MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Muromec | 2026-02-16 19:57:28+00:00
Do you see a lot of billionaries and their nephews in the public trials right now? The one which definitely didn't kill the insurance ceo is going pretty good, judging from all the paid shilling on *grams and such.

Now for a serious answer, what happens in practice in Europe is not secret trials, because trials are very much public. Since there is only so many billionaries, their nephews, actual mafiosi and people with political exposure prosecution, the journalists would monitor them closely, but will not be there on a hearing about your co-workers wife-beating activities.

Rank and file cops aren't that interesting by the way, unless it's a systemic issue, because the violence threshold is tuned down anyway -- nobody does a routine traffic stop geared for occupational army activities.

Like everything, privacy is not an absolute right and is balanced against all other rights and what you describe fits the definition of a legitimate public interest, which reduces the privacy of certain people (due to their position) by default and can be applied ad-hoc as well.
by spwa4 | 2026-02-16 19:57:50+00:00
That pretty much describes Indian work culture/ethic. Let's say "aggressive" work hours, and you just let your manager claim whatever he wants and agree with it, against everyone. "Yes", "Yes, sir".

And then, yeah, when the time comes that the work needs to be delivered, odds of it actually being done, let's say 50/50 at best.

Does your manager even want to know the truth? Mine does, but that's only the case because I changed managers 4 times before I found one that I can reasonably believe tells the truth to his superiors.
by Brian_K_White | 2026-02-16 19:57:52+00:00
"But OpenAI 5.2 reasoning, even at high, told me to walk. My first instinct was, I had underspecified the location of the car. The model seems to assume the car is already at the car wash from the wording."

Which to me begs the question, why doesn't it identify missing information and ask for more?

It's practically a joke in my workplaces that almost always when someone starts to talk to me about some problem, they usually just start spewing some random bits of info about some problem, and my first response is usually "What's the question?"

I don't try to produce an answer to a question that was never asked, or to a question that was incompletely specified. I see that one or more parts cannot be resolved without making some sort of assumption that I can either just pull out of my ass and then it's 50/50 if the customer will like it, or find out what the priorites are about those bits, and then produce an answer that resolves all the constraints.
by k_roy | 2026-02-16 19:58:24+00:00
The author here repeatedly claims that teams would function identically on Swarm and are wasting resources using Kubernetes.

You don’t even need to be a mid-sized team to need stuff like RBAC, service mesh, multi-cluster networking, etc.

Claiming that kubernetes only “won” because of economic pressure is only true in the most basic of sense, and claiming it as a resume padder is flat out insulting to all its actual technical merits.

The multi-tenant nature and innate capabilities is part economics of it, but operators, extensibility, and platform portability across different environments are actual technical merits.

Claiming that autoscaling is optional and not required for most production environments is at best myopic.

It also greatly undersells the operational complexity that autoscaling actually solves, versus just the reactive script based solely on CPU. Metrics pipelines, cluster-level resource constraints, and pod disruption budgets.

As far as the repeated claim that it just “works”, great. Not working is more of a function of the application not the platform.

I dunno, this whole article frames kubernetes as a massive overhead and monolithic beast rather than the programmable infrastructure that it is.

It also tries to minimize many real world needs like multi-team isolation, extensibility, and ecosystem integrations
by WD-42 | 2026-02-16 19:58:25+00:00
"one-man companies" and "open-protocols" doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean maybe there's a super small chance that one person vibe codes an outstanding protocol definition that the rest of the developer community decides to adopt, but that is vanishingly small bordering on laughable.

Vibe coding is not the answer to every problem.
by the_harpia_io | 2026-02-16 19:58:47+00:00
yeah I watch it but not like staring at every line - more like checking when something feels off or when it's been chugging for a bit. if it starts pulling in files I didn't expect or the diff looks weirdly large I'll stop and check what's happening. the problem isn't that you can't catch it after the fact, it's that by then it's already burned 5 minutes reading your entire utils folder or whatever, and you gotta context switch to figure out what it misunderstood. easier to spot the divergence early
by dadoum | 2026-02-16 19:59:19+00:00
Can anyone explain me exactly why it is a suitable alternative to VISA and Mastercard (and why people were waiting for it). I am trying to understand the full picture here, so multiple things come to my mind.

First, SEPA instant payments already exist and are really instant up to a certain amount, and I am guessing that Wero builds on top of that a sort of identity layer, to sidestep the whole IBAN thing. But it is likely more than a SEPA alias, since it was supposedly hard to set-up.

Second, VISA and Mastercard are worldwide payment networks (or rather, they each operate payment networks with various names?). But I am failing to grasp what's hard to reproduce here too. I heard that in Europe there were only a few national alternatives, like Carte Bancaire or Girocard, but why? Is it just because banks can't agree on the design of an alternate network? But all the fees associated with using VISA or Mastercard should be a big enough incentive to push something else. (basically what's a payment network?)

And lastly, why are all the new (free) digital banks (néobanques as we call them here) relying on either Mastercard or VISA and never on Carte Bancaire for example, while it generally offers lower processing fees (and that they can be cobranded).

I think I am missing a lot of context, and I asked LLMs a while ago about these but themselves don't really explain what is the infrastructure needed to operate such a network.
by surgical_fire | 2026-02-16 19:59:25+00:00
/shrug

I have no intention of changing your mind. I don't think of the people I reply to highly enough to believe they can change their minds.

I reply to these comments for other people to read. Think of it as me adding ky point of view for neutral readers.

Either way, I could use AI for some coding tasks back in GPT 3.5 days. It was unreliable, but not completely useless (far from it in fact)

Nowadays it is a little more reliable, and it can do more complex coding tasks with less detailed prompts. AI now can handle a larger context, and the "thinking" steps it adds to itself while generating output were a nice trick to improve its capabilities.

While it makes me more productive on certain tasks, it is the sort of the improvements I expected in 3 years of it being a massive money black hole. Anything less would actually be embarrassing all things considered.

Perhaps if your job is just writing code day in an out you would find it more useful than I do? As a software engineer I do quite a bit more than that, even if coding is the bit of work I used to enjoy the most.
by the_harpia_io | 2026-02-16 19:59:29+00:00
yeah that works after the fact but the issue is more about catching it mid-run - like when Claude decides to read through 50 files to answer a simple question because it misunderstood the scope. by the time you check git you've already wasted the time and tokens. the logs help you spot that divergence while it's happening, not just after
by mrbungie | 2026-02-16 19:59:30+00:00
If you are really good and fast validating/fixing code output or you are actually not validating it more than just making sure it runs (no judging), I can see it paying out 95% of the time.

But for what I've seen both validating my and others coding agents outputs I'd estimate a much lower percentage (Data Engineering/Science work). And, oh boy, some colleages are hooked to generating no matter the quality. Workslop is a very real phenomenon.
Show HN: Personal AI Talent Agency for Content Creators
by aa_y_ush | 2026-02-16 20:00:01+00:00
hey HN,
so much good has come out of this community for me. Sharing something exciting we've been working really hard on for the past month.

tldr: 80% of Content creators in the 10k-1M range don't have professional agency representation and spend ~60% of their time on admin around brand deals (brand discovery, outreach, follow-ups, pricing), which is their main source of revenue, by the way. I have led content and growth at a YCw20 and have done ML at LinkedIn and found a burning intersection I can really help with. YC's RFS was pleasant timing as well.

Here's a demo: https://vimeo.com/1164079519?share=copy&fl=sv&fe=ci

While I can point you guys to the platform immediately, unfortunately, we are jumping through CASA and other approvals on social media platforms (We connect with those to create a deep creator DNA and find the best fit brands), and literally need to onboard every user as a tester on our sandbox. But hey, do things that don't scale!

we are already working with 4 creators averaging 65k followers and seeing high quality inbound for them now.

if this is useful to anyone, we are onboarding a few more early access accounts (same approval limitation for a few weeks), then please let us know here: https://usesnippet.app
by the_harpia_io | 2026-02-16 20:00:06+00:00
agree tests help but they only catch what you test for - and honestly a lot of codebases have patchy coverage at best. the bigger issue is when the AI misunderstands the task itself, like implementing the wrong thing correctly. tests won't catch that if they're based on the same misunderstanding. the reward hacking point is real though, seen that where it just makes tests pass by changing the test
by symfrog | 2026-02-16 20:00:34+00:00
If you are trying to build something well represented in the training data, you could get a usable prototype.

If you are unfamiliar with the various ways that naive code would fail in production, you could be fooled into thinking generated code is all you need.

If you try to hold the hand of the coding agents to bring code to a point where it is production ready, be prepared for a frustrating cycle of models responding with ‘Fixed it!’ while only having introduced further issues.
by MattJ100 | 2026-02-16 20:01:21+00:00
You're welcome!

I'm still experimenting with the messaging on the Snikket website. However my general approach with the site was to pitch Snikket to people who don't know what XMPP is, which is, frankly, the majority of people. Instead, I wanted to focus on explaining features it enables rather than protocol details. But I'm aware it has caused a lot of head-scratching among people who already know Snikket uses XMPP :)

I see Snikket as kind of a gateway into the XMPP ecosystem for people who are unfamiliar with it. After all, if you're already familiar with XMPP then the chances are you'll probably be happier with Prosody or ejabberd, and you'll already have opinions about which clients you want to use (e.g. the upstreams of Snikket).
by the_harpia_io | 2026-02-16 20:01:30+00:00
the observability point hits hard - you're right that the review cost is really about not being able to tell what's happening across runs or track quality over time. the CI gate approach makes sense in theory but honestly most teams I've seen don't have the test coverage to make that work safely, so you end up needing manual review anyway. also the 'does this do what I asked' question is harder than it sounds because sometimes the AI builds the wrong thing correctly, and your existing tests don't catch that since they're testing different assumptions. but yeah, the lack of cost-per-task tracking and quality metrics is brutal - you're flying blind on whether you're actually saving time or just moving the work around
by zibzob | 2026-02-16 20:01:34+00:00
I think it's a lot harder than it sounds. First, nobody can estimate time well enough to know how long something would have taken without AI. And then, it's comparing apples to oranges - there's the set of things people did using an AI agent, and the set of things they would have done if they hadn't used AI, and the two are just not directly comparable. The AI agent set would definitely have more lines of code, that's all I could really say. Maybe it would also contain a larger maintenance burden, lower useful knowledge in humans, projects that didn't need to be done or could have been done in a smarter way, etc.
by bronco21016 | 2026-02-16 20:01:50+00:00
I find it difficult to believe software is Airbus’ competitive edge. First, their software for aircrew bidding is an absolute and utter disaster. Date filtering has been broken nearly a year despite multiple releases being pushed. Date management is like THE KEY functionality of aircrew bidding. I also use their flight plan software and it’s like they never bothered to ask a pilot how they use a flight plan in flight.

I think Airbus is riding the coat tails of solid engineering done in the 80s and continuing to iterate that platform vs Boeing trying to iterate on a hardware platform from the 60s. Airbus benefited significantly from 20s years of engineering and technological progress. Since the original design of the A320, changes have been incremental. Slightly different engines, addition of GPS/GNS, CPDLC, CRT to LCD screens. Meanwhile Boeing has attempted to take a steam gauge design from the 60s and retrofit decades of technology improvements and, critically, they attempted to add engines significantly altering the aerodynamics of the aircraft.
by ErroneousBosh | 2026-02-16 20:02:39+00:00
Is the "back and forth" thing normal for AI stuff, then? Because every time I've attempted to use Claude or Copilot for coding stuff, it's been completely unable to do anything on its own, and I've ended up writing all of the code while it's just kind of introduced misspellings into it.

Maybe someone can show me how you're supposed to do it, because I have seen no evidence that AI can write code at all.
by matheus-rr | 2026-02-16 20:02:54+00:00
The protocol vs service distinction matters most where version lifecycles create lock-in. When you depend on a service, you're at the mercy of their deprecation timeline — Heroku free tier, Google Reader, Parse. When you depend on a protocol, the worst case is you switch implementations.

The identity point in the discussion is spot on. The missing piece in most protocol-first architectures is a portable identity layer that doesn't just recreate the service dependency at a different level. DIDs and Verifiable Credentials are trying to solve this but adoption is glacial because there's no compelling consumer use case yet — it's all enterprise compliance stuff.

The XMPP vs Matrix debate is interesting but somewhat misses the point. Both protocols work. The reason Discord won isn't protocol superiority — it's that they solved the 'empty room' problem by piggy-backing on gaming communities that already had social graphs. Protocol design is necessary but not sufficient; you also need a migration path that doesn't require everyone to switch simultaneously.
by ggregoire | 2026-02-16 20:03:28+00:00
> If everything in your code is a React component, I get why you would just want to write the styles right there.

Even for keeping the style close to the component, you can just use standard css.

Create a folder Button, create two files Button.tsx and Button.css in that folder, import the css file in the tsx file, add a class "button" on the first element the tsx file renders, start all the rules in the css file with ".button " to encapsulate the style.

People will say it's too much work, but it took me like 5 sec.
by dcre | 2026-02-16 20:03:31+00:00
How are we still citing the (excellent) METR study in support of conclusions about productivity that its authors rightly insist[0] it does not support?

My paraphrase of their caveats:

- experts on their own open source proj are not representative of most software dev

- measuring time undervalues trading time for effort

- tools are noticeably better than they were a year ago when the study was conducted

- it really does take months of use to get the hang of it (or did then, less so now)

Before you respond to these points, please look at the full study’s treatment of the caveats! It’s fantastic, and it’s clear almost no one citing the study actually read it.

[0]: https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-o...
by Shank | 2026-02-16 20:04:19+00:00
I think that in a world where code has zero marginal cost (or close to zero, for the right companies), we need to be incredibly cognizant of the fact that more code is not more profit, nor is it better code. Simpler is still better, and products with taste omit features that detract from vision. You can scaffold thousands of lines of code very easily, but this makes your codebase hard to reason about, maintain, and work in. It is like unleashing a horde of mid-level engineers with spec documents and coming back in a week with everything refactored wrong. Sure you have some new buttons but does anyone (or can any AI agent, for that matter) understand how it works?

And to another point: work life balance is a huge challenge. Burnout happens in all departments, not just engineering. Managers can get burnout just as easily. If you manage AI agents, you'll just get burnout from that too.
by toomuchtodo | 2026-02-16 20:04:39+00:00
It can be both, the plumbing is straight forward, simply a matter of will to implement. UPI in India, Pix in Brazil, FedNow in the US, etc. Trimmings are things like paying via QR code and alias support (phone, email IDs). Pix had native alias support, Wero is alias support on top of SEPA Instant payment rails (with a ~ten second settlement SLA).

This gets you to utility cost recovery fee structures and sovereignty over your payment infra, versus other countries controlling your value transfer capabilities.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wero_(payment)

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

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/retail/instant_payments/html/...
by palata | 2026-02-16 20:04:59+00:00
> can be a way to signal interest in something, get people to respond, and not necessarily do anything about it.

I can explain my intent, since I asked the question :-).

"Signal interest in something in the hope of starting a discussion with people who share that interest and may have interesting stories to share".

I loved IRC for that. I could join a channel, ask a question and sometimes someone knowledgeable would engage in a discussion with me. Often nobody answered, but because IRC was "ephemeral", I could ask again another time, and another one, hoping to eventually find someone interested.

> I think we should conclude people want to maximize learning while minimizing wasted time

In my case (and I want to believe that in many other cases), it's really just that people (me, here) would like to have some human interaction about a topic.

I know how to learn, I was not asking about that. I was trying to start a conversation with humans, that's all.
by Aurornis | 2026-02-16 20:05:15+00:00
After actually using LLM coding tools for a while, some of these anti-LLM thinkpieces feel very contrived. I don’t see the comparison to gambling addiction at all. I understand how someone might believe that if they only view LLMs through second hand Twitter hot takes and think that it’s a process of typing a prompt and hoping for the best. Some people do that, but the really effective coders work with the LLM and drive the coding, writing some or much of the code themselves. The social media version of vibe coding where you just prompt continuously and hope for the best is not going to work in any serious endeavor where details matter. We see claims of it in some high profile examples like OpenClaw, but even OpenClaw has maintainers and contributors who look at the code and make decisions. It’s also riddled with security problems as a result of the YOLO coding style.
by dvrp | 2026-02-16 20:05:25+00:00
It links to the original documents released by the DOJ.

Also, just like LLMs hallucinate and it's up to the person to decide to commit the code into the repo (and they should be held accountable to that), the same applies to people who use this tool to release fake news.

Of course, we try to apply as many "ground-truthing" techniques as possible.

Journalists of all kinds are using Jmail already for their professional work and we are in touch with them when they give us feedback. For example, we've redacted victim's names that we would've not known except for the work of tons of volunteers and journalists—and yes, this was NOT redacted by the DOJ and should have.

But ofc, this is a thorny trade-off between victim protection and censorship.

Disclaimer: I actively work on jmailarchive!
by ggm | 2026-02-16 20:06:39+00:00
> That being said, no, it wouldn't particularly surprise me if Y Combinator sends data to Palantir.

A point I hadn't thought of before. A denial at this point wouldn't mean much because with the API and some sensible pacing anyone can access the information.

"Sends" is active. "Is scraped by" is the assumed passive.
by buschleague | 2026-02-16 20:07:00+00:00
We run agent teams (Navigator/Driver/Reviewer roles) on a 71K-line codebase. The trust problem is solved by not trusting the agents at all. You enforce externally. Python gates that block task completion until tests pass, acceptance criteria are verified, and architecture limits are met. The agents can't bypass enforcement mechanisms they can't touch. It's not about better prompts or more capable models. It's about infrastructure that makes "going off the rails" structurally impossible.
by cyberpunk | 2026-02-16 20:07:04+00:00
Sepa-inst requires 10 seconds or less end to end, this isn’t as easy as it sounds to implement, but we are kind of there.

The problem is how do you initiate this payment? Some kind of scannable code or nfc interaction seems to be the missing part. I’d also like to see some kind of physical card also work for those who don’t want or are unable to have an attestable device with them.
by viraptor | 2026-02-16 20:07:41+00:00
At the code level it's still rehashing the same ideas over and over again. I wrote lots of things from software 3d on a weird system to jit to websites to telephony software to compilers to firmware for hardware to cloud orchestration and many other things and none of this was novel - someone wrote every single pattern from them before even if nobody put them together the same way. Putting known pieces together is not novel. And as a proportion, almost all software produced is just business apps of various types, with absolutely nothing novel in them.

Also from actual researchers, I know just one person who did something actually novel and it was with queuing.