MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by reliabilityguy | 2026-02-28 17:08:43+00:00
> yes poor israel with it's nukes and iron dome is being oppressed by a bunch of women and children living in an open prison

This is "open prison": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYCWjYBsr8M?

Truly oppressed people do not blow up themselves in cafes, busses, and schools. People in Iran are oppressed, their women are beaten for not covering their hair in the street, and yet, they do not blow up themselves.
by TallGuyShort | 2026-02-28 17:08:59+00:00
This is also an area where AI can help. Don't just tell it to write your code. Before you get going, have it give you an architectural overview of certain parts you're rusty on, have it summarize changes that have happened since you were familiar, have it look at the bigger picture of what you're about to do and have it critique your design. If you're going to have it help you write code, don't have it ONLY help you write code. Have it help you with all the cognitive load.
by benj111 | 2026-02-28 17:09:06+00:00
Talking heads reference?

Part of me thinks that we're already reaching peak stuff/employment/the current system.

We are currently churning out graduates who work in coffee shops. More and more employment is make work. The issue is can we carry on requiring work, making it a moral requirement.

I suspect it'll be like the industrial revolution, when the average labourer moved to a factory in the city living in a slum, they were worse off. It took time for the conditions of the working class to improve.

Basic income is touted as the solution, but then globalisation means workers are moving much more and I'm not sure the 2 are compatible. Not that I have a better idea.

I do think we need a cultural change decoupling work from self worth. It's becoming less and less defensible to require everyone to work to be 'deserving'.

All that being said, there will still be jobs, there will always be demand for hand made, or something that isn't soulless corporatism. Although I'm starting to sound like Star Treks view of the future, which may not achievable
by cc-d | 2026-02-28 17:09:41+00:00
Thanks for making me aware of another federal agency :)

Seems to me prosecuting or regulating this sort of activity is futile, and pretty much serve only the interests of the mob. These markets make additional data open source, which otherwise might exclusively belong only to mob, so that's pretty cool. We democratized buying airstrikes.

It You may know how bad things really are, but if you don't, the lawboys are pretty much just playing pretend at this point, and have been for a while.

Mob wants me to add: if you try to buy an airstrike with our very based and functional cryptocurrency systems, you will probably just find mob. We have mob priced in, anybody with a significant amount of cryptocurrency knows this too.

It's not as simple as "buy an airstrike" comrade (we are referencing the person writing this post)
by ankit219 | 2026-02-28 17:10:26+00:00
this is good.

problem is google's security concerns. when people connect gmail to openclaw, google flags the activity as weird and suspend the account because of unusual activity. Many whose accounts got locked because of this and they thought it was because they connected it to antigravity use against the policy (which happened in some cases). We will still see google account suspensions, and that would keep making news. and it wont be because of antigravity usage.
by kyboren | 2026-02-28 17:10:27+00:00
> The US has absolutely no business attacking Iran.

Iran's theocratic regime just murdered tens of thousands of protestors, regularly organizes chants of "Death to America", calls the US "The Great Satan", sponsors terror organizations all around the region, has (through their Houthi proxies) cut off critical sea lanes in one of the most strategic areas, is very close to developing nuclear weapons (with enough HEU already to build maybe a dozen bombs), has extensive ballistic missile magazines and expertise, and is working on ICBMs explicitly to reach the US homeland.

But oh yeah, this is totally unprovoked and the US has no business attacking Iran. Right.
by thesz | 2026-02-28 17:10:31+00:00
> I do read the code, but reviewing code is very different from producing it, and surely teaches you less. If you don’t believe this, I doubt you work in software.

I work in software and for single line I write I read hundredths of them.

If I am fixing bugs in my own (mostly self-education) programs, I read my program several times, over and over again. If writing programs taught me something, it is how to read programs most effectively. And also how to write programs to be most effectively read.
by kgeist | 2026-02-28 17:10:55+00:00
>I'm in my mid-40's now. I taught myself C when I was 15. I have no desire to use LLMs to pump out code.

For me, it's the other way around: I'm glad that AI can write code for me. A few months ago, I moved from an engineering role to a researcher role exactly because I got tired of writing code. Probably 95% of code/features (at least the kind you get paid for) is just boring CRUD stuff where you move bytes from one place to another and then show them in the UI (plus some access rules and a few invariants here and there).

All of it was actually interesting in the first couple of years. But when you do it over and over again for 20 years in a row... Yeah. Sometimes there are interesting projects from time to time, but usually it's the same stuff you've done countless times. Deja vu.

In my current researcher role, my task is to explore novel ideas, productize research papers, etc., and LLMs allow me to quickly write prototypes and demos, play with various ideas, without having to spend a lot of time manually moving bytes from one place to another. It’s fun again.
by aaravchen | 2026-02-28 17:10:59+00:00
That is pretty obviously how it started, and for the very reasons you describe. But there have been some other benefits that have come out of going down this alternate path as well.
In particular, the remote composability and local deployment is extremely useful for "cattle" edge system deployment. Installing a package reacts to what's currently on the system when installing. Even something as simple as the order you install your packages in can affect the result. Not having to run an entirely duplicate "golden" system to generate snapshots on and then push them to the cattle from is a pretty nifty benefit.
by blainm | 2026-02-28 17:11:05+00:00
I think the issue is people are using tools in an automated fashion and running up a compute bill for free when they were only meant to be used by humans in a more limited capacity (for companies to gather data on how to improve their products for humans). I think the correct way to use these models in an automated fashion is via the APIs and even then they might also worry about things like abuse/distillation type attacks still if the volume is too high. I think the lack of transparency might actually be by design so that people abusing their services don't figure out what triggers them losing their accounts. I could be wrong of course, this is just speculation on my part.
by reliabilityguy | 2026-02-28 17:11:09+00:00
> He just effectively argued that there are no illegitimate targets in war

No, this is not what I've said.

> because soldiers can be anywhere and that hospitals must be targeted or else they are "get out of jail free cards" whatever the fuck that means.

The law is clear in this regard. If you use hospital for military purposes, it is a valid target.

> War is war, but war crimes are still war crimes.

When a hospital is used for military purposes and then attacked, it is not a war crime from the PoV of international law. You may not like it, but it is a fact.

> No point trying to have rational discourse with someone advocating for war crimes.

I think you are irrational here. Your reasoning is based on emotions, and not facts.
by heymadsenx | 2026-02-28 17:12:05+00:00
I’m thinking about pricing as more than a conversion lever, but as a commitment mechanism.

For apps that require ongoing effort from users, could higher upfront prices actually improve engagement by forcing a more deliberate purchase decision?

I’ve seen hints of this effect while experimenting with pricing on a paid app, but I’m curious whether others have observed something similar, or if there’s research that supports or contradicts this idea.
by JumpCrisscross | 2026-02-28 17:12:21+00:00
> you're going to be shocked, SHOCKED, to find out that 28% of Americans now support Hamas

No. The question is "in the Israel-Hamas conflict do you support more Israel or more Hamas?" That's different from supporting Hamas. Even I'd be on the fence about answering "more Hamas" over "more Israel," though I'd mostly be irritated at the false dichotomy and false equivalence the question implies.

(I'd guess 10 to 20% of Americans support Hamas because that's the fraction that support just about anything, from the flat Earth to the genocide of penguins or whatever.)

> that support for Hamas will only grow stronger as the elderly Americans that are still largely against Hamas die off and replaced by younger Americans that support Hamas

Dig deeper into the polls. It's a strong minority in Gen Z and Alpha. It's not commanding. And it reveals itself for what it is when you ask people to name their No. 1 issue.

I respect folks who have turned this into their pet issue. Ultimately, foreign policy isn't going to be front and centre in American politics unless there is a draft. (And most Americans aren't monsters.)
by strix_varius | 2026-02-28 17:12:34+00:00
Honestly it seems stupid but fine to me. Like if someone random comes up to me on the sidewalk and says hey if OpenAI announces a browser tomorrow, you give me $100. If not I'll give you $1000. Obviously I'm not going to take them up on it, they clearly have inside information.

If you're betting on a prediction market without insider information then you're just... The fool who is soon parted from his money one way or another.

I generally feel like people should be free to do whatever insane stuff they want with their own lives.
by mymacbook | 2026-02-28 17:13:07+00:00
Thank you! After Benj Edwards and Kyle Orland's Ars Technica article they published using AI (while saying they didn't), and all the while their article was about an AI agent publishing a hit piece on Scott Shambaugh (matplotlib maintainer), I feel like I now assume journalists are using AI and things need to be fact-checked just as we do for our AI interactions.

I appreciate hearing about details like this and getting the source directly. I hope Kristina Armitage and Michael Kanyongolo from Quanta Magazine respond and you can update us!

Scott's Blog on Hit Piece: https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on...
Ars Editor Note: https://arstechnica.com/staff/2026/02/editors-note-retractio...
Ars Retraction: https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/02/after-a-routine-code-reje...
by mpalmer | 2026-02-28 17:13:09+00:00
> supply chain risk is not a negotiating tool. it's spite after talks have ended.

No. It's unlawful abuse of power.

> the miltary prefers boundaries to be technical, not contractual

That's nice for the military. Meanwhile, Anthropic has the right to refuse the use of its IP without being subject to punishment by the government.

You seem to me to be irretrievably "deal-brained", and not at all concerned about the obvious abuse of power by the government here, or the constant display of bad faith by gov't officials.
by samiv | 2026-02-28 17:13:12+00:00
That's because they're an additive tool. Everything boils down to "adding" more code. But in the long term its not about how much code you can add but how little you can get away with. But this is an impossible task for the LLMs. How would you train one not to write code? What would the training data look like? Would that be all the lines of code that haven't been written?
by TheDong | 2026-02-28 17:13:27+00:00
iOS makes it painful to use third-party sync protocols and servers, like syncthing can't run in the background, a git sync service can't run in the background, only iCloud gets to run in the background.... and whatever sync protocol the app itself has blessed so it can run immediately on opening the app.

As such, on iOS the native sync is the only one that works cleanly and seamlessly, and so you're incentivized to pay for it.

There was a little while, when dropbox was big, where it seemed like the future of computing would be "your data is in the cloud, and every app you use can share that data, and those two things are independent integrated through some common filesystem layer".

And then it ended up that no, your data's in a cloud-per-service, where your emails live in googles cloud, your documents in microsoft 365's cloud, your images in "adobe creative cloud"'s cloud, your photos in Apple's cloud, your passwords in 1Password's cloud, and your knowledgebase in Obsidian's cloud.

The dream of the filesystem API being able to expand to clouds, of being able to choose dropbox or google or apple as the owner of your data, and other applications seamlessly integrating with any of them, it died with apple making it impossible to offer any sort of generic filesystem API or even background sync.

And so, that's why you'd use obsidian sync over git, because you're cursed with using a phone.

Unless you're saying "why not pay for obsidian sync, but then sync it into a git repo in CI and commit there to see the diffs", not "why not use git as the underlying sync protocol", in which case ignore everything I wrote, you totally could do that.
by techxploitation | 2026-02-28 17:13:44+00:00
Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but, it is completely plausible and possible to run a separate review of what ai just created, explaining what decisions where made and why, how they affect the existing system and going forward. This review can have a critique section over core failure modes that you have found in ai, or discrepancies unique to your setup. It can even be further condensed from verbose 2 page document into the core relevant explanation, for future references. - I think sometimes SWE's have an ego about needing to understand it entirely self-sufficiently, and so hold back on just asking relentless questions, like a child. 'But why?' 'but why?' 'but why?' until it is revealed, is a valid method in today's environment.
by maqp | 2026-02-28 17:14:01+00:00
A lot of bug fixing relies on some mental model about the code. It manifests as rapid "Oh 100% I know what's causing" -heureka moments. With generated code, that part's gone for good. The "black box written by a black box" is spot on on, you're completely dependent on any LLM to maintain the codebase. Right now it's not a vendor lock thing but I worry it's going to be a monopoly thing. There's going to be 2-3 big companies at most, and with the bubble eventually bursting and investor money dying, running agents might get a lot more expensive. Who's going to propose the rewrite of thousands of LLM-generated features especially after the art of programming dies along with current seniors who burn out or retire.
by mindcandy | 2026-02-28 17:14:21+00:00
The DoW is engaging in simple crybullying. In my time as an online moderator I see it all the time.

“You are impinging on my freedom to force you to participate in activities you have expressly indicated it is against your will to engage in! You bully! I am such a victim!”

https://xcancel.com/SecWar/status/2027507717469049070?s=20

This is endemic of the entire current administration. It is as disappointing as it is unsurprising.
by dkarl | 2026-02-28 17:14:43+00:00
> In their 1872 papers, though, Cantor and Dedekind had found a way to construct a number line that was complete. No matter how much you zoomed in on any given stretch of it, it remained an unbroken expanse of infinitely many real numbers, continuously linked.

> Suddenly, the monstrosity of infinity, long feared by mathematicians, could no longer be relegated to some unreachable part of the number line. It hid within its every crevice.

I'm vaguely familiar with some of the mathematics, but I have no idea what this is trying to say. The infinity of the rational numbers had been known a thousand years prior by the Greeks, including by Zeno whom the article already mentioned. The Greeks also knew that some quantities could not be expressed as rational numbers.

I would assume the density of irrational numbers was already known as well? Give x < y, it's easy to construct x + (y-x)(sqrt(2))/2.

I don't get what "suddenly" became apparent.
by ip26 | 2026-02-28 17:14:51+00:00
Maybe the right answer is “why not both”, but subagents can also be used for that problem. That is, when something isn’t going as expected, fork a subagent to solve the problem and return with the answer.

It’s interesting to imagine a single model deciding to wipe its own memory though, and roll back in time to a past version of itself (only, with the answer to a vexing problem)
by breakyerself | 2026-02-28 17:15:04+00:00
The Trump admin regularly speak of their political adversaries as if they are as bad as foreign adversaries. Why should anyone trust them to limit their surveillance activities to legitimate targets? Mass surveillance by definition is not narrowly targeted towards enemies and enemies is not narrowly defined for this regime.

What I know is that the people in charge of the US government at this time are authoritarian and have no tolerance for dissent or oversight.

When you have that kind of people in power the more business leaders cow to that the more power is accrued to those people which they can further leverage to get even more power.

Any company that's stands it's ground in the face of such pressure is doing better than the ones that cave in my book. It seems like Anthropic is the only AI company with anything resembling adults. They're standing for some kind of principles and they aren't going around promising to build out a quadrillion dollars worth of data centers in the next several years or resorting to advertising when they just said it's a sign of desperation if they do that.
by harshvermadr30 | 2026-02-28 17:15:41+00:00
Hi HN,

I built this because I was tired of writing brittle regex hacks to fix trailing commas and missing brackets in OpenAI outputs. Wrapping standard `JSON.parse()` in a try/catch loop and dropping the data (or wasting tokens forcing a re-prompt) felt incredibly inefficient for production apps.

This is a middleware reliability layer (available on npm/pip) that intercepts broken LLM JSON, auto-repairs the syntax, and enforces a strict JSON Schema before it ever hits your backend logic.

It also returns a "confidence score" indicating how heavily the AST had to be mutated to force it into a valid object, so you can programmatically reject severe hallucinations.

The heavy AST parsing and schema compilation is offloaded to a RapidAPI backend to keep the client/server thread unblocked.

Would love any feedback on the code, or to hear about the weirdest formatting edge cases you've seen LLMs fail on so I can add them to the repair engine's test suite.
by Svoka | 2026-02-28 17:15:43+00:00
As Ukrainian, I don't remember launching missiles on russia, or, in fact, any aggression towards russia. In its turn russia did recognize borders with Ukraine in multiple treaties, and on top of that security guarantees promised in exchange of 3rd by the size world nuclear arsenal.

Just a quick reminder, that Iranian and Hamas policy towards Israel is extermination. Palestine was never recognized by Israel or USA. Israel is not recognized by Iran.

So tell me, what parallels do you see between these conflicts? Human misery and destruction is hardly a common ground, and even in that, scale is incomparable.
by aaravchen | 2026-02-28 17:15:43+00:00
Ironically the first implementation of ostree required an HTTPS server to serve the ostree commits, allowing a much smaller subset of what's needed to be transferred. However that became an adoption hurdle since it required unique infrastructure.
Ostree switched to using containers because zstd allows compressed chunks now rather than the old all-or-nothing image layers, and the existing widespread container image registry infrastructure could be reused without modification. And both utilize layers for their construction so there were possible benefits there (that never really materialized, but are still available to pursue).
by finchisko | 2026-02-28 17:15:46+00:00
I'm working on free addon for storybook. It would enable designers and develepors to quickly review which design tokens from your collection is used in a particular component. Initially I will only support css modules and theme file where all your design token lives. I would like to hear from you, if there is any interest in something like this... Feedback is welcome. Project is in early stage.
by politician | 2026-02-28 17:15:56+00:00
Bingo. You don’t have to read much into this if you remember how the DoD uses the word trust. In their world, a "trusted" system is one that has the power to break your security if it goes wrong. So when they say "unrestricted use," the likely meaning isn’t just fewer guardrails it’s that the vendor doesn’t get to monitor or audit how the system is being used. In other words, the government isn’t handing a private company visibility into sensitive operations.
by m_ke | 2026-02-28 17:16:08+00:00
answer my questions

also heres some nice footage of markets in warsaw ghetto for you https://youtu.be/a2a5qRkOqP4?si=twZ9zFYL3xh6Ms0h

as a Pole its sad to see so many jews get behind a fascist like Bibi. living in NYC i don't feel safer today and i don't see how the whole world turning on israel is good for jews long term

Trump shredding NATO and taking our random world leaders is also not making countries like Poland safer
by rzerowan | 2026-02-28 17:16:14+00:00
There was a time back when we could get generic LoginWIth OAUTH butons along with the social media roster , allowing one to use whichever provider they wanted.

Current state of OIDC should be pretty much standard across most providers - it put it that devs need too make the push to support alt login providers for preventing vendor lockin in identity like were currently barreling towards in hardware/software.
by Sem_pre | 2026-02-28 17:16:27+00:00
The nonce serialization problem is real — cache locks work but get hairy
at scale, especially if you need concurrent payouts.

For the verification side (confirming stakes arrived), you might consider
separating that from your sidecar entirely. Watching the chain for a
specific USDC amount + matching it to an intent is a well-defined problem
that doesn't need to live in your app logic.

I'm building something in this space (PayWatcher — verification-only,
non-custodial, $0.05 flat on Base). Would have saved you the transfer
event parsing at least. Curious how you handle confirmation edge cases
like reorgs.
by re5i5tor | 2026-02-28 17:16:48+00:00
Really intrigued and def will try, thanks for this.

In connecting the dots (and help me make sure I'm connecting them correctly), context-mode _does not address MCP context usage at all_, correct? You are instead suggesting we refactor or eliminate MCP tools, or apply concepts similar to context_mode in our MCPs where possible?

Context-mode is still very might value, even if the answer is "no," just want to make sure I understand. Also interested in your thoughts about the above.

I write a number of MCPs that work across all Claude surfaces; so the usual "CLI!" isn't as viable an answer (though with code execution it sometimes can be) ...
by bigstrat2003 | 2026-02-28 17:16:58+00:00
All this talk about sandboxing and permissions misses the obvious: since you can't trust the agents, don't freaking use them. It is utterly stupid to give an LLM access to run things on your computer, because nothing you do can stop it from hallucinating garbage that harms your system. The whole "agent" craze is the most incredible display of irresponsibility I have ever seen in this industry.