MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by onion2k | 2026-02-28 16:44:49+00:00
In the section about Cognitive Debt the author wrote...

Apply this directly to fully agentic coding. If you stop writing code and only review AI output, your ability to reason about code atrophies. Slowly, invisibly, but inevitably. You can’t deeply review what you can no longer deeply understand.

I think this argument is flawed. On every team I've worked with we've always had the opinion that junior developers learn a lot about coding by reading and reviewing code written by other people, especially people more senior to them. Reviewing output doesn't weaken your skills, it improves them. Reviewing code in a large codebase forces you to explore and understand the paths that data takes. It pushes you to build an accurate mental model more than writing new code does, because that's usually isolated to a small, encapsulated domain where you only really need to care about the inputs and outputs (hopefully!).

The author is absolutely correct if you take 'review' to be 'click the accept button and move on', but if you're actually reviewing the code that your AI generates, and understanding it, and thinking about how to move forwards and prompt it to build the thing you really want, then AI only really removes the last type-the-code step. All of the architecture and process steps should be coming from you (maybe from a conversation with the AI during the planning step, but still, not just letting the AI do whatever it fancies.)
by Bender | 2026-02-28 16:45:44+00:00
It's hard to find them now with all the AI slop being propped up but the best search terms may be "Iranian tunnel bunkers full of missiles". It is mostly YT channels run out of India. The oldest video I have seen was from CNN ten years ago. Iran will occasionally let journalists see their latest tunnel.

This is a short one showing the 2nd to last generation of tunnels. [1] The latest tunnels are painted white including some that are under water. The older tunnels are not painted and one can see what appears to be reinforced concrete. When completed every tunnel is lined on both sides with missiles. This one [2] shows a couple generations of the tunnels. Found the old CNN video. [3]

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YQ1R7ZAKxE [video][1m]

[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQtSPFrnKvo [video][5m25s]

[3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Gu_TjmV0E [video][2m12s]
by gslepak | 2026-02-28 16:45:57+00:00
No I'm talking about who is responsible for all of this. You're allowed to misunderstand (as you did here), you're allowed to downvote (as they do to me), you're allowed to lie, and allowed to be mistaken. But truth is nowhere to be found on Hacker News on this subject. There can be a million comments. All of them varying degrees of wrong or closer to the money and then removed.
by spongebobstoes | 2026-02-28 16:46:23+00:00
you're right, supply chain risk is not a negotiating tool. it's spite after talks have ended. it indicates a ruined relationship

the oai deal is similar, but it includes technical safeguards. I think anthropic would have wanted the oai deal

the deal was not only successful because the govt is rebounding. the miltary prefers boundaries to be technical, not contractual

they can try using it, and trust that it will only operate within its designed limits, where the output is reliable

technical barriers to misuse help prevent both accidental and bad-faith misuse. a contract allows both kinds of misuse, enforced only by lawsuits. filing in court to dispute the terms is not always allowed
by yuliyp | 2026-02-28 16:46:38+00:00
That's because they are slowpokes and maniacs: In a decently flowing road, the majority of distinct cars you see are either moving significantly faster or slower than you (and the more extreme the difference the more likely you are to see them). Of cars that go at a similar speed to you, they approach you / you approach them more slowly so you'll see fewer of them.
by kledru | 2026-02-28 16:46:46+00:00
> "You don’t learn to recognize good code by reading about it in a textbook, or a PR. You learn by writing bad code, getting it torn apart, and building intuition through years of practice."

I'd like to point out though, that you also learn by AI producing bad outcomes you are responsible for, and building intuition how it might fail through practice... You also might experience more lessons than you would have if you would have coded manually.
by hearsathought | 2026-02-28 16:46:59+00:00
> To be fair, this is the new standard.

It's not. It's the same standard that existed forever.

> Russia has promulgated it through its actions in Georgia and Ukraine. China with Tibet and Taiwan. America with Iraq, Venezuela and Iran.

Don't forget India with Goa and pakistan, bangladesh, etc.

You are my favorite hindu zionist. I mean you are my favourite hindu zionist.
by etc-hosts | 2026-02-28 16:47:12+00:00
That is not clear at all!

The Lebanese Muslims at the time were furious that the Sixth Fleet was constantly shelling Shouf. At the time the Phalangists, with Israeli help, had recently murdered 3500 women and children at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

There were and are plenty of grievances to go around in Lebanon.
by Svoka | 2026-02-28 16:47:27+00:00
I am sure Ukrainians who built said nukes wouldn't have much problems figuring it out and building own nuclear program.

Instead believing in bright and peaceful future USA, France and UK promised. As Ukrainian who lived in Ukraine in 90s that felt like being on a frontier of the modern world, giving up the nukes. Oh, how full of hope we were.
by tyre | 2026-02-28 16:47:32+00:00
Yes and no.

If you see prediction markets as how they were originally pitched (price ~approximating likelihood), then insider trading is good. It provides discovery.

If you look at what prediction markets are today (gambling, especially on sports, especially in states that have banned it), then insider trading is bad. Particularly when the people trading can influence the outcome (e.g. a pitcher purposefully throwing into the dirt.)
by theptip | 2026-02-28 16:47:50+00:00
Yeah, I would view this as a “levels of maturity” thing. It’s not completely misguided to judge a JD on whether they shipped 0loc or 1kloc. Assuming you have some quality counter-metric like “the app works”.

For staff engineers it’s obviously completely nonsense, many don’t code and just ship architecture docs. Or you can ship a net negative refactor. Etc.

So this should tell you that LLMs are still in “savant JD” territory.

That said, being given permission to ship more lines of code under existing enterprise quality bars _is_ a meaningful signal.
by bumahkib7 | 2026-02-28 16:47:54+00:00
Hey HN,
I built Runix (runixcloud.dev), a deployment platform for backends that aren't Node.js.
The problem: Vercel is great but it's essentially JavaScript-only for real backends. Railway and Render work but still require you to write Dockerfiles and understand container configuration. Vibe coders using Cursor or Bolt can build a FastAPI or Spring Boot backend in minutes but have nowhere clean to deploy it.
Runix solves this: connect your GitHub repo, push code, get a live URL. That's it. No Dockerfile. No config files. No Docker knowledge required.
How it works:

Detects your runtime automatically (Rust, Java, Go, Python, Node, Ruby, Elixir, .NET)
Generates an optimized Dockerfile using Claude AI
Builds and runs your container
Gives you a subdomain instantly: yourapp.runixcloud.dev
Auto-provisions Postgres, Redis, or Kafka if your code needs them

The entire platform is built in Rust. The API, the build pipeline, the reverse proxy, the container orchestration. Runs on bare metal in Europe, not re-sold AWS.
What makes it different from Railway and Render:

No Dockerfile ever required, AI generates it from your code
Supports languages they don't prioritize: Rust, Java, Elixir, .NET
Flat predictable pricing, no surprise bills
Built on owned infrastructure so margins let us stay cheaper

Current status: beta, fully functional, first paying customers onboarded.
Happy to answer anything, especially brutal feedback on what's missing or where the positioning is wrong.
https://runixcloud.dev
by eviks | 2026-02-28 16:48:28+00:00
It's not highly performant, its startup time is a multiple of that of native apps. Nothing is easy about plugins, APIs you expose/maintain define that, not Electron, and those can be good/bad in any system. Electron gives easier access to UI styling, but then again, real "easily" comes from the structure/stability of your UI, otherwise your plugins would break all the time. Also, same as with APIs - e.g, Joplin is Electron, but you can only style on a desktop. Then, of course, there are plenty of Electron apps that you can't style at all and that don't support plugins.

I'm happy for devs' "faster development", but as a user I care about "faster use", which Electron blocks outright
by simonw | 2026-02-28 16:48:39+00:00
> It sounds more like they're saying it's not currently a black-box that you can run arbitrary code in, which is what some people might want in a sandbox.

Yes, that's exactly what they are saying and it's true.

My comment (which they took on board) was to point out that, despite that, Python and JavaScript in WASM works really well if you take the extra steps of including a WASM-compiled build of the relevant interpreters.

I stand by my advice in this line:

> So don't rule out WASM as a target for running non-compiled languages, it can work pretty well!

You shouldn't rule out WASM for this purpose! I think it's likely people could read their original article and come to the wrong conclusion about that.
by dragonwriter | 2026-02-28 16:48:47+00:00
No, no one who calls themself an anti-semite is a normal person, and the people doing that are still a narrow bigoted fringe (though, yes, it is a fringe that Trumpism has emboldened tk greater boldness, like many other overlapping bigotries, and somewhat paradoxically given the way the Trump Administration is itself supportive of not only Israel in the broad sense, but of accelerating the policies most opposed by the public in particular).

Most of the opponents of Israel and its policies in the US are either anti-Zionists who are not and do not identify as anti-Semites, or people who don't even identify as anti-Zionists just opponents of Israeli policy. And many in both groups are Jewish themselves.
by leephillips | 2026-02-28 16:48:50+00:00
“Noether, who was Jewish, fled from Germany to the U.S., where she died two years later from cancer”

It wasn’t two years, and it wasn’t cancer. These details are unimportant to the (quite interesting) story, but the error is a sign that the author copies information from unreliable secondary sources, which puts the other facts in the article in doubt.

I wrote to him about the error when the article first appeared, but received no reply.

Noether’s real story is recounted in https://amzn.to/3YZZB4W.
by ekidd | 2026-02-28 16:48:51+00:00
> We are centuries into the deep automation of certain things, like looms, but people with deep understanding of those things are still needed to guide the automation and keep it working to meet human needs.

The difference this time is that the thing they're trying to automate is intelligence. The goal is a machine that's as smart as a Nobel Prize winner or a good CEO, across all fields of human intellectual endeavor, and which works for dollars an hour. The goal is also for this machine to be infinitely copyable for the cost of some GPUs and hard drives.

The next goal after that will be to give that machine hands, so that it can do any physical labor or troubleshooting a human can do. And again, the goal is for the hands to be cheaper to produce and cheaper to automate than humans.

You may ask yourself, who would need humans in a future where all intellectual and physical tasks can be done better and cheaper by a machine? You may also ask yourself, who would control the machines? You may ask yourself, what leverage would ordinary humans have in a future that no longer needed them for anything? Or perhaps you would not ask those questions.

But this is the future investors are dreaming of, and the future that they're investing trillions of dollars to reach. That's the dream.
by MattyRad | 2026-02-28 16:49:25+00:00
Yeah, agreed. I probably wasn't going to delete my OpenAI account (ala the link that is also being upvoted on HN), it just seemed like a hassle vs ceasing to use OpenAI. But when the staff at OpenAI employ mental gymnastics, selective hearing, willful ignorance, or plain ignorance to justify compliance with manmade horrors, I think it's probably important to vote with our feet.
by K0balt | 2026-02-28 16:49:48+00:00
It’s definitely an issue when using coding assistants.

If you are careful and specific you can keep things reasonable, but even when I am careful and do consolidattion / factoring passes, have rigid separation of concerns, etc I find that the LLM code is bigger than mine, mainly for two reasons:

1) more extensive inline documentation
2) more complete expression of the APIs across concerns, as well as stricter separation.

2.5 often, also a bit of demonstrative structure that could be more concise but exists in a less compact form to demonstrate it’s purpose and function (high degree of cleverness avoidance)

All in all, if you don’t just let it run amok, you can end up with better code and increased productivity in the same stroke, but I find it comes at about a 15% plumpness penalty, offset by readability and obvious functionality.

Oh, forgot to mention, I always make it clean room most of the code it might want to pull in from libraries, except extremely core standard libraries, or for the really heavy stuff like Bluetooth / WiFi protocol stacks etc.

I find a lot of library type code ends up withering away with successive cleanup passes, because it wasn’t really necessary just cognitively easier to implement a prototype. With refinement, the functionality ends up burrowing in, often becoming part of the data structure where it really belonged in the first place.
by sosomoxie | 2026-02-28 16:50:14+00:00
Even CNN is reporting that this unprovoked attack was lined up with a Jewish holiday celebrating the killing of non-jews: https://x.com/chrisbrunet/status/2027665287982502195

The first thing the US/Israel did was murder 80+ children with an attack on a girl's elementary school (warning graphic): https://x.com/ME_Observer_/status/2027787999409266991

Meanwhile, jewish israelis are celebrating the attack in their bunkers: https://x.com/SZade15/status/2027695217286189363
by reliabilityguy | 2026-02-28 16:50:38+00:00
> The moral point of view is that a war of aggression violates the sovereignty of the people in the attacked country. The aggressor country's officials are not elected by the people of the defending country, nor do they in any other way represent the people of that country. They have no right to decide the fate of the people in another country.

Interesting. So, US intervention in WW2 was not moral? Germans did not consent.

> I know that because I've studied philosophy and worked in ethics, though not specifically on any issues concerning international rights. I'm also overall a well-educated person with an intact sense of justice.

And? So, you cannot be mistaken?

> Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.

Great. Then no war is acceptable. Any action that is not yet take is in the past, and thus historical. Why respond?

You see, thinking in absolutes will take you only this far. The hardest issues to reason about are in the gray area, where you have to make a judgement call because it is not a clear cut issue. Unlike you, I realize that it's not a simple "aggression" but rather way more complicated issue.

> I believe you're trolling.

I am not. I am having an opposing point of view to yours. However, I am not basing my argument on my personal qualities as the most moral person in the world. I am trying to use universal values and reasoning.
by politician | 2026-02-28 16:50:50+00:00
No individual, whether a colonel or a CEO, has inherent authority over national security decisions. Authority flows through democratic institutions. A contractor can choose whether to participate, but national defense policy is determined by elected institutions, not private executives. If society believes AI should or should not be used for certain military purposes, the venue for that decision is democratic governance not unilateral corporate refusal or approval.

On a CBS interview this morning, Dario defended his position with the claim that he must act because "Congress is slow." CEOs can and should make decisions about what their companies build or refuse to build. What they cannot do is substitute their judgment for the constitutional processes that govern national security. We must not vest de facto policy control in unelected corporate leaders.
by krapp | 2026-02-28 16:51:03+00:00
The concept of "tv news" itself is pretty anachronistic, and the premise that nothing that would be covered on "tv news" should be of any interest to "good hackers" is a bit elitist. That guideline, like the rest of this forum, was written in the early 2000s, for what one could argue was an entirely different world than now, with an entirely different relationship between culture and media, and the assumptions it makes about culture and media may no longer apply, if they ever did.

That said, here are some American examples - it is being covered by CBS:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-full...

And a local affiliate:
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/nation-world/trump-order-a...

And ABC:
https://abcnews.com/US/wireStory/anthropic-refuses-bend-pent...

And a local affiliate:
https://abc7news.com/post/anthropic-refuses-bend-pentagon-ai...

NBC:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-bans-anthropic-...

Fox:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tech-company-refuses-pentag...

Searching "anthropic letter tv news coverage" in Google, the News tab has tons of other mainstream news sources, worldwide, covering this story.

So yes. This and many "technical" stories that appear on HN would be covered by "tv news."
by hearsathought | 2026-02-28 16:51:19+00:00
> Not to mention all the numerous threats to wipe Israel off the map by Iran, Hez etc.

That's a well debunked lie told by zionists for decades. Nobody cares anymore. Besides it's "israel" wiping palestine off the map.

> Let's not pretend Iran is innocent please. Or Hamas either.

Far more innocent than israel.
by etc-hosts | 2026-02-28 16:51:31+00:00
The US has spent a lot of time and money on MEK but I don't think they are very effective. Or will be very effective. My understanding is the leader of MEK has n't been seen in years(is probably dead), and MEK members are only allowed to marry other MEK members, so the number of MEK members is way down from their 80s highpoint, and it's not getting better.
by bluGill | 2026-02-28 16:51:49+00:00
> And fathers who wish to divorce assume that the mothers of their children will be fine raising children alone with the support of their family, the state, and their salaries.

This makes the false assumption that men don't care about their children. Society and the courts tend to agree with it, but the vast majority of divorced men I know complain about how little they get to see their children, combined with how they are seen as only a paycheck and not as a parent. Things are slowly changing, men are more likely to get custody, and joint custody does happen - but there is still a lot of the "men are not able to raise kids" attitude around.
by uvdn7 | 2026-02-28 16:51:58+00:00
It reminds me of Clay Christensen’s book How to Measure Your Life. In one of his talks, he talked about how companies get killed because they optimized for the wrong/short-term metrics. What we are seeing with AI could be a supercharged flavor of Innovator’s Dilemma, where organizations optimize a pre-existing set of success metrics while missing the bigger picture because some previous assumptions no longer hold.

I really like the article. It’s not trying to sell fear (which does sell); it doesn’t paint the leaderships as clueless. Nobody knows what is going to happen in the future. The article might be wrong on a few things. But it doesn’t matter. It points out a few assumptions that people might be missing and that is great.
by amelius | 2026-02-28 16:52:05+00:00
That's probably not the main reason.

Citing:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47157393

> I've spoken with engineers who worked on nuclear weapons systems, the consensus is that the public is deeply misinformed about how they work, the dangers, and the implications of weapons being used. (...)

> The biggest danger of a nuclear weapon is being hit by flying debris.

> Fusion airburst bombs of the modern era are incredibly clean and radiation is only a risk in a very small area (tens of miles) for a short time (days to weeks). (...)
by jmyeet | 2026-02-28 16:52:15+00:00
Resisting the imperialist goals of the US itx proxies doesn't make you imperialist. It's not only moral. It's generaly permissible under international law.

Take for example the UAE, which has been hit by the Iranian response, who is essentially singlehandedly responsible for the genocide in South Sudan and it does so with the blessing of the US.

The UAE arms the RSF using arms they get from the US and steal Sudanese gold, which they launder through Dubai and Switzerland.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everything Iran has done and is doing is "imperialism" (which, again, it is not), how do you even begin to argue "if not more [than the United States]"? US imperialism touches virtually every country on Earth. Iran at best has regional influence.
by reliabilityguy | 2026-02-28 16:53:29+00:00
> The Lebanese Muslims at the time were furious that the Sixth Fleet was constantly shelling Shouf.

Lebanese muslims are not a monolith. Shia and Sunni have very different opinions on things, and the 1983 barracks bombing was not done by the sunnis.

Anyway, what I am trying to say is that treating war with Islamic Republic today as some sort of consequence of the June 2025 is a mistake.
by getnormality | 2026-02-28 16:54:19+00:00
This author is pointing out that the fraction of the tech dream du jour that is actually realized is consistently about 1%, so taking tech dreams du jour seriously is guaranteed to give you a false world model. Which is unhelpful and maladaptive, unless perhaps your goal is to make money off of other people with that false world model.

I believe that full automation of the mundanities of human life is coming in the fullness of time. But for that insight to be helpful to me, I have to get the timing right, and the data suggests I should be extremely skeptical about excitable tech guys predicting big things in short time frames.
by galangalalgol | 2026-02-28 16:54:31+00:00
The conflicts with Pakistan always do start with Pakistan, but the response is always disproportionate, and seeds future similar conflicts. Its not starting a war. The Sri lanka conflict is not so simple. If you invade a country that doesn't consent to you being there, but only kill a non-governmental group while there, and then leave, I think that is essentially a war. Likewise when you set up fake referendums to annex Sikkim that is just conquest by other means. India has not behaved as badly as many other powers, but that foes not mean we shouldn't point out where it missteps.