MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by estimator7292 | 2026-02-23 17:04:01+00:00
Companies are legally prohibited from marketing and selling certain products like tobacco and alcohol because they historically tried to.

Parents are legally and socially expected to keep their kids away from tobacco and alcohol. You're breaking legal and social convention if you allow your kids to access dangerous drugs.

Capitalist social media is exactly as dangerous as alcohol and tobacco. Somebody should be held responsible for that, and the legal and social framework we already have for dealing with people who want to get kids addicted to shit works fairly well.
by WesolyKubeczek | 2026-02-23 17:04:22+00:00
I wouldn't mind if one result of this was a writeup on what patterns/antipatterns are there when converting code and concepts that used to be very aligned with C++-style OOP, deep inheritance and all that jazz, to what feels natural in Rust, and how you can rephrase those concepts without loss in the substance of what you need to do.

I guess it's a long way off, since the LLM translation would need to be refactored into natural Rust first. But the value of it would be in that it's a real world project, and not a hypothetical "well, you could probably just...".
by neop1x | 2026-02-23 17:04:27+00:00
From the start, I didn't understand why people pay so much for those subscriptions. Often, there are no clearly stated quotas, limits, or SLAs. For example, OpenAI states that requests are "limited" for the basic plan and "extended" for more expensive plans. It's such a joke.

I've been a pay-as-you-go API user from the beginning, carefully managing my context and usage while also leveraging cheaper, open alternatives to those overpriced "SOTA" models. I'm paying ~6 USD a month and I'm using it quite a lot.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2026-02-23 17:04:36+00:00
Oh yeah my bad. I was listening to the song and wrote it as it came. I definitely agree that it was hand, I may have (mis-listened?) it.

The song is so good! I agree and actually the In your hand discussion is even more relevant now than my accidental type of head that it can be a relevant discussion in it of itself.
by john_strinlai | 2026-02-23 17:05:01+00:00
>The problem with this scheme is that it's exactly as protective as requiring someone to tick a "I'm of legal age" tickbox in the software they wish to access.

no, it is exactly as protective as the protections for purchasing alcohol or buying smokes or other controlled substances/products.

buying smokes/alcohol when underage is obviously harder than "click this box". (did you ever try to buy smokes/alcohol when underage? you cant just go up to the clerk at the store when you are 14 and say "trust me bro, im 18/19/21".)

>Anyone who is of legal age can buy UUIDs and pass them around to folks who are not.

same for smoking and alcohol. i could go to the store right now and buy smokes, then hand them to my 10 year old.

we have laws already in place to punish selling smokes/alcohol to underagers, and laws for consuming smokes/alcohol when underage. we can apply those laws to your internet-age-token.

most people seem fine with the current trade-off for smokes/alcohol. i see no reason why tiktok needs to be treated as more dangerous than either.

>Having said that, I think having an "I'm of legal age" tickbox goes quite far enough.

i agree with this and everything you said afterwards. id rather not have any of it.
by EnderWT | 2026-02-23 17:05:01+00:00
ISO/IEC 18013-5 (Personal identification — ISO-compliant driving licence — Part 5: Mobile driving licence (mDL) application) is a potential solution for this. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso-iec:18013:-5:ed-1...

It would allow someone with an mDL on their device to present only their age instead of other identifying information.
by blactuary | 2026-02-23 17:05:05+00:00
This is ridiculously oversimplified, because there is no real market in housing. It is illegal to build in all of the places people want to buy. The purchase of housing by hedge funds isn't a problem on its own, it's simply a symptom of the bigger problem of supply restrictions.

The funds themselves say in their financials that they view housing as profitable because of the various restrictions on supply in every desirable city. They explicitly say that if those restrictions were lifted they would not be able to make money in that business and they would exit.
by zppln | 2026-02-23 17:05:12+00:00
Cool project, but I'm a bit curious hearing how the rest of the project feels about this?

I'm not sure how I'd feel if I woke up and found a system I worked on had been translated into an another language I'm not neccessarily familiar with. And I'm not sure I'd want to fix an non-idiomatic "mess" just because it's been translated into a language I'm familiar with either (although I suspect they'll have no problem attracting rust developers).
Show HN: Plyra-guard – intercepts AI agent tool calls before execution
by plyra | 2026-02-23 17:05:31+00:00
AI agents are being deployed to take real-world actions — file operations,
API calls, database writes. There's no standard safety layer between the
LLM's decision and execution.
plyra-guard is that layer. It intercepts every tool call before it runs,
evaluates it against a policy, and blocks, logs, or escalates.
@guard.wrap
def delete_file(path: str) -> str:
os.remove(path)
delete_file("/tmp/report.txt") # ALLOW — 0.3ms
delete_file("/etc/passwd") # BLOCK — "System config is off-limits"
Key things:

Policy engine (YAML or Python rules: allow / block / escalate)
Works with LangGraph, AutoGen, CrewAI, LangChain, plain Python
Sub-2ms in-process evaluation, no network hop
Every action logged, ships to OTEL or Datadog
Built-in dashboard at localhost:8765

The LangGraph integration has a non-obvious wrinkle: ToolNode uses
internal state tracking that breaks transparent tool wrapping. We ended
up building a custom guarded_tool_node pattern — cleaner anyway.
217 tests. Python 3.11–3.13. Apache 2.0.
Docs: https://plyraai.github.io/plyra-guard
─────
HN TIPS:

Reply to every comment within 1 hour
If someone critiques: "Good point — here's how we handle X" beats defending
One genuine thread > ten upvotes for front page velocity
by thewebguyd | 2026-02-23 17:06:00+00:00
I hope so. I never bought into the minimalism/flat design hype and have lamented its loss ever since.

What’s worse is it bled out of the digital world and into the physical. There’s a real lack of color in our modern world, at least over here in the US. Everything is so neutral and boring, all in the name of efficiency.
by vunderba | 2026-02-23 17:06:17+00:00
At the risk of stating the obvious, DUH.

There was a relatively comprehensive article around benching LLMs to play chess that measured even the SOTA models at around a mediocre 1000 ELO as compared to Carlsen who is rated at ~2850.

https://maxim-saplin.github.io/llm_chess
by lo_zamoyski | 2026-02-23 17:06:42+00:00
The conversation was as follows:

> You have a lot of faith in the qualities of average priests.
>> To be fair, faith is the crux of Catholicism.

So, in context (which the downvoters seem to have missed), "faith" is being used equivocally here. There a difference between having faith in Christ and his promises and faith in his claims of divinity on the one hand, and having "faith" in a priest or whatever else on the other. Hence, my question whether this was some kind of a bad attempt at humor or whether something was meant by it.

(FWIW, authentic Christian faith is not an arbitrary faith in anything you please. This is blind faith which is irrational. This is why we can speak of preambula fidei. There must be reasons for faith. When a friend tells you something about his inner life that you cannot know directly, you may believe him given an ensemble of evidence and reasons that cannot prove his claim definitively, but are nonetheless very supportive of it. Furthermore, the claim makes sense of what you do know about him.)
by arrsingh | 2026-02-23 17:06:55+00:00
Age Verification is very hard to do without exposing personal information (ask me how I know). I feel it should be solved by a platform company - someone like Apple (assuming we trust apple with our personal information but seems like we already do) - and the platform (ios) should be able to simply provide a boolean response to "is this person over 18" without giving away all the personal information behind the age verification.

Now the issue of which properties can "ask to verify your age" and "apple now knows what you're looking at" is still an unsolved problem, but maybe that solution can be delivered by something like a one time offline token etc.

But again, this is a very hard problem to solve and I would personally like to not have companies verify age etc.
by adolph | 2026-02-23 17:06:56+00:00
> holding parents accountable for what their children consume

There is a local dive bar down the street. I haven't expressly told my kids that entering and ordering an alcoholic drink is forbidden. In fact, that place has a hamburger stand out front on weekends and I wouldn't discourage my kids from trying it out if they were out exploring. I still expect that the bartender would check their ID before pulling a pint for them.

It takes a village to raise a child. There are no panopticons for sale the next isle over from car seats. We are doing our best with very limited tooling from the client to across the network (of which the tremendously incompetent schools make a mockery with an endless parade of new services and cross dependencies). It will take a whole of society effort to lower risks.
by latexr | 2026-02-23 17:06:56+00:00
> Can't one argue that because they had to jailbreak the models, they are circumventing the system that protects the copyright?

That argument doesn’t fly, because they didn’t have the copyright to begin with. What would be the defense there? “Yes, we broke the law, but while taking advantage of it, we also (unsuccessfully) took measures to prevent other people from breaking that same law through us”.
by snowhale | 2026-02-23 17:07:32+00:00
the context-specificity problem you're describing is exactly why the draft/execute divide is so persistent across AI use cases.

it's not a model capability problem. it's an architecture problem: the relevant context is distributed across systems (the priest's knowledge of their parish, history, relationships) that nobody has wired into the workflow. a homily generator without that context produces generic output. a priest who knows their community produces something unreplicable.

same pattern shows up in ops work. every ops request looks like a generic task -- 'update contract status,' 'respond to renewal question' -- but the context required to do it well is scattered across CRM, email threads, slack history, billing records. automate the task without the context and you get confident, generic output that's often wrong. the hard problem isn't drafting, it's knowing which context matters for this specific request before you act on it.
by simoncion | 2026-02-23 17:07:49+00:00
> Interesting. Are you saying all the concerns raised by the proponents of ID verification are invalid and meritless?

In the US, #1 and #2 are invalid and meritless. Wholly and without reservation. One of the huge reasons for the First Amendment is to ensure that people are able to counter lies uttered in the public sphere with truth.

#3 is handled by parental controls that have existed in mainstream OSs for quite some time now. [0][1][2] However, those preexisting parental controls don't justify additional expansion of the power and influence of authoritarians, so here we are.

[0] <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/family-safety>

[1] <https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/set-up-content-and-...>

[2] <https://support.google.com/android/answer/16766047?hl=en-rw>
by bikenaga | 2026-02-23 17:08:01+00:00
Original article: "National analysis of cancer mortality and proximity to nuclear power plants in the United States" - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4

"Abstract. Understanding the potential health implications of living near nuclear power plants is important given the renewed interest in nuclear energy as a low-carbon power source. Here we show that U.S. counties located closer to operational nuclear power plants have higher cancer mortality rates than those farther away. Using nationwide mortality data from 2000-2018, we assess long-term spatial patterns of cancer mortality in relation to proximity to nuclear facilities while accounting for socioeconomic, demographic, behavioral, environmental, and healthcare factors. Cancer mortality is higher across multiple age groups in both males and females, with the strongest associations among older adults, males aged 65–74 and females aged 55–64. While our findings cannot establish causality, they highlight the need for further research into potential exposure pathways, latency effects, and cancer-specific risks, emphasizing the importance of addressing these potentially substantial but overlooked risks to public health."

The PhysOrg article (https://medicalxpress.com/news/2026-02-proximity-nuclear-pow...) noted that they controlled for educational attainment, median household income, racial composition, average temperature and relative humidity, smoking prevalence, BMI, and proximity to the nearest hospital.
by jiayaoqijia | 2026-02-23 17:08:08+00:00
ClawSecurity is the first open-source platform built specifically for this threat model. It runs outside the agent's trust boundary as a separate system-level process, so a compromised agent cannot disable its own security monitoring. It provides real-time monitoring across four surfaces (file system, process, network, output), 50+ prompt injection detection patterns, 30+ secret detection patterns, supply chain verification, data loss prevention, a programmable policy engine with five enforcement rails, and SIGSTOP/SIGKILL quarantine to pause or terminate rogue agents instantly.
by rglullis | 2026-02-23 17:08:14+00:00
You have to pick a lane: either their backend is a commodity (interchangeable) or it's not.

> as long as they aren't actually exploiting users in a market they've cornered (which they can't with all the providers out there).

Price dumping and tie-in sales are business practices that destroy the market. They make it impossible for smaller players to compete. You don't get to feel exploited today, but you will get exploited in the end. But by then it will be too late.

> Nothing can change the fact that they've been offering users great value.

So was Über, so was AirBNB, so was every VC-funded company that followed the enshittification playbook. You have to be incredibly naive and/or short-sighted and/or selfish to keep condoning these practices.
by foobiekr | 2026-02-23 17:08:25+00:00
Mushrooms are everywhere. There used to be a subreddit of "weird mushrooms" like growing out of people's couches or in the bathroom, etc. In all cases, this is a sign of rot due to water intrusion.

You can grow mushrooms at home, it is fun. The only risk is that the mushrooms with high spore production are not great to have in a closed residence, especially oyster mushrooms which produce very high spore loads. There are vendors who produce cultures of sporeless oyster which can be used to grow oyster mushrooms indoors.

Outdoors, at least in most temperate areas, you are limited to things like shitake on logs or winecaps. The latter are incredibly easy to grow, and very good taste wise, but they are temperamental and basically grow on their own schedule, infrequently.
by NOBULEX | 2026-02-23 17:08:35+00:00
This is exactly what happens when there's no accountability infrastructure for AI agents.

Google's response is to restrict access — a blunt instrument that punishes legitimate users because they have no way to verify which agents were behaving correctly and which weren't.

The real fix isn't restrictions, but cryptographic behavioral commitments — agents declare what they'll do before execution, and any third party can verify compliance after. We don't need gatekeepers. We need verification.

I've been building this: https://github.com/agbusiness195/NOBULEX
by WarmWash | 2026-02-23 17:08:55+00:00
Let me clear some things up as I have experience with places like VTT (but not VTT specifically) in my career.

VTT is a company that you pay to run tests for you. You bring them a product, tell them what tests you need done, and then they do them with honesty and expensive well calibrated gear. Frequently you also send engineers along with your product to provide on the spot support for the testing. It's very likely it was a Donut engineer who setup the cell, attached the heatsinks, adjusted the connections, etc. This is pretty standard, VTT just runs verified tests, they're not experts on your product. Then they give you an official honest report recapping the tests done and the results.

VTT is not an auditor for verifying claims, at least beyond the scope of the test you task them to do. They are a friendly business partner that you pay large amounts of money to for getting you verified tests done on your product.

I really cannot stress enough that VTT is not in it to disprove anything. It's incredibly suspect that in a battery capacity test, Donut did not have VTT verify cell weight or dimension. It's also important to understand that VTT would not request to do this either, because VTT just runs the tests you pay them to, as you tell them to do it. So if donut shows up with a different cell for each test, VTT would not skip a beat, because they are not auditing, they are just doing the tests they are paid to do.

Normally places like VTT thrive on compliance testing, where a regulation outlays the tests needed to be passed, and VTT provides the service of being the third party to run and sign off on those tests. Those tests are then submitted to the regulating body and they are the ones who pass/fail you, not VTT. They just do tests and collect money.

So Donut is writing their own "regulations" here, so they are just having VTT do whatever tests they want as they want them done.

The real test would be someone not affliated with donut taking one of these cells to VTT.
by armchairhacker | 2026-02-23 17:09:00+00:00
That would be the status quo if we had better parental controls.

Trying to enforce parental controls via regulation may only be as effective as Europe enforcing the DMA against Apple. But maybe not, because there's a huge market; if Apple XOR Android does it, they'll gain market share. Or governments can try incentive instead of regulation (or both) and fund a phone with better parental controls. Europe wants to launch their own phone; such a feature would make it stand out even among Americans.
by kstrauser | 2026-02-23 17:09:30+00:00
Sure, people die from regular programming. Mistakes happen. That’s not good or ok, but it seems unavoidable given today’s technologies and tools.

However, I think that’s in a different category than giving life advice. How is an LLM to know that God forgives Joe for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his children, but doesn’t forgive Tom for doing the same thing because Tom had money but was saving up to buy cooler shoes and didn’t want to spend it? A priest’s advice might be “Joe, don’t make a habit of it, but you didn’t hurt anyone and you children were hungry. Tom, would you freaking knock it off already?” An LLM might reply “that’s a wonderful idea!” to both.

Again, I’m firmly not anti-AI. I use it every day. I absolutely to not want to hear its advice on how to navigate the complexities of life as a human being.
by kuon | 2026-02-23 17:09:39+00:00
Even if you design the perfect system, kids will just ask parents for an unlocked account, many parents will accept, myself included. My kids have full access to the internet and I never used parental control, I talk to them. Of course, I don't want to give parenting advice, that would be presumptuous. But, my point is that a motivated kid will find a way, you have to "work" on that motivation.

Many of the worst present on the internet is not age gated at all, you have millions of porn websites without even a "are you over 18" popup. There are plethora of toxic forums...

Of course it's a complex problem, but the current approach sacrifice a lot of what made the internet possible and I don't like it.
by AndrewKemendo | 2026-02-23 17:09:57+00:00
It’s not fundamentally different it’s people who are taking physical actions in the real world based on trust in some system

whether it’s a human or not they’re trusting the system with their existential outcomes

That is literally exactly the same thing.

The fact that you think that the rules of you being a father are somehow different than the rules of you driving to a appointment indicate that you have a completely incoherent world view based on two incompatible models of epistemology

As usual dualists will come up with a incoherent model and then try and act like it’s valid
by light_hue_1 | 2026-02-23 17:09:57+00:00
As a parent, I'm happy that social bans are finally a thing.

But, I don't get the approach. It's not like social media starts being a positive in our life at 20. The way these companies do social media is harmful to mental health at every age. This is solving the wrong problem.

The solution is to take away their levers to make the system so addictive. A nice space to keep in touch with your friends. Nothing wrong with that.
by fortzi | 2026-02-23 17:09:58+00:00
The Oslo accords were supposed to lead to a Palestinian state. The exploding busses in Tel Aviv didn’t help.

I don’t know what Ben Gurion’s private correspondence was, but it sure binds me, a millennial!

Your aggressive rhetoric doesn’t impress anyone, instead it signals your emotional gut response, probably an ill informed one.

You already hate me, a stranger, and nothing I will say will make you reconsider your position. That is because you hold it because you want to, and not because of real investigation.
by menzoic | 2026-02-23 17:09:58+00:00
I work at Airbnb where I write 99% of my production code using LLMs. Spotify's CEO recently announced something similar, but I mention my employer not because my workflow is sponsored by them (many early adopters learned similar techniques), but to establish a baseline for the massive scale, reliability constraints, and code quality standards this approach has to survive.

Many engineers abandon LLMs because they run into problems almost instantly, but these problems have solutions. If you're a skeptic, please read and let me know what you think.

The top problems are:

* Constant refactors (generated code is really bad or broken)

* Lack of context (the model doesn’t know your codebase, libraries, APIs, etc.)

* Poor instruction following (the model doesn’t implement what you asked for)

* Doom loops (the model can’t fix a bug and tries random things over and over again)

* Complexity limits (inability to modify large codebases or create complex logic)

In this article, I show how to solve each of these problems by using the LLM as a force multiplier for your own engineering decisions, rather than a random number generator for syntax.

A core part of my approach is Spec-Driven Development. I outline methods for treating the LLM like a co-worker having technical discussions about architecture and logic, and then having the model convert those decisions into a spec and working code.