

- Agrees on every action through a multi-model consensus technique. 3 models, or just one, or 10... however many you want to use, really.

- Each choice is from a list of action primitives, e.g. web fetch, file ops, MCP, etc. One of them is spawning a child (clone of itself) to tackle some part of the task -- hence, "recursive."

- Uses skills from other tools, e.g. Claude Code

What it does not do:

- Be fast or cheap

How it works:

Each "agent" is really just an Elixir process. It turns out OTP's free supervision/message-passing/fault tolerance map very well to a multi-agent domain. Actions run in their own ephemeral processes so agents can respond to messages and do other work while waiting on long-running commands. Parent agents and child agents communicate back and forth in a tree hierarchy similar to human organizations. (I thought about letting siblings communicate too, but that can get risky with signal-to-noise. Better to rely on the parent to split work into non-overlapping pieces.) Budgets propagate similarly; there's an escrow tracking system so children can't blow their parents' budgets. State persists in the DB; you can pick right back up after pausing a task or restarting the server.

Through a library called ReqLLM it supports (in theory) any model listed on models.dev. Each model in a pool maintains its own conversation history, so it can condense when it wants to and keep the memories it feels are important -- and the other models can "remind it" of memories it did not hold on to. The consensus mechanism itself handles ties conservatively (do the "least impactful" thing), which also has an interesting security side effect: Any prompt injection attempt has to break a majority of models, not just one. (And untrusted input is tagged as such, with random IDs, which also helps.)

And it's all wrapped up in a shiny, beautiful, Phoenix LiveView UI, so you can watch your money burn in real time! (Just kidding. No, not about the money, that's real. About the UI -- that's a mess. But it is Phoenix LiveView, and it does work.) I personally use a hacked-together spec-driven+TDD process, so test isolation and reliability has been a major focus, too. I could probably write another whole damn post just about that.

So yeah, Quoracle is not a chatbot. It's meant for big hairy important stuff where you really want optimal results. I would call it "industrial-strength" but it's in beta, so that would be a lie.
by wat10000 | 2026-02-12 15:27:24+00:00
Avoiding products where the manufacturer doesn't care about longevity means looking for products that are well designed. Avoiding products that are designed to fail is trickier, because even otherwise high quality products can be designed to fail. Random example, I had a nice Brother laser printer where the toner cartridges had a hard limit on how many pages they would print. This was done with a mechanical mechanism, so it was possible to disassemble it, reset it by turning a gear, and keep on printing. This took time and money to build just to make the product worse.
by MSFT_Edging | 2026-02-12 15:27:24+00:00
> Because at some point, at a certain level, society is built on at least some level of implicit trust. Without it you can't have a functioning society.

This is somewhat central to being remain anonymous.

Protesters and observers are having their passports cancelled or their TSA precheck revoked due to speech. You cannot trust the government to abide by the first amendment.

Private services sell your data to build a panopticon, then sell that data indirectly to the government.

Therefore, tying your anonymous speech to a legal identity puts one at risk of being punished by the government for protected speech.
by cshores | 2026-02-12 15:27:32+00:00
Worth separating “the algorithm” from “the trained model.” Humans write the architecture + training loop (the recipe), but most of the actual capability ends up in the learned weights after training on a ton of data.

Inference is mostly matrix math + a few standard ops, and the behavior isn’t hand-coded rule-by-rule. The “algorithm” part is more like instincts in animals: it sets up the learning dynamics and some biases, but it doesn’t get you very far without what’s learned from experience/data.

Also, most “knowledge” comes from pretraining; RL-style fine-tuning mostly nudges behavior (helpfulness/safety/preferences) rather than creating the base capabilities.
by quickthrowman | 2026-02-12 15:28:02+00:00
> Oh no the burden of actually explaining why you want to de-emphasize a comment.

One single square meter of land in direct sunlight receives a constant 6kW (21MJ) of energy. The heat rejected by industrial and other processes is absolutely minuscule in comparison, a rounding error.

Comments that are incorrect but posted in an authoritative voice get downvoted, for good reason.
by belorn | 2026-02-12 15:28:24+00:00
The major road blocks for solutions has been unchanged for the last decades. The same strategy talked about at the beginning of the 21st century still has the same problems, and while more people are aware of climate change, we are only further away from creating and implementing solutions.

Taking Europe as an example, the main strategy is still to use the combination of natural gas, biofuels created from farming corn, and renewables to enable electrification. This strategy lacks both scientific and political consensus among the people who believe in climate change. The result is that as strong one side of the same movement are pushing for it, the other side is also pushing against it. We see the exact same thing with the other major strategies involving tree planting and changes to the culture (diet).
by YeGoblynQueenne | 2026-02-12 15:28:58+00:00
>> It’s almost as if we’re an entirely reactive species that can’t think ahead forward on solving problems that aren’t as a result of some massive tragic event

That's not a characteristic of the species but of specific tendencies within Western civilization. There's certainly people ringing all sorts of alarm bells for digital technology, the climate, food production, etc etc, and they are very often dismissed as "alarmist".

And then there's the motivated reasoning of industrial interests. Think tobacco, asbestos, oil, leaded gasoline, and so on. It's not that we don't know the possible harms, it's just that monetary interests trump the need for health and safety, a.k.a. "health and safety gone mad".
by AndrewKemendo | 2026-02-12 15:29:05+00:00
Why would you be surprised?

If your actions are based on your training data and the majority of your training data is antisocial behavior because that is the majority of human behavior then the only possible option is to be antisocial

There is effectively zero data demonstrating socially positive behavior because we don’t generate enough of it for it to become available as a latent space to traverse
by jawilson2 | 2026-02-12 15:29:16+00:00
Hard disagree. I grew up with parents who LOVED science; my earliest memories in the 80s are my mom checking out Cosmos from the library on VHS and binging it. It is a big reason I have an engineering PhD. At the same time, they were 60s hippies and into meditation woo-woo, as in "visualize a beam of light coming from your stomach and you can instantly travel to Jupiter!", being able to walk through walls because of quantum physics, etc. Tons of pseudoscience. So, I grew up in both worlds, while always somewhat skeptical of the woo, still was sort of in it through high school. I read Demon Haunted World in college, and the woo was eradicated overnight. I think part of this also has to do with PhD programs, particularly reviewing papers, where it is basically BS detection. But, DHW framed it spectacularly for me, and is one of the most influential books I have read.
by elAhmo | 2026-02-12 15:29:17+00:00
I would read this as a requirement for email to be 'legit' and not classified as spam.

Sure, you can send email with whatever headers you want, use weird combos, IP addresses, reply-to, and it might be still a technically valid email, but not something that should land in people's inboxes.

Also, a payment processor not testing their email on the most popular email provider in the world is quite ridiculous.
by 5upplied_demand | 2026-02-12 15:29:52+00:00
You asked for statements and I provided them. Now you are pivoting to "policy" as if authoritarians would release policy papers about how they want to end free and fair elections. Please cite some of those examples if you can find them.

One the other side, we have many historical examples of authoritarians claiming elections to be free and fair in order to cement power. The rest of the world knows Putin isn't receiving 88.5% of the vote in a free and fair election. Stalin and Mussolini also held elections. None were free, fair, or honest and that is the entire point.

> Politicians say lots of things to get elected, or to troll, or symptoms of senility, etc.

Why ask for the statements in the first place if they don't matter and can be waved away?

> The lack of more urgency or extreme counter action suggests to me that not enough people truly think that that is fact the goal.

This isn't about whether "enough people truly think it is the goal." It is about the stated claims and goals of the administration, which have been shared with you multiple times in this thread. Please stop with the red herrings.
by HumanOstrich | 2026-02-12 15:30:24+00:00
Give Pi[1] a try. Comes pretty barebones out of the box, yet still provides a decent default experience. Extension points are all TypeScript if you want. There are a lot of examples[2] and some 3rd party extensions[3].

I'll point out that if you want permission prompts for certain behavior, you have to add that yourself. There's at least one example.

Edit: Just noticed the article's author is using a fork of Pi.

[1]: https://shittycodingagent.ai/

[2]: https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/tree/main/packages/codin...

[3]: https://github.com/nicobailon
by PaulHoule | 2026-02-12 15:30:27+00:00
... I'll tell ya, the most advanced SEO people were doing "AI SEO" by 2009. I knew one guy who made a whole lot of trouble for himself (and me!) by posting a neural network written in PHP to his blog which could decode CAPTCHAs which violated the rule that "you don't talk about Fight Club" and got him attacked by (we think) Russian hackers and wound up attracting the FBI and I become a "person of interest" in the investigation.
by quietbritishjim | 2026-02-12 15:30:53+00:00
(was this meant to be a reply to one of the other Godot comments?)

The page says that it's "Powered by Google's Filament renderer" which is written in C++, and that Fluorite itself has "a data-oriented ECS (Entity-Component-System) architecture ... written in C++".

Also, although Flutter/Dart applications can run on web (compile to WASM or transpile to Javascript) and so can Filament, Fluorite FOSDEM page says target platforms are "mobile, desktop, embedded and console platforms" so it's not clear Fluorite even runs on web.
by RHSeeger | 2026-02-12 15:31:07+00:00
> if you don't use it you should blame only yourself that your messages are not accepted

I think it's a gray area

- If the receiver declines your message because "Message-id" is required - then I blame the receiver; because that's not true

- If the receiver declines your message because "most systems do include it, and it's lack of presence is highly correlated with spam email", then it's on the sender

Admittedly, the end result is the same.
by cafard | 2026-02-12 15:31:10+00:00
In 1982 the Secretary of the Interior, James Watts, announced that Wayne Newton would perform at the National Mall on Independence Day, at least implying that the Beach Boys, who had been there the year before, really didn't reflect good American values. He was mocked for his, and the next year the Beach Boys came back. I did not go to the Mall, but heard some of their performance on the radio. They were terrible, and a musician I knew said that this was because men's voices deepen with age but the Beach Boys were still trying to sing in the original keys.
by nadyyym | 2026-02-12 15:31:24+00:00
hi, I'm Vlad, founder of Beton

we slice and dice your product events/support tickets/deal history/billing to find patterns that lead to account expansion

then we create a deal in your CRM

we can find these triggers for you or you can bring your own and Beton will track it and help you backtest your intuition

just launched a new marketing website and alpha version of the product

happy to answer your questions and thanks for bug reports
by prmph | 2026-02-12 15:32:09+00:00
Yep, the law of the excluded middle is one place to start attacking your argument, I assume you know not all philosophers accept it.

Then, you are also right that semantics intertwine with logic in a way that needs careful interrogation and is open to different perspectives. I'd be very careful making the leap you make from:

> non-random + not-caused

to:

> non-(non-determined) and non-determined.

Your arguments also contain an interesting thing to think about: True randomness. If you really think about it, true randomness should not exist. And yet we think radioactive decay at the quantum level is truly, fundamentally, irreducibly random. If that is so, here is an example of things happening that we, by definition, cannot explain in any more fundamental way.

Which is to say, the universe is not bound by the logic of our experience. In the same way we had to break out of our basic intuition about numbers to create new ones that gave us more power, in the same way we could never have logically reasoned our way into quantum mechanics and needed experimental evidence to accept something so radical, yes in the same way math does not care that our minds/logic is currently too weak to conceive of a mechanism for free will.

Here is mind twister for you: Imagine a chain of antecedents for an action. In our intuition, the chain stretches backwards infinitely. But what is it could somehow wrap around to form a ring at infinity? Analogous to the way cosmologists think the universe is not infinite in all dimensions