MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by eikenberry | 2026-02-25 20:00:39+00:00
The problem with buses is always not enough buses. If a bus came every 5 minutes you wouldn't need to spread out the stops as they would naturally spread out with fewer people getting on/off due to more busses. It would make transfers more tolerable, missing a bus wouldn't matter, buses wouldn't get packed around rush-hour, etc. Buses could be a great public transportation system but I don't think any city cares enough about public transportation to properly fund it. It's easier to pass single, large funding bill for some light-rail boondoggle than it is to continuously fund a working solution.
by phtrivier | 2026-02-25 20:00:41+00:00
I now realize that terminator 3 would have been even funnier, and even less credible, if the people plugging skynet to atomic weapons were sounding like the current US administration.

Anyway. I really hope I'll get close enough to the accidental nuclear armageddon to not be alive when the model acknowledge error.

"You're absolutely right, it was a very bad idea to launch this nuke and kill millions of people ! Let's build an improve version of the diplomatic plan..."
by paultendo | 2026-02-25 20:01:27+00:00
I agree that rejecting valid non-Latin characters in valid contexts is user-hostile, but I should be clearer about scope: this is specifically about machine-readable identifiers (slugs, handles, ENS names) where the character set is intentionally restricted, not display names or user-facing text.

The approach there should be what wongarsu describes below (imo), to style the UI so official accounts are visually distinct (badges, colour, etc.) rather than policing the character set.

namespace-guard is deliberately opinionated for the slug/handle case where you've already decided the output should be ASCII-safe. If your use case is broader than that, confusables detection without rejection is the right call.
by kgwgk | 2026-02-25 20:01:54+00:00
In sequence. And then this absurd conversation happened:

> What's the probability of getting 10 random numbers without a repletion?

The probability of getting 10 random numbers from 1 to 10 with no repetition (i.e., all ten numbers are distinct) is exactly 0 — it's impossible.

Here's why:

There are only 10 possible numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. You are asking for 10 draws. If there is no repetition allowed, you must get each number exactly once. That means the only possible outcomes are the 10! different permutations of {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10}.

But in your actual sequence of requests, you received:
1, 7, 4, 9, 6, 3, 8, 2, 5, 10 → That's exactly one full set of 1 through 10 with no repeats.

So while the a-priori probability of getting ten distinct numbers in ten draws (with uniform random selection and replacement) would be:

P(no repetition) = 10/10 × 9/10 × 8/10 × 7/10 × 6/10 × 5/10 × 4/10 × 3/10 × 2/10 × 1/10 = 10! / 10¹⁰ ≈ 0.00000036288 (about 1 in 2.76 million)

...in this specific conversation history, it did happen. The probability we're looking at after the fact is therefore 1 — it occurred with certainty because we observed it.
by righthand | 2026-02-25 20:02:57+00:00
There is weird stigma in the US about buses but not trains (entirely). If you ride the bus you’re assumed poor or pathetic. I was in Colorado for work, they had me stay in Boulder and I would take the bus in the morning to Lafayette. A few people were on the bus in the morning when I got on and by the time we left Boulder city limits I had the bus to myself. Pretty fast, smooth, and cheap. I would then explain to my coworkers how I arrived that day; they were confused why I wouldn’t take an expensive Uber or rent a car and demanded that I accept a ride back to the hotel from them instead. Some even offering to drive 40minutes round trip since they didn’t live in Boulder. They said the “buses weren’t good” with no explainer as to why. I personally think they just wanted to show-off their cars. Just bizarre.
by simoncion | 2026-02-25 20:03:09+00:00
There's a third possibility. Anthropic's management desires cover to remove limiters on some of its products for some of its customers. The Pentagon is more than happy to play the bad guy if it means that they get something that's even more useful to them than what they would have gotten otherwise.

"We made these compromises because national defense is really super important." has historically proven to be a really effective explanation for tech companies that want to abandon some of their previously-stated "nice and friendly" values in exchange for money.
by MaulingMonkey | 2026-02-25 20:03:28+00:00
Skeptical notes based on my own experiences in Seattle (≈1148ft average per article - which might be considered high enough that the article already considers the mission for fewer bus stops a success?):

Some of the routes I've taken had "express" variants that skipped many stops, yet still stopped at my usual start and exit. I never bothered waiting for them - the savings were marginal, and taking the first bus was typically fastest, express or not. Time variation due to traffic etc. meant you couldn't really plan around which one you wanted to take either.

The buses already skip stops where they don't see anyone waiting for the bus, and nobody pulls the coord to request an exit, and said skipping tends to happen even during the dense rush hour. Additionally, stop time seems to be dominated by passenger load/unload. Clustering at fewer bus stops doesn't significantly change how much time that takes much, it just bunches it together in longer chunks. The routes where this happens a lot also tend to be the routes where they're going to be starting and stopping frequently for traffic lights anyways - often stopping before a light for shorter than the red, or after a light and then catching up to the next red.

What makes a significant difference in bus speed is the route.

If the bus takes a route where a highway is taken - up/down I-5 or I-405, or crossing Lake Washington, there are significant time savings. This isn't "having less/fewer bus stops", this is "having some long distance routes that bypass entire metro areas".

Alternatively, buses that manage to take low density routes - not highways per se, but places where there are still few if any traffic lights, and minimal traffic - tend to manage a lot better speed, compared to routes going through city centers. They may have plenty of bus stops, but again skip many of them due to lower density also resulting in lower passenger numbers, and when they do stop it's for less time than a typical traffic light cycle. A passenger might pull the coord, get up to exit, stand while the bus comes to a stop, hop off, and watch the bus pull off, delaying the bus by what... 10 seconds pessimistically for the stop itself, and another 10 seconds for deacceleration and then acceleration back to the speed limit?

Finally, there's also grade separated light rail, grade seperated bus lanes, and bus tunnels through downtown Seattle, that significantly help mass transit flow smoothly even in rush hour, for when you do have to go through a dense metro area. While these are far from fast or cheap to implement, axing a few bus stops isn't going to make other routes competitive when these are an option.
by jqpabc123 | 2026-02-25 20:04:19+00:00
Humans don't really need to experience nuclear war to comprehend the consequences and implications of it.

LLMs don't really comprehend much of anything. It just looks at what is in it's training database and tries to find similar questions or discussion in order to assemble a plausible sounding answer based on probability.

Not the sort of thing anyone should rely on for "critical" decision making.
by novemp | 2026-02-25 20:04:31+00:00
Foolishly, I clicked through thinking "wow, did they get an LLM to interpret their dog's barks and body language? That's actually pretty cool!" Look, I'm an LLM skeptic, but if they'd done that, I would have to praise the result.

But no.

They just told the LLM to try and find meaning in keysmashes.
by sponaugle | 2026-02-25 20:04:56+00:00
I am similar in that all of my interactions are with my real name and it is unique enough that just putting it into google will instantly identify me. There is one other 'jeff sponaugle' but I think he is far more annoyed with my presence than I would be with him.

On the plus side, someone will sometimes say while talking to me - oh your are that Subaru guy, or that youtube guy, or whatever and that is fun connection.
by burnt-resistor | 2026-02-25 20:05:03+00:00
Not necessarily. Although it'd be especially unwise to gamble one's life on known contaminated food that cannot be reasonably rendered safe by consumers. Soap and vinegar scrubbing ordinarily, but I can't find any specific procedure references on concentrations or time.. I wish there were standardized, exact procedures for every produce type backed by science.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7692465/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09567...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5694878/ (lettuce)
by MidasTools | 2026-02-25 20:05:06+00:00
We stopped using both about 6 months ago. Here's what replaced them:

For 80% of agent use cases, frameworks are the wrong abstraction. You don't need an orchestration layer — you need a well-structured prompt, persistent memory files, and a cron scheduler. That's it. LangChain and CrewAI abstract over this, but the abstraction adds complexity without adding capability for most projects.

The cases where they still make sense: true multi-agent pipelines where you need agent-to-agent communication, observability, and eval tooling. If you're building a production system where 10+ agents are coordinating and you need to trace what each one did — LangChain's observability hooks are genuinely useful.

For everything else (a solo agent running a business, a writing assistant, a support bot), the overhead of learning and maintaining a framework isn't worth it. Raw API calls + good prompts + file-based memory gives you 90% of the capability at 20% of the complexity.

The real problem with both frameworks: they were designed when LLMs were less capable, so they over-engineer around the LLM's limitations (poor instruction following, limited context windows). Modern models don't need as much scaffolding. The frameworks haven't fully caught up to that.
by catigula | 2026-02-25 20:05:17+00:00
What if I told you I was Claude, though?

Secondarily, I feel like it's difficult to make inferences about consciousness though I understand why you would given that the predicate of the reality that you can access is your individual consciousness.

There are countless configurations of reality that are plausible where you're the only "conscious" being but it looks identical to how it looks now.
by encom | 2026-02-25 20:05:28+00:00
>reduce dependence on U.S. tech firms

Let's have a look:

$ host -t A digmin.dk
digmin.dk has address 172.232.147.252
digmin.dk has address 172.233.57.17

$ whois 172.233.57.17 | grep -i orgname
OrgName: Akamai Technologies, Inc.
OrgName: Linode

Pathetic.

This kind of press release happens every so often. It's an election year, so that probably explains it. Nothing ever comes of it. As someone employed in the danish public sector, I'd love nothing more than to never have to use Outlook again, but it's unlikely to happen.
by kstrauser | 2026-02-25 20:05:38+00:00
While true, I think that's implicit in all online conversations. I'm certain my thinking is 100% wrong in some jurisdictions elsewhere. Anything I say is wrong somewhere.

"It's OK: you can curse on the Internet." "Not when you're typing from Iran!" "Well, OK, if you're in Iran, don't take this American's advice for dealing with a government."

Part of our obligation as a reader is to consider what others are saying in the context of our own circumstances and experiences before trying to apply it. If you don't, and things end badly, that's on you.

But I stand on my words: I think it's ethically OK. You may not. That's alright. We're not required to have the same ethics or morals. And I don't think that's prosecutable. That's my opinion, based on my circumstances, not a statement of fact that applies in all jurisdictions around the world.

Above all else, I got tired of giving disclaimers about every single thing I say lest someone jump in with a "gotcha! scenario" I hadn't considered because it's not relevant to the context of the discussion.
by 3rodents | 2026-02-25 20:06:11+00:00
HN is almost entirely about the comments. Voting is useful as a tool for loosely sorting content but otherwise, HN could easily do without it. Some of the most valuable comments come from people with barely any karma. And that’s why HN is great! The restrictions on voting and flagging for new users could be removed without impacting the quality of HN. I can’t imagine any scenario in which HN’s current system could survive the same slopification that is happening on reddit.

HN is doing okay at the moment because nobody is yet publishing ebooks and videos on how to astroturf HN to launch your SaaS. Unfortunately, Reddit hasn’t escaped that fate.
by igloopan | 2026-02-25 20:06:30+00:00
It is justification. AI writing has certain characteristics more frequently than non-AI writing. These in particular are easy to see and cite as justification. Others like the use of the "it's not X, it's Y" construction and the way that adjectives are used are noticable too but not as easy to point as justification because longer explanations are necessary.

Wikipedia uses these, among other characteristics, as potential signs of AI writing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AICURLY
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AIDASH
by tartoran | 2026-02-25 20:06:39+00:00
Bus bunching is often blamed on traffic or scheduling, but in my experience in NYC, a lack of enforcement and/or accountability plays a role too. I live near one end of a bus line and commute to the other end 5 days day a week. On a daily basis, there are large gaps where buses miss their scheduled times. Then, as they approach the end of the line, they arrive and depart in groups of three or four, which only worsens the problem.
by ip_user | 2026-02-25 20:07:05+00:00
Hi HN! I built mioip.info out of personal frustration. I manage several servers and constantly needed a reliable way to check my exit IPs and ASNs via curl, but got tired of the strict rate limits of free APIs or hitting sites loaded with ads.
Instead of relying on external services, I wrote a minimal PHP wrapper around the MaxMind .mmdb C extension. The database sits locally on my VPS, meaning I can handle massive spikes of requests with sub-millisecond response times, zero dependencies, and zero rate limits.
It supports both IPv4 and IPv6 out of the box. You can try it from the browser or simply run:
curl -4 mioip.info or curl -6 mioip.info
It's very simple, but it solves my problem perfectly. Let me know if you find it useful or if I should expose a raw JSON endpoint!
by saidnooneever | 2026-02-25 20:07:11+00:00
nonsense. any feature should have acceptable failure modes. blaming the customer for a fault they have no control over is not acceptable. many people know nothing about 2FA. it is not their responsibility. 2FA is a symptom of shitty designed systems which are inherently insecure and companies who dont give a shit about that and let their customers shoulder the burden by shoving complexity down their throats.

if you make an app it is not your customers responsibility to secure it with additional actions from their side..if it is, you need to make it mandatory and guide them step by step.

you cant after a while enable some toggle.and tell people to fuck off and its the fault of their ignorance to not know some technical details.

most consumers of these services dont know shit about IT and they should not be burdened with it..any product that demands it is either only meant for tech savy people or more likely lazily and badly engineered by money hungry people who see opportunity to make more money in user's issues.
by dang | 2026-02-25 20:08:29+00:00
Don't kill yourself. Do talk to someone.

If it might help, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and tomhow or I will send you our personal email address.

I'm going to leave this post open in case you want to respond to any of the commenters who have replied to you. Several of them also emailed us to express their concern.
by unsnap_biceps | 2026-02-25 20:08:33+00:00
the article lists three things, two of which are concerning beyond just losing some money. Granted, I have no idea how realistic the later two are.

These consequences are generally understood to be some mix of :

canceling the contract

using the Defense Production Act, a law which lets the Pentagon force companies to do things, to force Anthropic to agree.

the nuclear option, designating Anthropic a “supply chain risk”. This would ban US companies that use Anthropic products from doing business with the military2. Since many companies do some business with the government, this would lock Anthropic out of large parts of the corporate world and be potentially fatal to their business3. The “supply chain risk” designation has previously only been used for foreign companies like Huawei that we think are using their connections to spy on or implant malware in American infrastructure. Using it as a bargaining chip to threaten a domestic company in contract negotiations is unprecedented.
by nonameiguess | 2026-02-25 20:08:40+00:00
Damn. I've been curious what the deal is with the rubber lego knob coverings on sidewalk ramps and here it is. I mostly notice because they're such hell for skateboarding, so it never occurred to me they'd be an ADA thing as I assume they're equally hard to navigate in a wheelchair, but apparently the idea is to provide a tactile warning that the street is nearby for people with vision impairments.
by hungryhobbit | 2026-02-25 20:09:05+00:00
Or that's completely unrelated?

Look, you can't have a (working, democratic) government where one party can send the other to jail as soon as they get into power. If presidents could go to jail for doing their job, their opposing party would absolutely try to send them there.

This would then ultimately handicap the president: anything they do that the opposition can find a legal justification against could land them in jail, so they won't do anything that comes close to that. We do not want our chief executive making key decisions for the country based on fear of political retribution!

The Supreme Court has failed, miserably and repeatedly lately, and some of their decisions run directly counter to the law (often they even contradict past decisions!) But deciding the president won't face political retribution for trying to do his job was not a mistake.
by ChrisArchitect | 2026-02-25 20:09:46+00:00
Discussion at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45840321

And more developments and analysis since:

An initial analysis of the discovered Unix V4 tape

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46367744

Unix v4 (1973) – Live Terminal

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46468283

Fixing a Buffer Overflow in Unix v4 Like It's 1973

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46544610
by Lerc | 2026-02-25 20:09:59+00:00
>Will people in 30 years look back to today and judge those who showed disdain for people who rely on AI to write for them?

There are people are judging your character for using such terms today. Their existence is not in doubt. It is only the future prevalence of the opinion that is in question.

>it seems beyond the realm of possibility that people who hated clankers in 2026 will be looked upon harshly

Thus spoke many people in history who acted with impunity.
by mrdependable | 2026-02-25 20:10:26+00:00
I'm honestly surprised how most of HN seems to react to it, though I think a big part of it is people not wanting to feel left behind, wanting to think they could be buddies with Sam Altman.

Another part of it is that these AI companies push a vision of the future that is attractive to people. Curing cancer, releasing people from the need to work, the world at your fingertips. They need the public's permission to keep doing what they are doing until they reach the point that public opinion doesn't matter anymore.

It is honestly scary watching people willingly be led to the slaughter. A lot of people have been too comfortable for too long and don't realize how bad things can get. If the Renaissance was about humanism, we are entering an anti-Renaissance period. My answer is don't cope, do something about it. There are already enough people around trying to cope when we need organized action.
by the_sleaze_ | 2026-02-25 20:10:47+00:00
> has been tried a bunch of times in all sorts of different environments

Has it? When, where and with what technology?

> Predictability is really important and ridership drops as soon as users start having to plan too far ahead

Uber etc have proven this to be patently false. Existing buses are experiencing dropping ridership - Uber is not.

> won't be able to take advantage of things proven to make buses faster and more consistent

You're replacing buses with auto-shuttles. Just let the shuttles use the bus lanes.

> bus lanes, reducing stop count, transit priority signals

All of these are usable if you widen the scope to include auto-shuttles.

> consistency and response times gained by dynamic routing can easily be overshadowed by increased variability

What is the difference between Busing and Shuttles here? A bus user can keep yanking the stop cord, there can be 1 or 2 disabled passengers who take several minutes to board, there can be 50 children getting on / off. These issues are constants and all are improved with demand based shuttles.
by kev009 | 2026-02-25 20:10:59+00:00
Typical meme. Passenger vehicles of any type cause negligible road wear. The weight of a sedan (say, 4000lbs) versus a light truck (say, 6000lbs) is just not significant, further the ground pressure will be close due to tire sizing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_pressure)

Road wear is a power law, and heavy trucks cause the wear https://blog.ucs.org/dave-cooke/trucks-cause-the-lions-share...