MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by RollAHardSix | 2026-02-06 02:25:40+00:00
Trying to make a media player, media server, all by using ffmpeg and a pre-built media streaming engine as it's core. Python and SQLite. About a week's worth of effort every time until it begins to go too far off the rails to be reliable to continue to develop with. It never did get the ffmpeg commands right, I had to go back to crafting those by hand, it never did get the streaming engine to play in the browser's video player in the supported hls and dash formats. Asked it to build a file and file metadata caching layer and then had to continue to re-prompt it to poll the caching layers before trying to get values from the database. Never even got to the library, metadata, or library image functionality. Had to ask it to create the rbac permissions model I wanted despite it being very junior-level common sense (super-admin, user-admin, metadata admin, image admin).

Not exactly world-class software.
by bravetraveler | 2026-02-06 02:25:59+00:00
+1 Bounty aside, this deserves attention. I wouldn't want to award bounties for MitM either if I made it so easy. They closed the issue as 'out of scope'... with no mention of follow-up, I'm skeptical to say the least.

Industry standard has been to ignore MitM or certificates/signatures, not everything.
by SOLAR_FIELDS | 2026-02-06 02:26:10+00:00
“Light work” is a pretty bold statement my dude. I run max for 8+ hour coding sessions with 3-4 windows where I’m babysitting and watching the thing and I never even get session warnings. The only time I bump up against limits is on token hungry tasks like reverse engineering 3M+ LOC codebases or 5-6 agents generating unit tests in parallel. Something tells me that what you call “light work” is not remotely the same as what I consider “light work”
by keyshapegeo99 | 2026-02-06 02:26:17+00:00
Can I just say, I'm getting really fucking sick of these LLM-generated posts clogging up this site?

GPTZero gives this a 95% chance of being entirely AI-generated. (5% human-AI mix, and 0% completely original.)

But I could tell you that just by using my eyes, the tells are so obvious. "The myth / The reality, etc."

If I wanted to know what ChatGPT had to say about something, I would ask ChatGPT. That's not what I come here for, and I think the same applies to most others.

Here's an idea for all you entrepreneur types: devise a privacy-preserving, local-running browser extension for scanning all content that a user encounters in their browser - and changing the browser extension icon to warn of an AI generated article or social media post or whatever. So that I do not have to waste a further second interacting with it. I would genuinely pay a hefty subscription fee for such a service at this point, provided it worked well.
by kogasa240p | 2026-02-06 02:26:29+00:00
>Culture changed. We cared more about stability, repairability and reusability. Computers were expensive. So are programmers and software. Now computers are cheap. Our culture is more consumerist than ever. The mentality of "move fast and break things" permeated so well with economic policy and the zeitgeist. With AI it will get worse. So trying to make a real alternative to C (as a generic low level OS protocol) has reduced cultural value / optics. It doesn't fill the CVs as well.

IMO I do see this changing in the future as higher power computers become expensive once again, and I'm not just referring to the recent chip shortage.
by bloaf | 2026-02-06 02:26:36+00:00
At my company I saw a team of devs pay for a special purpose "query optimized" database with "exabyte capability" to handle... their totally ordinary HR data.

I queried said database... it was slow.

I looked to see what indexes they had set up... there were none.

That team should have just used postgres and spent all the time and money they poured into this fancy database tech on finding someone who knew even a little bit about database design to help them.
by rapind | 2026-02-06 02:27:19+00:00
What they are redacting is pretty questionable though. Entire pages being suspiciously redacted with no explanation (which they are supposed to provide). This is just my opinion, but I think it's pretty hard to defend them as making an honest and best effort here. Remember they all lied about and changed their story on the Epstein "files" several times now (by all I mean Bondi, Patel, Bongino, and Trump).

It's really really hard to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point.
by sathish316 | 2026-02-06 02:27:40+00:00
OpenClaw does present security risks, and the recommendations outlined in this article are apt.

That said, OpenClaw is more powerful than Claude Code due to its self-evolving agent architecture and its unfettered access to terminal and tools.

A secure way to provide access to additional non-sensitive API keys and secrets is by introducing a secure vault and ensuring OpenClaw’s skills retrieve credentials from it using time-scoped access (TTL of 15-60 mins). More details are available in this article: https://x.com/sathish316/status/2019496552419717390 . This reduces the attack surface to 15+ mins and the security can be further improved with Tailscale and sandboxing.
by cxr | 2026-02-06 02:28:10+00:00
> I don't buy the argument that "plain text over the web is the future"

Good thing no one is making that argument. That's a fabricated quote.

> the second most used 'app' on a PC/laptop after a browser

This is supposed to be a rejoinder? You're just undergirding the thing that you're purporting to respond to—that when it comes to the dominance (or, if you prefer, relative importance) of actual multi-/cross-platform ease-of-access between browsers versus 90s-era suites like MS Office and LibreOffice, the office suites lose.

> until that time, we need a decent office app, with support for the world's many written languages and their quirks, without spying on users, with multi-platform support, with a decent license

We do need that. Which is why I described it. And LibreOffice is in a worse position than it should be with respect to filling this hole because of its failure to embrace the actual multi-/cross-platform and ease-of-access benefits afforded by the ubiquity of standard Web browsers and the formats they understand, contra the formats that the 90s-era office suites produce (useless to anyone who doesn't have that office suite or a quasi-compatible one installed).
by notpushkin | 2026-02-06 02:28:15+00:00
From my experience, there is always a parallel process. But if you make the system painless enough, most of it will be in there, yeah.

> When you want to revoke access, you commit a change removing that permission and the side effect runs to revoke it.

For this to work, you’d need to also rotate the secret, or ideally issue one for each person (so that others don’t have to update their configs).

...but sometimes you can’t reliably automatically rotate the secret, because they could have used it for something in production.
by energy123 | 2026-02-06 02:29:11+00:00
I predict a bifurcation in usage.

Serial usecases ("fix this syntax errors") will go on Cerebras and get 10x faster.

Deep usecases ("solve Riemann hypothesis") will become massively parallel and go on slower inference compute.

Teams will stitch both together because some workflows go through stages of requiring deep parallel compute ("scan my codebase for bugs and propose fixes") followed by serial compute ("dedupe and apply the 3 fixes, resolve merge conflict").
by mcast | 2026-02-06 02:29:44+00:00
It's known that Anthropic's $20 Pro subscription is a gateway plan to their $100 Max subscription, since you'll easily burn your token rate on a single prompt or two. Meanwhile, I've had ample usage testing out Codex on the basic $20 ChatGPT Plus plan without a problem.

As for Anthropic's $100 Max subscription, it's almost always better to start new sessions for tasks since a long conversation will burn your 5-hour usage limit with just a few prompts (assuming they read many files). It's also best to start planning first with Claude, providing line numbers and exact file paths prior, and drilling down the requirements before you start any implementation.
by atonse | 2026-02-06 02:32:11+00:00
I'm not sure. Anthropic probably feels safe enough for the foreseeable future given that they've been focused heavily on business customers (cowork, claude code) who just pay straight up for the service.

Whereas OpenAI seems to be huge in the consumer market (where downward pressure on pricing make ads more likely). They're trying with Codex but all the other stuff (the legal, financial, tooling with cowork, etc) seem to be a lot more fleshed out on the Claude side.

So they can probably get away with this for a while. That's my guess though.
by bb88 | 2026-02-06 02:32:12+00:00
> At least no one's sitting around pretending it's going to actually do anything useful anymore

It enriches certain elected officials (and their friends). That's why the US Government holds a "Strategic Bitcoin Reserve".

Other than that if you measured the utility of Crypto assets versus AI, there's no argument that AI (even though it's in a bubble) is still more valuable per MWh than Crypto.
by pclmulqdq | 2026-02-06 02:32:26+00:00
You can do about 100k commits per second, but this also partly depends on the CPU you attach to it. It also varies with how complicated the queries are.

With 100 million DAU, you're often going to have problems with this rate unless you batch your commits. With 100 million user accounts (or MAU), you may be fine.
by digiown | 2026-02-06 02:32:51+00:00
One good thing we can say about Linux bundling all the drivers is that it obviates the need to run almost all of this type of low quality (if not outright spyware) driver management software. They are especially problematic because they can't be sandboxed easily like most other proprietary crap.

For whatever reason, distro maintainers working for free seem a lot more competent with security than billion dollar hardware vendors
by 1970-01-01 | 2026-02-06 02:34:28+00:00
Here's one I've been using for awhile. The 'smarter' LLMs will overconfidently spit out 7. The dumber ones ask for more info. Opus 4.6 fails.

A round drink coaster with a diameter of 9 sits between a beer glass and a wood table. The glass has a wall thickness of 1. What is the inner diameter of the glass?
by AlotOfReading | 2026-02-06 02:35:23+00:00
Don't take this as criticizing LLMs as a whole, but architects also don't call themselves engineers. Engineers are an entirely distinct set of roles that among other things validate the plan in its totality, not only the "new" 1/5th. Our job spans both of these.

"Architect" is actually a whole career progression of people with different responsibilities. The bottom rung used to be the draftsmen, people usually without formal education who did the actual drawing. Then you had the juniors, mid-levels, seniors, principals, and partners who each oversaw different aspects. The architects with their name on the building were already issuing high level guidance before the transition instead of doing their own drawings.

When was the last time you reviewed the machine code produced by a compiler?

Last week, to sanity check some code written by an LLM.
by smj-edison | 2026-02-06 02:35:23+00:00
I will say one thing Claude does is it doesn't run a command until you approve it, and you can choose between a one-time approval and always allowing a command's pattern. I usually approve the simple commands like `zig build test`, since I'm not particularly worried about the test harness. I believe it also scopes file reading by default to the current directory.
by jfengel | 2026-02-06 02:36:01+00:00
The other key piece is AI, which is where the money is going instead. It is newer, so people can hope they're getting in closer to the ground floor.

And unlike Bitcoin, it is producing something. Maybe not what people hope, but it's more than just a "store of value".

Once the speculation money starts to leave, the supply of greater fools will have run out. There will be literally nobody willing to buy it.
by zem | 2026-02-06 02:36:22+00:00
> And it happens to be a case where a lot of people see the benefits of test: before refactoring.

it's also very nice if you have a test-last working style, that is, develop the code first using some sort of ad hoc testing method, then when you're convinced it's working you add tests both as a final check that the output is what you expect across a lot of different corner cases, and to prevent regressions as you continue development.
by Marsymars | 2026-02-06 02:37:25+00:00
Conceptually I like the Windows Store for certain things (i.e. those where I want automatic updates) - I can manage my apps from it via the winget CLI and winget.config files, and get automatic updates.

However, the LTSC edition of Windows doesn't have Windows Store support, and the non-LTSC editions of Windows have become untenable to me.
by alexhans | 2026-02-06 02:38:30+00:00
High level, the approach is:

- I'm pain point driven:

- I can't compare what I can't measure.

- I can't trust to run this "AI" tool to run on its own

- That's automation, which is about intentionality (can I describe what I want?) and risk profile understanding (What's the blast radius/worst that could happen)

Then I treat it as if it was an Integration Test/Test Driven Development exercise of sorts.

- I don't start designing an entire cloud infrastructure.

- I make sure the "agent" is living in the location where the users actually live so that it can be the equivalent of an extra paid set of hands.

- I ask questions or replicate user stories and use deterministic tests wherever I can. Don't just go for LLMaaJ. What's the simplest thing you can think of?

- The important thing is rapid iteration and control. Just like in a unit testing scenario it's not about just writing a 100 tests but the ones that qualitatively allow you to move as fast as possible.

- At this stage where the space is moving so fast and we're learning so much, don't assume or try to over-optimize places that don't hurt and instead think about minimalism, ease of change, parameterization and ease of comparison with other components that form "the black box" and with itself.

- Once you have the benchmarks that you want, you can decide things like pick the cheapest model/agent configuration that does the job within the acceptable timeframe.

Happy to go deeper on these. I have some practical/runnable samples/text I can share on the topic after the weekend. I'll drop a link here when it's ready
by hn_acker | 2026-02-06 02:39:57+00:00
> The implication of the original title is that no investigation whatsoever is possible if a federal officer commits a potential crime. That is clearly false.

No, the implication is that local and state level officers like Chief Mike Witz think investigating will be useless (e.g. there won't be enough evidence for a charge) or aren't aware that they have the legal room to investigate federal officers to the same extent that they can investigate regular civilians (e.g. misunderstanding of the Supremacy Clause).

> The title of this post is misleading: should be something like "Investigation of a potential crime committed by a Federal Officer is done by federal agencies first. Other (state, local, etc.) agencies may investigate later."

[omitted]

> The law simply provides a time priority for investigations

The post title is the same as the article title. This article is not about which laws actually prohibit local investigations of federal officers. The article is about the rarity and often reluctance of local officers to investigate federal officers, as well as ways in which federal governments hinder local investigations of federal officers. I'm not aware of a law that "simply" stops state and local governments from unilaterally performing an investigation of a federal officer at the same time as the federal government does (or pretends to do so). Are you saying that some law overrides the judicial warrant described in the following excerpt?

> Even after getting a judicial warrant, investigators from the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension were turned away by federal agents from the Minneapolis intersection where Pretti, 37, was shot and killed. Federal officials also excluded the BCA from the investigation into the death of Renee Good, who was shot and killed in her car two weeks before Pretti.
by raincole | 2026-02-06 02:40:49+00:00
Gemini 3 Pro gives me this:

> Based on the information provided, it is impossible to determine the inner diameter of the glass.

Here is why:

The Coaster Dimension: Knowing the coaster has a diameter of 9 only tells us the size of the object under the glass. It does not mean the glass is the same size; the glass could be smaller (fitting entirely on the coaster) or larger (overhanging the coaster).
The Glass Dimensions: While you provided the wall thickness (1), you did not provide the outer diameter of the glass.
To find the inner diameter, the formula is:
Inner Diameter = Outer Diameter - (2 × Wall Thickness)

Without knowing the Outer Diameter of the glass, the calculation cannot be completed.
by raincole | 2026-02-06 02:42:20+00:00
GPT 5.2 Chat:

> There isn’t enough information to determine the inner diameter *for sure*.

All we’re told is:
- The coaster has a diameter of 9.
- The glass sits on the coaster.
- The glass wall thickness is 1.

Nothing explicitly states that the *outer diameter of the glass equals the coaster’s diameter*. The glass could be smaller than the coaster, which is very common.

*However*, if we make the usual implicit assumption in this kind of problem—that the coaster’s diameter matches the *outer diameter of the glass base*—then:

- Outer diameter of glass = 9
- Wall thickness = 1 on each side

So:
\[
\text{Inner diameter} = 9 - 2(1) = 7
\]

*Inner diameter = 7 (same units as the coaster)*

Without that assumption, the problem is underdetermined.
Show HN: Reader – open-source web scraping engine built for LLMs
by nihalwashere | 2026-02-06 02:42:29+00:00
I've been building AI agents that needed web access and kept hitting the same wall: production scraping is hard. You start with Puppeteer, then add stealth plugins, then fight Cloudflare, then manage proxies, then handle browser pooling and it still breaks.

I kept solving this problem from scratch on different projects, so I packaged it up as Reader, hoping it saves others the same headaches...

Two primitives:

const reader = new ReaderClient();

// Scrape URLs → clean markdown
const result = await reader.scrape({ urls: ["https://example.com"] });

// Crawl a site → discover + scrape pages
const pages = await reader.crawl({ url: "https://example.com", depth: 2 });

Under the hood it's built on Ulixee Hero, a headless browser designed for
anti-detection. The hard stuff like TLS fingerprinting, Cloudflare/Turnstile bypass, browser pool recycling, proxy rotation is built in.

The HTML-to-markdown conversion uses supermarkdown, a Rust engine I built
specifically for messy real world HTML. Clean output, no artifacts.

TypeScript first, full type safety, works as CLI or library. Apache 2.0 license.

GitHub: https://github.com/vakra-dev/reader

Happy to answer questions about the architecture, approach, or tradeoffs I made.

Would love feedback from anyone doing web scraping at scale, especially on edge cases where it breaks. That's how I can make this better.
by chamomeal | 2026-02-06 02:42:35+00:00
That's a good point! Here claude opus wrote a C compiler. Outrageously cool.

Earlier today, I couldn't get opus to replace useEffect-triggered-redux-dispatch nonsense with react-query calls. I already had a very nice react-query wrapper with tons of examples. But it just couldn't make sense of the useEffect rube goldberg machine.

To be fair, it was a pretty horrible mess of useEffects. But just another data point.

Also I was hoping opus would finally be able to handle complex typescript generics, but alas...
by TacticalCoder | 2026-02-06 02:43:53+00:00
> It's pretty clear that Linux, or even BSD, is the way forward.

Yeah and in many EU institutions and companies there's been a move to webapps. And in the big ones, like the EU parliament or EU Commission, there are rules: for example webapps must work on every MEP's smartphone, no matter if it's Android or iOS. So those webapps tend to be very portable (they work on any phone and on any desktop/browser combination).

For many "whatever OS + whatever browser" is literally all that's needed. So switching to "Linux + a browser that ships with Linux" is not a showstopper.

People are convinced there's no way out of Microsoft's grip but Windows getting viruses (just like Microsoft's founder btw, like the Epstein files showed) may be a thing of the past for many very soon.

Now I like Anthropic and I'm a very happy paying Google customer: can we please just ditch Microsoft and not the entirety of products made by american companies? Microsoft produces shit but it's not the case of every american company.
by tom_ | 2026-02-06 02:45:17+00:00
Well I messed up my joke slightly by adding a time-dependent BTC value, which was silly of me, but I was trying to cover all bases. I should have stuck to the classic 1 BTC = 1 BTC :(

(Anyway, in answer to your question: at time of writing, it's the 6th of February, though I don't know what else you might be expecting.)

But, regardless, even if you feel you have won, this time - for how long? It won't be the 5th of February for you forever!
by int_19h | 2026-02-06 02:45:18+00:00
What we need is a model similar to Google+ circles if anyone can remember that.

Basically a thing that I could assign 1) apps and 2) content to. Apps can access all content in all circles they are assigned to. Circles can overlap arbitrarily so you can do things like having apps A,B,C share access to documents X,Y but only A,B have access to Z etc.
by throwup238 | 2026-02-06 02:46:39+00:00
> Engineers are an entirely distinct set of roles that among other things validate the plan in its totality, not only the "new" 1/5th. Our job spans both of these.

Where this analogy breaks down is that the work you’re describing is done by Professional Engineers that have strict licensing and are (criminally) liable for the end result of the plans they approve.

That is an entirely different role from the army of civil, mechanical, and electrical engineers (some who are PEs and some who are not) who do most of the work for the principal engineer/designated engineer/engineer of record, that have to trust building codes and tools like FEA/FEM that then get final approval from the most senior PE. I don’t think the analogy works, as software engineers rarely report to that kind of hierarchy. Architects of Record on construction projects are usually licensed with their own licensing organization too, with layers of licensed and unlicensed people working for them.