MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by quickthrowman | 2026-02-05 22:21:08+00:00
Why not? We have examples from history to look at.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_So...

> Nikolai Ivanovich Yezhov (Russian: Николай Иванович Ежов, IPA: [nʲɪkɐˈlaj ɪˈvanəvʲɪtɕ (j)ɪˈʐof]; 1 May 1895 – 4 February 1940), also spelt Ezhov, was a Soviet secret police official under Joseph Stalin who was head of the NKVD from 1936 to 1938, at the height of the Great Purge. Yezhov organized mass arrests, torture, and executions during the Great Purge, but he fell out of favour with Stalin and was arrested, subsequently admitting in a confession to a range of anti-Soviet activity including "unfounded arrests" during the Purge. He was executed in 1940 along with others who were blamed for the Purge.

This guy was head of the secret police, didn’t help him out when he was purged aka murdered.
by pdonis | 2026-02-05 22:21:13+00:00
> general principles of accounting.

I'm not sure what those have to do with this question, since it's a legal question, not an accounting question.

> I feel pretty confident that if a state tax authority agrees with the deed date being the transfer date, then the IRS would as well.

In many cases a state tax authority wouldn't even be involved, since many states don't tax capital gains (which is what would be involved with a home sale) while the US Federal government does.

> negative sentiment about government bureaucracy

Evidently your experiences with government bureaucracies have been very, very different from mine.
by thiagonazariosl | 2026-02-05 22:21:28+00:00
You hit the nail on the head regarding the math. Most teams treat cloud costs as an inevitable tax rather than an engineering variable. As someone with an accounting background turned Cloud Architect, I see this 'math gap' daily. Usually, it's not a cloud vs. on-prem issue, but a lack of infrastructure discipline—idle resources and unoptimized NATs burn through that 48-month budget faster than hardware depreciation ever would. I’ve been using a 'Hardened by Design' framework to cut this waste by 50% without the overhead of moving back to a data center. Efficiency is often just better IaC.
by sailfast | 2026-02-05 22:21:41+00:00
Love the sentiment! And I'm a user - but what about aggregations? Elasticsearch offers a ton of aggregates out of the box for "free" completely configurable by query string.

Tiger Data offers continuous aggs via hypertable but they need to be configured quite granularly and they're not super flexible. How are you all thinking about that when it comes to postgres and aggregations?
by Esophagus4 | 2026-02-05 22:21:46+00:00
Do you really believe that?

If so, I think the onus would be on you to prove it, not me.

Or, more importantly, if you really think the EU will be a tech powerhouse, shouldn’t you be writing checks to their startups left and right?

Because I think that would be the revealed preference here. I’m guessing you’re not heavily invested in EU tech companies, right? Because that would say a lot about your true beliefs.
by praptak | 2026-02-05 22:22:02+00:00
There's a ton of difference between a random person noting my presence at a single point in space-time and a commercial entity tracking and storing my movements all the time.

Being okay with people watching me in public does not imply being okay with someone aggregating the information about my whereabouts 24/7 even though it's "the same" information.

Btw it's a fallacy similar to the one debunked in "what colour are your bits". The context matters, not just the abstract information.
by doctorpangloss | 2026-02-05 22:22:02+00:00
the more prosaic (the bear case) POV is that physically mounted outdoor street cameras have the same enforcement limitations as most other enforcement support technologies. flock isn't really bringing "number of unseen crimes" down from 1 to zero, he's bringing it from like 1000 to 999. a flock being easy to disable by a lay person, and a street corner not having witnesses - they're the same thing, it just isn't as good of a technology as he says (or people imagine) it to be.

so at the very beginning, the thing that threatens him the most is: simple ideas that sound objective and that make Gary Tan wary of putting $50m instead of $25m.

that said, very few things do that, bring "unseen crime" from N to 0. for example, legalization of something does that! he has found a very successful business nonetheless. it's more interesting to explore why. if he wanted to level constructive criticism at Deflock, i suppose we should wonder: how do they disrupt enterprise sales? flock is just, yet another failed IT project. it shouldn't be too hard. obviously, the best thing you can do is getting elected, and simply putting it in the law to not adopt the technology.
by mrandish | 2026-02-05 22:22:20+00:00
> I'd expect the numbers are all real.

I think a lot of people are concerned due to 1) significant variance in performance being reported by a large number of users, and 2) We have specific examples of OpenAI and other labs benchmaxxing in the recent past (https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_66c34055-740f-43a3-a63c-4b...).

It's tricky because there are so many subtle ways in which "the numbers are all real" could be technically true in some sense, yet still not reflect what a customer will experience (eg harnesses, etc). And any of those ways can benefit the cost structures of companies currently subsidizing models well below their actual costs with limited investor capital. All with billions of dollars in potential personal wealth at stake for company employees and dozens of hidden cost/performance levers at their disposal.

And it doesn't even require overt deception on anyone's part. For example, the teams doing benchmark testing of unreleased new models aren't the same people as the ops teams managing global deployment/load balancing at scale day-to-day. If there aren't significant ongoing resources devoted to specifically validating those two things remain in sync - they'll almost certainly drift apart. And it won't be anyone's job to even know it's happening until a meaningful number of important customers complain or sales start to fall. Of course, if an unplanned deviation causes costs to rise over budget, it's a high-priority bug to be addressed. But if the deviation goes the other way and costs are little lower than expected, no one's getting a late night incident alert. This isn't even a dig at OpenAI in particular, it's just the default state of how large orgs work.
by notahacker | 2026-02-05 22:22:21+00:00
Or they look deeper and note that the folksy bragging about pretty basic and irrelevant misunderstandings continues into the minutes of meetings his base that laps that stuff up doesn't bother paying attention to, where there isn't any strategic value to dissembling or being mildly irritating to the apolitical CEOs he's supposed to be giving bland assurances to, and conclude the emperor actually doesn't have any clothes. There are, of course, smart and well connected people that want someone whose extraordinary talent is being the centre of attention occupying the centre of attention.
by cermicelli | 2026-02-05 22:22:32+00:00
If you have worked on a related copyrighted work you can't work on a clean room implementation. You will be sued. There are lots of people who have tried and found out.

They weren't trillion dollar AI companies to bankroll the defense sure. But thinking about clean room and using copyrighted stuff is not even an argument that's just nonsense to try to prove something when no one asked.
by ndesaulniers | 2026-02-05 22:22:35+00:00
There's parts of LLVM architecture that are long in the tooth (IMO) (as is the language it's implemented in, IMO).

I had hoped one day to re-implement parts of LLVM itself in Rust; in particular, I've been various curious if we can concurrently compile C (and parse C in parallel, or lazily) that haven't been explored in LLVM, and I think might be safer to do in Rust. I don't know enough about grammers to know if it's technically impossible, but a healthy dose of ignorance can sometimes lead to breakthroughs.

LLVM is pretty well designed for test. I was able to implement a lexer for C in Rust that could lex the Linux kernel, and use clang to cross check my implementation (I would compare my interpretation of the token stream against clang's). Just having a standard module system makes having reusable pieces seems like perhaps a better way to compose a toolchain, but maybe folks with more experience with rustc have scars to disagree?
by bluerooibos | 2026-02-05 22:23:13+00:00
This is great and all but, who can actually afford to let these agents run on tasks all day long? Is anyone here actually using this or are these rollouts aimed at large companies?

I'm burning through so many tokens on Cursor that I've had to upgrade to Ultra recently - and i'm convinced they're tweaking the burn rate behind the scenes - usage allowance doesn't seem proportional.

Thank god the open source/local LLM world isn't far behind.
by karmakaze | 2026-02-05 22:23:47+00:00
I'm not particularly impressed that it can turn C into an SSA IR or assembly etc. The optimizations, however sophisticated is where anything impressive would be. Then again, we have lots of examples in the training set I would expect. C compilers are probably the most popular of all compilers. What would be more impressive is for it to have made a compiler for a well defined language that isn't very close to a popular language.

What I am impressed by is that the task it completed had many steps and the agent didn't get lost or caught in a loop in the many sessions and time it spent doing it.
by oldestofsports | 2026-02-05 22:23:53+00:00
Caching is mentioned in the article: What do you guys feel about using PostgreSQL for caching instead of Redis?

Redis is many times faster, so much that it doesn't seem comparable to me.

A lot of data you can get away with just caching in-mem on each node, but when you have many nodes there are valid cases where you really want that distributed cache.
by resonious | 2026-02-05 22:24:03+00:00
I hate to side-track like this but I'm having trouble understanding the architecture diagram. LLM has 2 arrows to Tools - what does that mean? Similarly, Tools has both a doublesided arrow and an outgoing arrow to Context. Chat Apps having outgoing arrows to both Message and LLM also kinda tripped me up but I suppose you could say it's because the apps both provide messaging and context for the LLM.
by sweetheart | 2026-02-05 22:24:04+00:00
The "UI" is indeed represented in memory in tree-like structure for which positioning is calculated according to a flexbox-like layout algo. React then handles the diffing of this structure, and the terminal UI is updated according to only what has changed by manually overwriting sections of the buffer. The CLI library is called Ink and I forget the name of the flexbox layout algo implementation, but you can read about the internals if you look at the Ink repo.
by mercutio2 | 2026-02-05 22:24:07+00:00
It hadn’t occurred to me this was a billing bug.

That would be heartening, if I wasn’t consuming tokens 10x as fast as expected, and they just had attribution bugs.

Do you have references to this being documented as the actual issue, or is this just speculation?

I want to support Anthropic, but with the Codex desktop app *so much better* than Anthropic’s combined with the old “5 back and forths with Opus and your quota is gone”, it’s hard to see going back
by mlyle | 2026-02-05 22:24:08+00:00
If you need linearity for spectral efficiency, you pay for it.

30% power added efficiency is the state of the art up in Ku band if you need a low compression budget. And it's important to note that this doesn't include the substantial power spent in modulation of complex signals or the power conversion, etc, before the transmitter

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-666X/15/11/1381
by TMWNN | 2026-02-05 22:24:11+00:00
>Furthermore, he has a system of volunteer spies in which children report
on their parents, and neighbours on each other. This cannot possibly work
well since eventually everyone reports everyone else and it all has to be
abandoned.

Asimov was mistaken here. The East German Stasi did implement a system in which many, many people (not literally everyone, but a staggering percentage) reported on each other.
by rvz | 2026-02-05 22:24:21+00:00
> What is this supposed to show exactly?

Nothing.

You can be sure that this was already known in the training data of PDFs, books and websites that Anthropic scraped to train Claude on; hence 'documented'. This is why tests like what the OP just did is meaningless.

Such "benchmarks" are performative to VCs and they do not ask why isn't the research and testing itself done independently but is almost always done by their own in-house researchers.
by vunderba | 2026-02-05 22:24:26+00:00
Nice article. FYI the transcript pages seem to produce a lot of vercel-looking 404 errors when clicking Index/Next:

https://www.josh.ing/blog/claude-composer/song3/experiment4-...

For reference if you're interested in seeing some of the ways a musician can use AI, I've written a couple of articles where I transformed some of my existing classical compositions:

https://mordenstar.com/blog/dutyfree-shop

https://mordenstar.com/blog/screwdriver-sonata
by evil-olive | 2026-02-05 22:24:28+00:00
I was one of the downvoters, and at the time I downvoted it, it was a very different comment. this is the original (copied from another tab that I hadn't refreshed yet):

> Tell me you don't understand Redis point is data structures without telling me you don't understand Redis point is data structures.

regardless of the author, I think slop of that sort belongs on reddit, not HN.
Show HN: Savior – Prevent silent form data loss in the browser
by Pepp38 | 2026-02-05 22:24:58+00:00
Hi HN,

I built Savior, a tiny, dependency-free JavaScript library that autosaves form input and restores it after refreshes, tab closes, or browser crashes.

It’s fully client-side, framework-agnostic, and designed to handle real-world edge cases like dynamic fields, corrupted storage, and failed submits without crashing the app.

Savior restores drafts verbatim — no judgment, no “smart” recovery — just predictable behavior.

GitHub: https://github.com/Pepp38/Savior

Docs: https://zippers.dev

Happy to answer questions.
by DOM100 | 2026-02-05 22:26:15+00:00
const nameA = getName(a).toLowerCase();
const nameB = getName(b).toLowerCase();
return nameA.localeCompare(nameB);

const msg = createDoneMessage();
msg.style.opacity = '1';

console.log("Extensions sorted alphabetically!");
console.table(sortedCards.map(c => ({
name: getName(c),
id: c.id || '—'
by dchitimalla1 | 2026-02-05 22:26:31+00:00
AI coding agents are writing more of our code, but they're also introducing new attack surfaces: prompt injection hidden in codebases, hallucinated package names that attackers register as malware, and data exfiltration through manipulated agents.

Our MCP server that sits between your AI agent and your codebase, scanning in real-time via the Model Context Protocol. v2.0 adds tree-sitter AST analysis for 12 languages with graceful fallback to regex when dependencies aren't installed.

Key features:
- 275+ security rules (SQL injection, XSS, secrets, command injection)
- Detects prompt injection attacks targeting AI agents
- Catches hallucinated packages across 7 ecosystems (4.3M+ packages indexed)
- Works with Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, Cline
- Zero config: npx agent-security-scanner-mcp init claude-code

The interesting technical bit: we use bloom filters for package verification (keeps the npm package under 3MB while indexing millions of packages) and taint analysis to track user input flowing to dangerous sinks.

MIT licensed, free to use.
by supere989 | 2026-02-05 22:26:34+00:00
Thanks! That's exactly where I see this heading.

The deterministic message passing piece is key. With VectorGuard-Nano, agents can coordinate securely without manual key exchange, which becomes critical when you have 5, 10, 20+ agents in a pipeline.

Curious about your content-generation use case. Are you seeing specific pain points around agent coordination that current tools aren't addressing? Always looking for real-world requirements to inform the roadmap.

The full VectorGuard product I'm working on takes this further with model-bound cryptography and autonomous agent sync, which could be interesting for hyper-scale multi-agent systems. It also enables provenance tracking for auditable agent interactions. Happy to discuss if relevant to what you're building.
by mxey | 2026-02-05 22:26:41+00:00
That’s the opposite of clean-room. The whole point of clean-room design is that you have your software written by people who have not looked into the competing, existing implementation, to prevent any claim of plagiarism.

“Typically, a clean-room design is done by having someone examine the system to be reimplemented and having this person write a specification. This specification is then reviewed by a lawyer to ensure that no copyrighted material is included. The specification is then implemented by a team with no connection to the original examiners.”
Show HN: Founder-OS: Open Sourcing how I automate my company
by 256BitChris | 2026-02-05 22:26:52+00:00
I've spent the last week trying to squeeze the automation out of Claude Code so that I can just queue tasks and they come out the other end tested, validated and ready to ship.

Today I asked Opus 4.6 if we should move to their new team agent system and it said no and suggested that I share what I've done with the world.

I took all the good parts from things like Ralph, and GSD and I was able to push it all into CC prompts - so you don't need anything except Claude Code to set this up.

The problem I was addressing was that CC was generating way more code than I could validated so I needed some sort of task managment that would execute tasks until they were both completed and validated (and fixing anything that broke automatically).

If anyone is trying to achieve the super powers you see the influencer achieving with automation, it can all be done with just pure Claude Code.

I try to help you bootstrap that flow and try to make it easy for both vibe coders and staff engineers!

Feedback and questions welcome!!!
by ndesaulniers | 2026-02-05 22:26:59+00:00
Some people care more about compile times than the performance of generated code. Perhaps even the correctness of generated code. Perhaps more so than determinism of the generated code. Different people in different contexts can have different priorities. Trying to make everyone happy can sometimes lead to making no one happy. Thus dichotomies like `-O2` vs `-Os`.

EDIT (since HN is preventing me from responding):

> Some people care more about compiler speed than the correctness?

Yeah, I think plenty of people writing code in languages that have concepts like Undefined Behavior technically don't really care as much about correctness as they may claim otherwise, as it's pretty hard to write large volumes of code without indirectly relying on UB somewhere. What is correct in such case was left up to interpretation of the implementer by ISO WG14.
by quickthrowman | 2026-02-05 22:28:24+00:00
By comparing an LLM’s inner mental state to a light fixture, I am saying in an absurd way that I don’t think LLMs are sentient, and nothing more than that. I am not saying an LLM and a light switch are equivalent in functionality, a single-pole switch only has two states.

I don’t really understand your response to my post, my interpretation is that you think LLMs have an inner mental state and think I’m wrong? I may be wrong about this interpretation.
by kingstnap | 2026-02-05 22:28:30+00:00
The code isn't worth money. This is an experiment. The knowledge that something like this is even possible is what is worth money.

If you had the knowledge that a transformer could pull this off in 2022. Even with all its flawed code. You would be floored.

Keep in mind that just a few years ago, the state of the art in what these LLMs could do was questions of this nature:

Suppose g(x) = f−1
(x), g(0) = 5, g(4) = 7, g(3) = 2, g(7) = 9, g(9) = 6 what is f(f(f(6)))?

The above is from the "sparks of AGI paper" on GPT-4, where they were floored that it could coherently reason through the 3 steps of inverting things (6 -> 9 -> 7 -> 4) while GPT 3.5 was still spitting out a nonsense argument of this form:

f(f(f(6))) = f(f(g(9))) = f(f(6)) = f(g(7)) = f(9).

This is from March 2023 and it was genuinely very surprising at the time that these pattern matching machines trained on next token prediction could do this. Something like a LSTM can't do anything like this at all btw, no where close.

To me its very surprising that the C compiler works. It takes a ton of effort to build such a thing. I can imagine the flaws actually do get better over the next year as we push the goalposts out.
by JohnFen | 2026-02-05 22:28:38+00:00
Just from the devs I've known personally (so hardly representative of the whole dev population), there appears to be a bit of a correlation with people not having degrees being more likely to be happy with their line of work.

This is entirely speculation, but I think it may be because people without degrees are more likely to have chosen the field because they love doing it, and people with degrees are more likely to have chosen the field because it pays well.
by uniq7 | 2026-02-05 22:29:17+00:00
Age verification for alcohol/tobacco doesn't require full identification nor keeps any records that can be later used for tracking people for other perverse purposes.

I didn't say that "parenting is wholly on the parents", that's a straw man argument. I said that parents who don't keep their children away from digital dangers should be blamed.

Parents have a huge radius of action, they can:

- Avoid using Youtube for entertaining their babies/toddlers.

- Avoid buying tablets to their children.

- If they buy them a phone, use parental control and restrict app usage.

- Monitor what their kids do on internet.

- And the most important: educate their children to identify dangers.

Do you think a parent who does none of this shouldn't be blamed?

I want parents to embrace responsibility and act as parents. Delegating this kind of education to government is dangerous and has many negative collateral effects we will pay sooner or later.
by input_sh | 2026-02-05 22:29:22+00:00
You hit a vague, never-quite-explained 5h window limit that has nothing to do with what you're doing, but with what every user is doing together. It's totally not downtime, you're just "using it too much" and they're telling you to fuck off until the overall usage slows down.

The order of priority is: everyone using the API (you don't want to calculate the price) → everyone on a $200/month plan → everyone on a $20/month plan → every free user.
by jiggawatts | 2026-02-05 22:29:26+00:00
I think this announcement says a lot about OpenAI and their relationship to partners like Microsoft and NVIDIA, not to mention the attitude of their leadership team.

On Microsoft Foundry I can see the new Codex 4.6 model right now, but GPT-5.3 is nowhere to be seen.

I have a pre-paid account directly with OpenAI that has credits, but if I use that key with the Codex CLI, it can't access 5.3 either.

The press release very prominently includes this quote: "GPT‑5.3-Codex was co-designed for, trained with, and served on NVIDIA GB200 NVL72 systems. We are grateful to NVIDIA for their partnership."

Sounds like OpenAI's ties with their vendors are fraying while at the same time they're struggling to execute on the basics like "make our own models available to our own coding agents", let alone via third-party portals like Microsoft Foundry.