MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dastbe | 2026-02-24 03:42:43+00:00
kind of right, kind of wrong

* for client-side load balancing, it's entirely possible to move active healthchecking into a dedicated service and have its results be vended along with discovery. In fact, more managed server-side load balancers are also moving healthchecking out of band so they can scale the forwarding plane independently of probes.

* for server-side load balancing, it's entirely possible to shard forwarders to avoid SPOFs, typically by creating isolated increments and then using shuffle sharding by caller/callee to minimize overlap between workloads. I think Alibaba's canalmesh whitepaper covers such an approach.

As for scale, I think for almost everybody it's completely overblown to go with a p2p model. I think a reasonable estimate for a centralized proxy fleet is about 1% of infrastructure costs. If you want to save that, you need to have a team that can build/maintain your centralized proxy's capabilities in all the languages/frameworks your company uses, and you likely need to be build the proxy anyways for the long-tail. Whereas you can fund a much smaller team to focus on e2e ownership of your forwarding plane.

Add on top that you need a safe deployment strategy for updating the critical logic in all of these combinations, and continuous deployment to ensure your fixes roll out to the fleet in a timely fashion. This is itself a hard scaling problem.
by jeremyjh | 2026-02-24 03:43:17+00:00
I'm no expert either and I have not done kernel development, but I've done some embedded stuff in C and I think this is not unreasonable. brcmf_reg_read is only called in one place and the call chain is straightforward (starts in pcie.c brcmf_pcie_attach). Its always initialized by device_get_softc (https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=device_get_softc&s...) so as long as the device is attached its initialized. Likely something fails much earlier if it is not attached. I think this is pretty typical for low-level C, it would definitely not be idiomatic for every function in this call chain to check if sc was initialized - I don't know if there is a need to check it after calling device_get_softc but that would probably be reasonable just so people reviewing it don't have to check.

Some application code bases I've worked in would have asserts in every function since they get removed in release builds but I don't know that debug builds are even a thing in kernel devices.
by janalsncm | 2026-02-24 03:43:47+00:00
For a disease which (to my knowledge) can’t be slowed down or reversed, I think it’s a fair question why we would want to detect Alzheimer’s. Maybe there are other reasons, but my suspicion is that we will be able to, and an easy detection method significantly widens the pool of subjects to study later on.

If it turns out that driving a Prius on Tuesdays slows down Alzheimer’s, a larger pool of subjects would allow us to figure that out.
by maest | 2026-02-24 03:44:30+00:00
Slightly off topic, but this strategy of blaming a crisis on some other cause is pervasive. It's especially useful when you are the reason for the crisis.

For example, consider climate change. Climate change causes draughts, which causes food shortages in countries heavily dependent on their agricultural sector. This, in turn, causes famine.

A certain western power will blame that country's government for mismanaging their agricultural sector instead of pointing out the unusual and dramatic weather changes contributed to the famine. This is, of course, because the western power does not publicly admit climate change is real in order to avoid taking any responsibility for their contribution to this climate change.
by 453yuh46 | 2026-02-24 03:44:34+00:00
So, if you are living in London and not paying taxes(to Ireland), you are not Irish? Dude, you are clearly mixing ethnicity and nationality. Plenty of Irish in UK, that does not know Gaelic - same situation in Ireland. There are in fact more Irish Gaelic speakers living in USA/Canada than in Ireland.

And Americans are claiming ethnic ancestry - not national ancestry. And many Irish migrated out of Ireland, when it was not a country - and paying taxes is irrelevant in this gatekeeping of identities.
by SOLAR_FIELDS | 2026-02-24 03:44:38+00:00
Absolutely let’s not do away with the determinism entirely. But we can decouple generation of the code from its deterministic behavior. If you are adequately able to identify the boundaries of the system and run deterministic tests to validate those boundaries that should be sufficient enough. It’s not like human written code was often treated with even that much scrutiny in the before times. I would validate human written code in the exact same way.
by owenthejumper | 2026-02-24 03:45:14+00:00
Modern LBs, like HAProxy, support both active & passive health checks (and others, like agent checks where the app itself can adjust the load balancing behavior). This means that your "client scenario" covering passive checks can be done server side too.

Also, in HAProxy (that's the one I know), server side health checks can be in millisecond intervals. I can't remember the minimum, I think it's 100ms, so theoretically you could fail a server within 200-300ms, instead of 15seconds in your post.
by pas | 2026-02-24 03:45:33+00:00
what do you mean? if some kid doesn't want to pay attention they can draw doodles, daydream, read a book under the table, talk to other students, and finally ... be on their phone. we did all of these! (played snake on a 3310.)

up to a point the teacher's job is to notice these, and motivate the student to pay attention (report cards, detention, extra homework), or ask for them to be removed from class if they are disruptive, if necessary permanently.
by ComCat | 2026-02-24 03:45:45+00:00
I spent months studying how malicious npm packages actually work. Most of them do the same thing eg run a preinstall script, read your .env and credentials, and send them to a remote server. All
before your app starts.

npm install will run this code automatically. No prompt, no warning.

I built Dependency Guardian a behavioral analysis engine that scans packages for malicious patterns before they touch your system.

it has:
- 26 detectors (shell execution, credential theft, exfiltration, obfuscation, time bombs)
- 53 cross-signal amplifiers that correlate findings across detectors
- ~2,900 tests across 76 test files
- Benchmarked against 11,356 real packages at 99.95% precision

It would have caught Shai-Hulud, the Chalk/Debug hijack, and the S1ngularity campaign.

Snyk, Dependabot, and npm audit all missed these because they rely on CVE databases. If there's no CVE filed yet, they're blind. Dependency Guardian reads the actual code.

curious if anyone here has been exposed/experiences to supply chain attacks and how they handled them
by NikolaNovak | 2026-02-24 03:46:20+00:00
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I have not frequently heard the phrase "fair market" (as opposed to a far more limited and specific term "fair market value", where "fair" I believe applies to "value" and not "market") and would be interested in hearing more of its definition and criteria.

Trivially, I would assume proponents of "free market" and "fair market" are a tiny if not zero Venn diagram, and that terms are at least somewhat opposing, but will withhold my judgement :-).
by bastawhiz | 2026-02-24 03:46:21+00:00
Whether the load balancer connects to the server or reverse, nothing changes. A modern H2 connection is pretty much just that: one persistent connection between the load balancer and server, who initiates it doesn't change much.

The connection being active doesn't tell you that the server is healthy (it could hang, for instance, and you wouldn't know until the connection times out or a health check fails). Either way, you still have to send health checks, and either way you can't know between health checks that the server hasn't failed. Ultimately this has to work for every failure mode where the server can't respond to requests, and in any given state, you don't know what capabilities the server has.
by tptacek | 2026-02-24 03:47:37+00:00
The accuracy of this test is nowhere nearly good enough to do population-wide screening. The clinical setting for this test is memory clinics in which Alzheimers is already relatively highly likely differentially, and even there you're going to get a surprising number of false positives.

(There's enough info in the supplemental link on this page to have an LLM do the Bayes math for you.)
by jeffbee | 2026-02-24 03:48:12+00:00
I don't think you really need sub-millisecond detection to get sub-millisecond service latency. You mainly need to send backup requests, where appropriate, to backup channels, when the main request didn't respond promptly, and your program needs to be ready for the high probability that the original request wins this race anyway. It's more than fine that Client A and Client B have differing opinions about the health of the channel to Server C at a given time, because there really isn't any such thing as the atomic health of Server C anyway. The health of the channel consists of the client, the server, and the network, and the health of AC may or may not impact the channel BC. It's risky to let clients advertise their opinions about backend health to other clients, because that leads to the event where a bad client shoots down a server, or many servers, for every client.
by great_psy | 2026-02-24 03:49:25+00:00
Maybe I’m not creative enough to see the potential, but what value does this bring ?

Given the example I saw about CRISPR, what does this model give over a different, non explaining model in the output ?
Does it really make me more confident in the output if I know the data came from Arxiv or Wikipedia ?

I find the LLM outputs are subtlety wrong not obviously wrong
by jksmith | 2026-02-24 03:49:36+00:00
1. Attack surface for agents is tantamount to a virus.
2. Any way for an agent to touch something is a potential compromised vector.
3. The mitigation is controlling the blast radius.
4. Sandboxing capability will have to be baked into architecture.
5. Mitigation includes measuring cost of blast radius.
6. All agent orchestration will likely require an andon cord.
by zdc1 | 2026-02-24 03:49:49+00:00
I would personally want to know as early as possible, so I could get my affairs in order and register my wishes around end of life care and euthanasia while I am still recognised as having full mental capacity.

It's also better for people around the Alzheimer's patient, as it will let them understand why someone's personality and behaviours may be changing, and possibly let them be bit more forgiving of such changes. It will also give family more time to plan and understand the health and community services and support are offered wherever they live.
by RoutingGeometry | 2026-02-24 03:49:58+00:00
You’re hitting on the real reason AI coding feels like "magic" one day and "broken" the next. We’ve spent forty years writing code for humans to read, but we’re now writing for a system that doesn't "read"—it calculates probability.

Think of a model like a pressure vessel. Most people "prompt" by just throwing words at it until it leaks. I call the alternative Constraint Cartography. >
The reason your AI "hallucinates" or gives you buggy "vibe-code" isn't usually because it’s stupid; it’s because your instructions are triggering its internal Actionability Filters. If you tell an AI "Write this script," it sees a high-risk command and flinches—which manifests as the "laziness" or "refusal" we all see.
+1

But if you ask it to "Forensically reconstruct the logic of an existing system," the safety filters stay quiet because the request is backward-facing analysis, not a forward-facing command. It's the same task, but a different structural shape.
by voidhorse | 2026-02-24 03:49:59+00:00
There are more personal practical reasons too.

Even though it cannot be reversed or eradicated (yet, let's hope) detection can allow individuals to adopt interventions that help either adjust their lives to better cope with its progression or help mitigate some of the detrimental behavioral consequences. In addition, if you have family to care for it may be impetus to get certain things in order for them before later stages of the disease, etc. It's horrible and bleak, but I could certainly see why one might want to know.

In the lucky case, it can also relieve anxiety. Even though false negatives may still be possible, receiving a negative detection might give people who have anxiety about certain symptoms relief, since they can rule out (rightly or wrongly) a pretty severe disease.
by henrikschroder | 2026-02-24 03:50:28+00:00
Stop straw-manning, no-one is denying your heritage or your connections. Your grandmothers were Irish.

But you're not. You're American, with Irish heritage. You were born in America to American parents. You are super welcome to learn about Irish culture, about your heritage. You are super welcome to visit Ireland, visit the place of your fore-mothers and other ancestors. You can enjoy Irish culture as much as you want. Learn riverdancing and blast Michael Flatley all day long. You can even enjoy the bastardised commercialised version that is the totally fake US retail holiday "St Patrick's day". Wear some tacky green beads, put on a green hat, drink fifteen pints of Guiness! Sláinte! Have fun!

The one thing we're specifically asking you not to do, is to call yourself Irish. That's the only thing we're gatekeeping. You're Irish-American. You have Irish heritage. You have Irish ancestors. You have Irish family heirlooms. But you're not Irish.
by bastawhiz | 2026-02-24 03:51:16+00:00
> theoretically you could fail a server within 200-300ms, instead of 15seconds in your post.

You need to be careful here, though, because the server might just be a little sluggish. If it's doing something like garbage collection, your responses might take a couple hundred milliseconds temporarily. A blip of latency could take your server out of rotation. That increases load on your other servers and could cause a cascading failure.

If you don't need sub-second reactions to failures, don't worry too much about it.
by AuryGlenz | 2026-02-24 03:52:52+00:00
From all the evens that transpired that day? Trump directly told that crowd to peacefully protest. I don't know what more he could have done (on the day of). It was supposed to be a protest. It turned into a riot. The media didn't call it an 'insurrection' that first day, by the way. Or the second day. It wasn't until the third day that I heard NPR use it sometimes, other times they used the word riot. Was it a good thing? Hell no, it was despicable. Was it Trump's fault? Tangentially, sure, but he absolutely didn't call for them to do what they did. Could he have handled it better once it did? Sure. But keep in mind his administration suggested that the national guard be deployed to keep the peace and was turned down. How do you take that fact and the fact that he explicitly told them to peacefully protest and make it about him, not the protesters themselves that got out of hand?

I'm not a fan of Trump, and I certainly don't think that blanket pardon was appropriate. Neither was Biden's pardon of those close to him for any crime they could have possibly committed.

For what it's worth a lot of those people did get pretty ridiculous sentences for what was effectively a riot. Some probably deserved it, many did not. Compare their sentences to those that happened during 2020 riots and you'll see a massive imbalance.
by nojs | 2026-02-24 03:53:16+00:00
The most common case would be defensive sentry logging that tracks unexpected LLM API call responses/parsing bugs, which are handled gracefully in the app (so not critical), but that i still want to know about to improve the prompts, response structures, cleaning code, etc.

Claude will typically resolve these in a surface level way when in practice they often require deeper changes (to prompts, routing to different model, more general cleaning code, etc) and it’s hard/impossible to have Claude do these without some input.

Other noise arises from Claude thinking related issues are unrelated and so solving them separately, and also just intermittent infrastructure type issues that are clearly transient being “solved” with some weird code change.
by falcor84 | 2026-02-24 03:53:28+00:00
What does this have to do with anything? We as a culture decided that science is worthwhile, and that it's worth funding it with public money, which I personally strongly support. With that in mind, I want us to continue contributing to making scientific research and the benefits that it provides to be disseminated freely, while also paying good scientists with actual dollars that they could spend in restaurants.
by godelski | 2026-02-24 03:54:39+00:00
> Second, if all it takes to get into underage spaces is not being verified, predators *will* notice and exploit this hole.

Well the default state is "assume underage". So the default state is be in same location as children. There's nothing for predators to exploit, they get access by default.

Which once people realize that, it all becomes really silly. The only way it would really work is by verifying that people are children, so only children can be in the gated location. But then you need to do mass surveillance on children and I think even the average person realizes this just makes that a great place for predators and the damage caused by a leak is far greater to children. Not to mention the impractical nature of it as children are less likely to able to verify themselves and honestly, you expect kids to jump through extra hoops?

Anyone that believes these systems will keep predators away from children haven't thought about even the most basic aspects of how these systems work. They cannot do what they promise
by Niko901ch | 2026-02-24 03:57:50+00:00
The interesting thing about the 71.5% human baseline is that it suggests the question is more ambiguous than the article claims. When someone asks 'should I walk or drive to the car wash,' a reasonable interpretation is 'should I bother driving such a short distance.' Nearly 30% of humans missing it undermines the framing as a pure reasoning failure - it is partly a pragmatics problem about how we interpret underspecified questions.
Show HN: LookTake – Try anyone's makeup, outfit, or hairstyle on your photo
by takeaura25 | 2026-02-24 03:57:55+00:00
Hi HN, I'm Taemin. I built LookTake, a social platform where users share beauty, fashion, and hair looks, and anyone can "Take" that look onto their own photo using AI.

I worked at a game company in Korea doing AI research — graphics, vision, and image generation. I built the in-house image gen service there. While reading generative AI papers, I came across virtual try-on research and had a realization: people will eventually shop by seeing products on themselves, not just browsing photos of models. I started experimenting on weekends. The early results were rough, but promising enough that I left my job.

The core technical challenge: when you use image generation models to transfer someone's look onto another person, they either lose your identity or drop the style details. You ask it to transfer a specific makeup look and it gives you a completely different face, or an outfit loses its pattern and texture, or the hairstyle comes out flat. A prompt-only approach just isn't precise enough.

So I built a multi-stage pipeline — object detection, inpainting, and several other steps — to preserve your identity while accurately transferring style details.

Unlike preset filters or brand catalog try-ons, users share styles from their own everyday photos and anyone in the community can try that look on themselves with one tap. It works across three categories: beauty (makeup transfer), fashion (outfit try-on), and hair (style and color).

I launched in the US and Korea about a month ago. Still early and plenty to improve — would love honest feedback. Does the try-on quality feel convincing?

Demo: https://youtube.com/shorts/mDLkiV3D4rI
iOS: https://apps.apple.com/app/looktake-share-style-with-ai/id67...
Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=io.looktake.ap...
by dozerly | 2026-02-24 04:01:24+00:00
I don’t think it’s under specified. You are clearly stating “I want to wash my car”, then asking how you should get there. It’s an easy logical step to know that, in this context, you need your car with you to wash it, and so no matter the distance you should drive. You can ask the human race the simplest, most logical question ever, and a percentage of them will get it wrong.
by snowhale | 2026-02-24 04:02:27+00:00
the tasks where wolfram actually outperforms python+google are symbolic: exact algebraic simplification, closed-form integrals, formal power series, equation solving over specific domains. for numeric work you're right that python wins. but for cases where you need a guarantee that x^2-1 = (x+1)(x-1) and not a floating-point approximation of it, wolfram is in a different category. the question is whether LLMs are running into those cases often enough to justify the overhead.
by EmbarrassedHelp | 2026-02-24 04:02:29+00:00
> age checks on porn sites and gaming platforms where you just put in a birthdate

That's the only solution that truly protects user privacy and security. Video games and especially mature content should not require age verification. People's lives can be permanently destroyed over perfectly legal sexual fantasies, and thus anything that increases the risk of the information being tracked is unacceptable.
by godelski | 2026-02-24 04:02:46+00:00
> It also bans jailbreaking/rooting your device, and requires GooglePlay Services/IOS equivalent be installed to "prevent tampering".

Regulatory capture at its finest. Such a ruling gives Apple and Google a duopoly over the market.

Maybe worse, it encourages the push of personal computers to be more mobile like (the fact that we treat phones as different from computers is already a silly concept).

So when are we going to build a new internet? Anyone playing around with things like Reticulum? LoRA? Mesh networks?
by aezart | 2026-02-24 04:02:47+00:00
Regarding the interactions shown in the screenshots:

LLMs are pattern-matching machines. They keep the pattern going. Once "the agent disobeys the human's instructions" has made its way into the context, that is the pattern that it's going to keep matching. No amount of telling it to stop will make it stop.

The only possible solution is excising it from context and replacing it with examples of it doing the right thing. Given that these models have massive context windows now and much of the output is hidden from the user, that's becoming less viable.
by greycol | 2026-02-24 04:03:15+00:00
If the law "if you shoot an arrow with no mind to it's direction or destination existed you are guilty of negligence and liability of any damages" existed and then guns where invented you can argue either that the law needs to be updated or that case law will follow the spirit of the law and establish that it also applies to guns. If you are prescriptive and do not believe in the spirit of the law then a new law would have to cover the case of guns. Many would say there is a breakdown in the rule of law if it turned out people could just fire those guns willy nilly and the arrow law did not apply to them.

Similarly if there is a law that says the government can't build cameras everywhere to track you 24/7 without a warrant then post facto get a warrant to justify the prior tracking. Many people believe there is a breakdown in the rule of law when The government can pay someone else who has built cameras everywhere to track you 24/7 without a warrant then post facto get a warrant to justify the prior tracking.