MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by lock1 | 2026-02-10 18:18:18+00:00
In the spirit of "Parse, Don't Validate", rather than encode "validation" information as a boolean to be checked at runtime, you can define `Email { raw: String }` and hide the constructor behind a "factory function" that accepts any string but returns `Option<Email>` or `Result<Email,ParseError>`.

If you need a stronger guarantee than just a "string that passes simple email regex", create another "newtype" that parses the `Email` type further into `ValidatedEmail { raw: String, validationTime: DateTime }`.

While it does add some "boilerplate-y" code no matter what kind of syntactical sugar is available in the language of your choice, this approach utilizes the type system to enforce the "pass only non-malformed & working email" rule when `ValidatedEmail` type pops up without constantly remembering to check `email.isValidated`.

This approach's benefit varies depending on programming languages and what you are trying to do. Some languages offer 0-runtime cost, like Haskell's `newtype` or Rust's `repr(transparent)`, others carry non-negligible runtime overhead. Even then, it depends on whether the overhead is acceptable or not in exchange for "correctness".
by ActorNightly | 2026-02-10 18:18:26+00:00
No.

The whole idea of imaginary number is its basically an extension of negative numbers in concept.
When you have a negative number, you essentially have scaling + attribute which defines direction. When you encounter two negative attributes and multiply them, you get a positive number, which is a rotation by 180 degrees. Imaginary numbers extend this concept to continuous rotation that is not limited to 180 degrees.

With just i, you get rotations in the x/y plane. When you multiply by 1i you get 90 degree rotation to 1i. Multiply by i again, you get another 90 degree rotation to -1 . And so on. You can do this in xyz with i and j, and you can do this in 4dimentions with i j and k, like quaternions do, using the extra dimension to get rid of gimbal lock computation for vehicle control (where pointed straight up, yaw and roll are identicall)

The fact that i maps to sqrt of -1 is basically just part of this definition - you are using multiplication to express rotations, so when you ask what is the sqrt of -1 you are asking which 2 identical number create a rotation of 180 degrees, and the answer is 1i and 1i.

Note that the definition also very much assumes that you are only using i, i.e analogous to having the x/y plane. If you are working within x y z plane and have i and j, to get to -1 you can rotate through x/y plane or x/z plane. So sqrt of -1 can either mean "sqrt for i" or "sqrt for j" and the answer would be either i or j, both would be valid. So you pretty much have to specify the rotation aspect when you ask for a square root.

Note also that you can you can define i to be <90 degree rotation, like say 60 degrees and everything would still be consistent. In which case cube root of -1 would be i, but square root of -1 would not be i, it would be a complex number with real and imaginary parts.

The thing to understand about math is under the hood, its pretty much objects and operations. A lot of times you will have conflicts where doing an operation on a particular object is undefined - for example there are functions that assymptotically approach zero but are never equal to it. So instead, you have to form other rules or append other systems to existing systems, which all just means you start with a definition. Anything that arises from that definition is not a universal truth of the world, but simply tools that help you deal with the inconsistencies.
by epistasis | 2026-02-10 18:18:36+00:00
You link to an October 2025 article documenting 9 "Kavanaugh stops" to somehow claim that they don't happen?

You link to an article that is "We Found That More Than 170 U.S. Citizens Have Been Held by Immigration Agents. They’ve Been Kicked, Dragged and Detained for Days." and which has reporting inside that describes the 170 cases of ICE detaining citizens.

Note that detainment is more severe and different from the harassment of the 9 that you somehow claim refute Kavanaugh stops.

But even if the article were as you incorrectly describe it, it would be fallacious to say that because a single article doesn't describe something, it doesn't exist! That's a critical thinking and logic 101 error. And far far below the standards of HN comments.
by try_the_bass | 2026-02-10 18:18:49+00:00
> You are awfully quick to dismiss what you do not know and are too lazy to even do a quick search.

No, I know that if I search for something, I will find examples of it, devoid of any sense of scale. In order to understand whether or not something is "rare", one must be able to define its relative frequency, not just provide absolute numbers (in most cases).

This Border Patrol program you reference is indeed concerning! But this is not what this topic thread was about (Flock cameras, if you recall), so you are moving the goalposts, if subtly.

> I literally read about these parallel construction scenarios here on HN and they are sufficiently common and severe to generate multiple legal actions and be repeatedly reported in mainstream press, e.g., [0],[1],[2],[3]

None of your sources support the "parallel construction" claim, though? I understand that you're making multiple claims in this statement, but these "multiple sources" you provide only support one of them, and are multiple references to the same thing. So please understand why this isn't exactly convincing?

> A corporate-government alliance that can track every movement of you and every other resident and arrest you on any pretext (e.g., "these two photos show you averaging 5mph over the speed limit, oh, you refuse a car search? GET OUT OF THE CAR...") is functionally indistinguishable from absolute power.

a) this is not what's happening, even in the examples you cite, b) this is just hyperbolic imaginary scenarios, and c), this still is not "absolute power"? Run for office and make it a priority to put some limits on Border Patrol's programs, or support those who do? It's not easy to put limits on these programs once they get started, but it can be (and often is!) done on a regular basis.

The fact that they're running these programs within their legal limitations tells me that this is literally the opposite of "absolute power". It's limited by definition! Are the limitations too loose? Probably! But there are limits, and they still must respect them.

> Repeatedly yelling "strawman!" or "citation needed" as if they were a magical argument winning incantations dismissing statements based on "tone" are not arguments.

And neither does citing hypotheticals as facts, which you keep repeatedly doing? And you have been literally strawmanning my argument this entire time! And literally presenting claims without evidence!

I'm saying those things not because I think they "win" me the argument; I'm saying them because they're the reasons you're not being convincing in the slightest.

> You had one good point upstream that one needs to draw a line somewhere between a single CATV camera and a panopticon. Yes, it is difficult to draw that line. Discussing THAT makes sense.

That's literally what I've been trying to do this whole time. Meanwhile, you keep trying to conflate what we have now with "panopticons" or "absolute power" or other hyperbolic nonsense.
by AdelAden | 2026-02-10 18:18:59+00:00
The shift from 'black box' logs to a visual timeline is a huge step toward production reliability. For the decision tracing specifically—how are you handling the data serialization between the local runtime and the Next.js dashboard to keep latency low? I am curious if we can eventually use those 'Self-Healing' event logs to automatically tune our agent guardrails
by gojomo | 2026-02-10 18:19:03+00:00
"It had been a slow Tuesday night. A few hundred new products had run their course on the markets. There had been a score of dramatic hits, three-minute and five-minute capsule dramas, and several of the six-minute long-play affairs. Night Street Nine—a solidly sordid offering—seemed to be in as the drama of the night unless there should be a late hit."

– 'SLOW TUESDAY NIGHT', a 2600 word sci-fi short story about life in an incredibly accelerated world, by R.A. Lafferty in 1965

https://www.baen.com/Chapters/9781618249203/9781618249203___...
by ceejayoz | 2026-02-10 18:19:07+00:00
> They certainly don't allow ICE to enter a private abode.

I'd just note that ICE is (falsely) claiming otherwise these days.

https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-...

"Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches."
by flohofwoe | 2026-02-10 18:19:20+00:00
I think in the end it all depends on Android. Average Vulkan driver quality on Android doesn't seem to be great in the first place, getting uptodate Vulkan API support, and in high quality and high enough performance for a modernized WebGPU version to build on might be too much to ask of the Android ecosystem for the next one or two decades.
by brynnbee | 2026-02-10 18:19:26+00:00
It means they didn't reference any existing or decompiled code from the original client. None of it is directly infringing on any copyright, though it may be doing so indirectly since there have been plenty of lawsuits for tools that contain no copyrighted information can but can used to facilitate infringement (e.g. a tool that decompiles a game ROM)
by mh2266 | 2026-02-10 18:19:54+00:00
What big external dependencies do you need for a parser?

`String -> Result<Email, Error>` shouldn't need any other parameters?

But you should ideally still have some simple field-wise constructor (whatever that means, it's language-dependent) anyways, the function from String would delegate to that after either extracting all of the necessary components or returning/throwing an error.
by legitster | 2026-02-10 18:19:59+00:00
For a normal subpoena from a court, yes.

For an "administrative" subpoena from an agency, they take a risk in court.

Judicial review is deferred. If Google thinks the subpoena is egregious, they can go to court and argue. But in the meantime they can either carry it out or risk being held in contempt if they don't and lose in court.
by jfalcon | 2026-02-10 18:20:07+00:00
I left my shocked face next to the mountain of documented government abuses...

Why are people thinking this is new? Your data down to your current browser session and current location have been sold as much as possible for almost 30 years. Tracking pixels replaced tracking cookies that is linked to your habits and metadata heuristics can pick a single person out of the noise of thousands doom scrolling the same dumb information.

And the .gov has been using it for quite some time - data brokers sell it as readily as adtech has sold your habits to .com. Best part for them - they do not need a judicial oversight to access it and they have unlimited resources to pay for it - look at CALEA.

I doubt they are looking for protesters in general. But it does make it easier for them to "target" people not aware or smart enough to maintain good OPSEC.
by TheRealPomax | 2026-02-10 18:20:08+00:00
I found it a very weird section of the article, undoing most of what had been written before.

Whether it's ROM programming, writing assembly, or C, or Rust, or JS-with-stdlib, at no point was anyone "teetering". Stacks have always existed, and whether your stack was small because it just had not much under it, or huge because it's 2026, they've by and large always been stable. That's the point of a stack: you can trust the parts below the layer you're working on, and the problems you solve are still real problems that for the most part don't require knowing the lower parts of the stack but are still real problem sin programming.

It's like making fun of people who drive a company rental because they don't want to own one themselves, and can't name any part of their engine: you're just being an ass.

Even the good TS programmers understand classic programming concepts like using the right data structures, paying attention to runtime complexity, and knowing when to go "maybe it's the step below me". They can work out difficult problems just fine.

You were writing an article about how fundamentally different AI has made things: why dunk on people who got into programming more recently than you and started higher on the ladder of abstraction, mocking them for "you were already about to fall". No, they weren't. They understood the core concepts just fine, and we collectively gave them stacks that they could trust. And they would have transitioned to "the next thing" just like you've been doing.

And then "AI" showed up, and it doesn't care about silly things like "how high up the ladder you are", it just went "your skills about how to schedule, structure, plan, describe, and manage projects is the thing that matters. Those other skills are nice to haves, and will make you better at being a PM, but they're not the main focus anymore". It doesn't matter where on the ladder you are, that affects everyone.
by Starman_Jones | 2026-02-10 18:20:14+00:00
That's the deal with America - we have no option but to accept the children - all the children - because that's how the Constitution is written. That's also how the data is structured. You've hypothesized, but haven't tried to defend, the notion that immigrants' children are a net negative. So far as I can tell, your suggestion that Cato modify their study is based only on your belief that it will lead to the outcome you want. There's any number of ways that the data can be sliced to support different hypotheses. For instance, Cato could discount citizens if their children emigrate from the US. If Cato has chosen to keep their methodology consistent between both groups, even though it doesn't cover all hypotheticals, that seems like a good decision. What I am trying to understand, and this is an earnest request, is whether there's a reason to change the methodology that doesn't require your hypothesis (second-generation Americans are a net drain on the economy) to be assumed to be true in order for the new methodology to make sense.
by quietsegfault | 2026-02-10 18:20:25+00:00
Your grieving doesn’t have to shit all over my personal enjoyment and contentment. Me enjoying the use of AI in developing software doesn’t take anything away from your ability to grieve or dislike it. I’m not asking you to be excited, I’m asking you not to frame my enjoyment as naive, harmful, or lesser.

Your feelings are yours, mine are mine, and they can coexist just fine. The problem only shows up when your grief turns into value judgments about the people who feel differently.
by Atlas667 | 2026-02-10 18:20:34+00:00
You didn't say anything.

People do have this power right now, they are called capitalists, they are a part of the tech/info/policing industry.

You don't have this control, I don't have this control. It's not humans in general, it's literally the capitalists. Right now, today. Try and "timelessly universalize" that.

It's the people who make money from this who want it.

I would rather that no one particular person or group of people have that much power, and I would rather help organize society to collectively and democratically decide what goes on with this tech but I guess that proudly makes me a communist.
by pixl97 | 2026-02-10 18:20:35+00:00
>That's a very different singularity than the one people argue about.

---

I wouldn't say it's that much different. This has always been a key point of the singularity

>Unpredictable Changes: Because this intelligence will far exceed human capacity, the resulting societal, technological, and perhaps biological changes are impossible for current humans to predict.

It was a key point that society would break, but the exact implementation details of that breakage were left up to the reader.
by kelseyfrog | 2026-02-10 18:20:38+00:00
It's the same perspective that asks, "If he's so bad, why doesn't she leave him?" And when she doesn't ultimately reconciles it by blaming her.

It reveals that the emotional relationship to the consequences take priority over the consequences themselves. Whether it's justifying domestic violence or justifying the consequences of an obesity epidemic, or the consequences of a sizeable fraction of people living in a false reality.

Those problems still exist, nothing is solved except if we apply the salve of personal choice, we can avoid meaningful change. It's a nilhistic, defeatist defense mechanism that says much more about the person employing it and their inability to withstand emotional discomfort than the facts of each case - that people regularly take actions that are objectively against their best interest.

Our failure to provide aid and cling to the that really the world is just by hiding behind the idea of rational choice is childishly naive.
by anal_reactor | 2026-02-10 18:20:39+00:00
Yes, exactly. I think the real reason why we don't see aliens is that once the population reaches certain level of intelligence and awareness, it takes only one generation thinking "this is not worth it" to cause dramatic population collapse which might wipe out entire species. And the thing is, "life isn't worth it" might actually be true, as much as evolution does everything to convince us otherwise.

But now that I think of it, there might be solutions. The problem is, they're incompatible with individualism. Imagine passing a law that everyone is obliged to take care of a child. Sure, this would cause issues, but would instantly solve the population crisis. The problem is, such a law will never be passed in a democratic society, because everyone votes according to what they believe is their own best interest, not the best interest of the group. But an absolute regime could potentially do this.

Now that I think of it, maybe the problem is that human societies grew too big too fast and our brains didn't adapt. We're capable of self-sacrifice, just in a group of max 20, not 20 million. We need a completely new paradigm of organizing the society.
by anthonypasq | 2026-02-10 18:20:42+00:00
> Having children itself can often be a form of hedonism. Let's face it: for many, the decision to have a child is very similar to the decision to have an exotic pet. People frequently/usually do it just for the social status boost they expect to receive.

I actually don't think I've ever read anything that made as little contact with reality as this. Its actually impressive. If you actually think this is in any way true, you need to deeply deeply reevaluate the way you perceive the world.
by alexgarden | 2026-02-10 18:20:42+00:00
If we've arrived at the point where bots are impersonating me (instead of the billions of other choices), I'm probably at peak Alex. I'll light a candle. So... easy to disambiguate this one.

I got the idea for Homeworld one night when I was about 21. At the time, I was working at EA as a programmer on Triple Play 98 (building FE gfx - not glamorous). In an RTS-ironic twist of fate, my boss and mentor at the time was Chris Taylor - go figure.

Friends of mine had their own game company and had boxed themselves into a technical corner they couldn't get out of, so I agreed to write a bunch of sprite conversion code for them after hours. That night, we were all working in a room, talking about the reasons X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter didn't work on a 2D screen (hold up and left till you turn inside and shoot) and how Battlestar Galactica didn't get the cred it deserved, and BOOM - in my mind I saw ships in 3D with trails behind them. Inside a crystal sphere like Ptolomy's theory of the universe (man inside - god outside), and I saw that the surface of a sphere is 2D, so you could orbit OUTSIDE with a mouse... it looked like spaghetti floating in zero g... that's why Homeworld's working title was "Spaghetti Ball" for months.

Fortunately for me, in this ambiguous thread, I can give you all the proof of life you want. Try me.

Now... is transparent and trustworthy casting spells? Yeah... it is, but not by itself. It's a primitive - a building block. My personal projects (that I do think are magical) kept running into the same problems. Effectively, "how do I give up the keys if I don't really know what the driver is going to do?" I tried coming at this problem 10 different ways, and they all ended up in the same place.

So I decided to go back to the basics - the putpixel(x,y) of agentic workflows, and that led me to transparency and trust. And now, the things I'm building feel magical AND sustainable. Fun. Fast... and getting faster. I love that.

At Relic, our internal design philosophy was "One Revolutionary and Multiple Evolutionary". The idea was that if you tried to do more than one mind-blowing new thing at a time, the game started feeling like work. You can see this in the evolution of design from Homeworld to DoW to CoH (and in IC too, but let's face it, that game had issues <-- my fault).

Now... on the topic of "Is agentic coding better or worse", I feel like that's asking "is coding in assembler better or worse". The answer (at least used to be) "it depends"... You're on a continuum, deciding between traditional engineering (tightly controlled and 100% knowable) and multi-agentic coding (1,000x more productive but taking a lot for granted). I've found meaning here by accepting that full-power multi-agentic harnesses (I rolled my own - it's fucking awesome) turn software engineering into Socratic debate and philosophy.

I don't think it's better. It's just different, and it lets you do different things.
by PrompX | 2026-02-10 18:21:17+00:00
Client PrompX partners with some of the most innovative companies to serve as the strategic link between executives and the partners they need to succeed.

In a business landscape defined by noise and speed, the advantage is Access. We exist to bridge the gap between executives facing critical challenges and the strategic partners capable of solving them.

- For Executives: we act as your filter, delivering curated, executive-grade introductions where fit, timing, and outcomes are clear. Every meeting is designed to advance a strategic objective.
- For Solution Partners: we position you as a mission-critical ally by aligning your capabilities to C-Suite priorities, replacing chasing with precision and relevance.

Powered by Pulse PrompX: our proprietary intelligence engine detects real-time intent and strategic shifts, filtering noise to identify the moment a leader is ready to engage.

For teams that prioritize fit, timing, and impact.
by pixelsort | 2026-02-10 18:21:21+00:00
My goal isn't to make LLM-assistance impossible; it will still be possible. In fact, GPT2-level inference is one of launch demos I have planned if I can finish this cursed self-hosting run.

My goal is to make training (especially self-training) impossible; while making inference deterministic by design and highly interpretable.

The idea is to build a sanctuary substrate where humans are the only beneficiaries of all possible technical advancements.
by 01284a7e | 2026-02-10 18:21:53+00:00
RE: My take on it is: you have to make your country/society a place where people will want to have children and feel/know that their children's lives will be good ones.

---

"Every healthy creature tends to multiply himself." - Albert Camus, "The Myth of Sisyphus"

People aren't "healthy" (happy, secure, etc.) in America...
by MattJ100 | 2026-02-10 18:22:09+00:00
You're not wrong. PKI has better protections against MITM, dialback has better protections against certificate leaks/misissuance.

I think the ideal approach would be combining both (as mentioned, there have been some experiments with that), except when e.g. DANE can be used ( https://prosody.im/doc/modules/mod_s2s_auth_dane_in ). But if DANE can be used, the whole CA thing is irrelevant anyway :)