MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by zkitty | 2026-02-11 01:42:52+00:00
Some people say WebMCP is a direct solution for slow inaccurate crawlers.

WebMCP is not designed for that use-case.

WebMCP is designed for website owners to open direct access to agents by embedding MCP tools onto their own websites.

People use browser agents for adversarial operations; data extraction from competitors' websites, etc. Those cases are not solvable with WebMCP.
by thisisjedr | 2026-02-11 01:44:02+00:00
We don’t have a formal '% compatibility' metric yet, but it’s on our radar as a feedback loop mechanism for self-improvement.

For now, we mostly rely on testing with our own and customer docs. In practice, we were seeing solid results after a couple of days of keeping Claude working in the loop and giving lots of feedback: .docx files along with screenshots annotated to highlight what didn’t work.
by RupertSalt | 2026-02-11 01:44:44+00:00
1. TELNET is an IETF-standard protocol defined by RFCs.
2. Telnet is a well-known port assigned by the IANA (tcp/23).
3. telnet is a client program, originated on Unix, available on many systems, and likely from a quite homogeneous codebase.
4. telnetd is a server program, also originated on Unix for the purpose of implementing Telnet protocol as a login server. Also a homogeneous codebase or two.

TFA is about items 2 and 4, and 1/3 are completely unrelated.

IIRC, the only traffic that was monitored and detected here is the scanning. The vulnerability scanners that try and detect, for better or worse, what someone's running on port 23, fingerprint it, and figure out if it's a vulnerability.

Interestingly, filtering port 23 only mitigates the CVE by happenstance. It is merely by convention that telnetd runs on port 23, so that people can use it to log in remotely. There is no constraint that requires port 23. Any other service could usurp 23/tcp for itself if the admin decrees it. So, filtering port 23 is an effective mitigation for the defaults of someone running a vulnerable server on the standard port. But it is not a panacea, and it doesn't prevent anyone from using the telnetd server, or the telnet client, except for port 23.

But it also prevents you from offering any service on port 23/tcp, lest it be filtered. You wouldn't want to run a web server, sshd, a MUD, or anything else, because your connectivity would be negatively impacted for this reason. (The common experience is that a lot of Windows SMB/NetBIOS ports are blocked, and SMTP and port 80, on a lot of consumer ISPs, although this is contrasting the ISP situation to Tier-1 transit carriers now.)
by mindslight | 2026-02-11 01:45:00+00:00
> We can be pragmatic in recognizing that "our guys" also did bad things

What do you mean "our guys" ? I don't have guys. I consider myself a libertarian, was both sidesing up until June of 2020, and had never voted for a major party in a national election until 2020 when I voted for Biden - which I view as me getting older and more conservative - aka valuing our societal institutions and values after seeing how much Trump openly trashed them instead of showing an ounce of leadership during Covid.

Even with this perspective, I still think it is foolish to write off the current administration as if it's just another iteration of back and forth corruption rather than a shameless wholesale kicking over of the apple cart.
by Bender | 2026-02-11 01:45:16+00:00
I've been testing Bazzite and noticed a couple of things that raised an eyebrow for me. Sexual preferences in Bazaar options tool to update flatpaks seems out of place and even if not the limited subset of flags is odd. To me personally that is risking potential drama in the OS/apps.

There is also a suspiciously long delay in closing the shell terminal which feels like it is storing or sending something but I have yet to debug it. This does not occur on any other of the many Linux distributions I have tested.

It is a snappy and decent distro otherwise. Good thing they are removing drama, something that almost nuked Mint not long after its inception.
by doctoboggan | 2026-02-11 01:45:16+00:00
@dang with the launch of open claw I have seen so much more LLM slop comments. I know meta comments like mine aren't usually encouraged, but I think we need to do something about this as a community. Is there anything we can do? (either ban or at least requiring full disclosure for bot comments would be nice).

EDIT: I suspect the current "solution" is to just downvote (which I do!), but I think people who don't chat with LLMs daily might not recognize their telltale signs so I often see them highly upvoted.

Maybe that means people want LLM comments here, but it severely changes the tone and vibe of this site and I would like to at least have the community make that choice consciously rather than just slowly slide into the slop era.
Show HN: Sheety – An open-source CRM that with Google Sheets as DB
by sisiwho | 2026-02-11 01:46:04+00:00
Built this after spending ages looking for the right CRM to work with. I’d sign up for a CRM, get annoyed by the complexity or the monthly per-user pricing, export everything to CSV, and go back to managing my sales in a Google Sheet.

While spreadsheets are great for data, they are terrible for workflows (pipelines, activity logging, moving cards around).

So I built a "stateless" UI layer on top of Google Sheets.

The concept is simple:

No Vendor Lock-in: The app doesn't have its own database. It reads and writes directly to your Google Sheet via the API.

Exit Strategy: If you stop using the app (or if I stop maintaining it), you don't need to "export" your data. It's already in your Google Drive, in a format you own.

Also working on CLI + open API routes that will enable MCP like connectors.

git: https://github.com/sdntsng/sheety-crm
live: https://sheety.site
by Barrin92 | 2026-02-11 01:46:07+00:00
>You can absolutely think it as long as it stops there.

If that's the attitude it renders virtually every discussion about the topic moot and the people in question better stop trying to give life advice to anyone else.

My wife and I don't want kids and we've heard our fair share of (unsolicited) opinions on the topic from people who clearly weren't always happy. I've only ever known one woman I worked with, who was a brilliant scientist, tell me straight up she regrets having children and wished she could have focused on her research.

If that's not something you can honestly say without being berated then clearly the 'propaganda' still works mostly in one direction.
by SanjayMehta | 2026-02-11 01:46:25+00:00
> Now imagine being debanked by your own government because they don't like what you're saying and becoming unemployed, homeless and dead. I don't think they're remotely comparable.

You don't have to imagine it.

Alina Lipp, Thomas Röper, Xavier Moreau, Col Jacques Baud, Nathalie Yamb. The last two are Swiss nationals. The Baud case is interesting because he's a Belgian resident who now can not even buy food or pay his bills while living in his own home.
by slg | 2026-02-11 01:46:30+00:00
>Trying to play "guess if the shadowy government agency is doing the right thing this week" is a losing game.

Which is why the best strategy is to bring things out of the shadows and have the government operate in the open whether that is more literal by making their actions part of the public record or just figuratively by requiring a lot of disparate parts of the government to coordinate on something like this so it can only go wrong with truly widespread corruption.

Playing a cat and mouse game with the government via technology is also a losing game. They'll always have more money, people, and expertise on their side. When the heart of the problem is the humans involved, the solution is inherently politics.
by NeutralCrane | 2026-02-11 01:46:37+00:00
Are directors frauds because they aren’t the ones doing the acting? Is there no joy in being an architect because they aren’t the one assembling the building at the construction site? Is there no value in product engineering because they aren’t fabricating the products in the factory?

It’s fine to find enjoyment in the actual programming part of software engineering. It’s stupid to assume that is the only aspect of software engineering that is valuable or that is enjoyable for others.
by taftster | 2026-02-11 01:46:39+00:00
How do you automated, for example, "HTTPS over websocket with OAuth", without providing some kind of hard-coded, static or otherwise persistent authentication credentials to the calling system in some form (either certificate based auth, OAuth credentials, etc.)?

The problem with IoT and embedded secrets isn't really a solved problem, from what I can tell. I'm not sure that OAuth exactly solves the problem here. Though all your comments about SSH (especially host verification) holds true.

Just honestly trying to understand the possible solution space to the IoT problem and automated (non-human) authorization.
by jesuslop | 2026-02-11 01:46:42+00:00
Interesting, he also talks about quantum computing (a first?): p. 191, "We now go on to consider how such a computer can also be built using the laws of quantum mechanics. We are going to write a Hamiltonian, for a system of interacting parts, which will behave in the same way as a large system in serving as a universal computer."

p. 196: "In general, in quantum mechanics, the outgoing state at time t is
eⁱᴴᵗ Ψᵢₙ where Ψᵢₙ is the input state, for a system with Hamiltonian H. To try to find, for a given special time t, the Hamiltonian which will produce M = eⁱᴴᵗ when M is such a product of non-commuting matrices, from some simple property of the matrices themselves, appears to be very difficult.

We realize, however, that at any particular time, if we expand eⁱᴴᵗ out (as 1 + iHt − H²t²⁄2 + …) we'll find the operator H operating an innumerable arbitrary number of times — once, twice, three times, and so forth — and the total state is generated by a superposition of these possibilities. This suggests that we can solve this problem of the composition of these A’s in the following way..."
by fwlr | 2026-02-11 01:47:17+00:00
From the post:

“Think about what this means … the original SimCity ran on a Commodore 64. An empty Chrome tab takes more memory than that entire machine had. We’re not constrained by hardware anymore. We’re not even constrained by understanding what the code does … codebases will 10-100x in size because AI … endless bugs … the question is whether you’re building with it or explaining why you’re not.”

Looking through the eyes of an AI champion, I see a world where the first execution of any given idea, the first product to hit the market for any given need, is guaranteed to be AI-generated - with the “10-100x size” codebase, the corresponding (and often superlinear) decrease in performance, and the attendant “endless bugs”.
by bdangubic | 2026-02-11 01:47:48+00:00
> but certain things may not be writen down and published

and who decides what can be written down and published? ruling party? the “president”? country-wide referendum? therein lies an issue, once you say “we can’t write or publish ____” you open yourself up to a whole lot of problems. your heart is in the right place but there cannot ever be anything (literally anything) that can’t be written down or published. if there is, that will eventually be weaponized to prevent writing and publishing what is dear to your heart. freedom is a bitch… :)
by jamesgill | 2026-02-11 01:48:11+00:00
"Then it professionalised."

Yeah. It's not that it wasn't 'professionalized' back in the day, it's that everything has changed--the attitude, the people involved, the kinds of businesses there are, the philosophy. There was a...mystery about it, a feeling like you were entering a different world and that world was a place where you were close the the machine and...I just can't describe it. It was more visceral.

I made my first BASIC program in the late 70s on a Decwriter, which was basically a wide-carriage printer with a keyboard, attached via acoustic modem to a time-sharing system. And it was the best thing ever.
by kristianc | 2026-02-11 01:49:15+00:00
> Once you have multiple agents across multiple sessions generating code in production, you hit the same observability problems every other distributed system hits: tracing, attribution, debugging failures across runs.

This has been the story for every trend empowering developers since year dot. Look back and you can find exactly the same said about CD, public cloud, containers, the works. The 'orchestration' (read compliance) layers always get routed around. Always.
by sriram_malhar | 2026-02-11 01:49:55+00:00
"no wonder you have been working on it for decades and have nothing public to show for it"

That's because it was never my intention to show it off. Your motivation comes from making something new and showing it off. My motivation comes from learning something new _to me_ and capturing aha insights, even if that thing has been done before. It isn't "wrong" per se, just a different path. I'm not necessarily interested in carrying my side project to completion, just as many artists carry a notebook for their sketches that are not meant for public consumption.

I too did a PhD and several startups and produced several new products and projects that were well received in the market, and incorporated much that I learnt from my side projects.

But your comment did help jog me out of my local minimum. Thanks for your input.
by Telaneo | 2026-02-11 01:49:55+00:00
The exact reasons for it not working doesn't matter. It's the 'not working' part that's annoying people when it comes to Wayland. If X worked, and then Wayland doesn't, no matter how small the way in which it doesn't work, it's still a valid reason to not be a fan.

I'm yet to see someone complain about systemd and Wayland in the same comment, or even comment chain for that matter, which does scan, given how they have diametrically opposed philosophies to things. The Venn diagram of people who dislike and Wayland and systemd are probably not quite two separate circles, but I can't imagine the overlap is very large. I actually like systemd a fair bit, since it seems to do its job pretty well. I've seen people have problems with it, but most of the opposition to it are on philosophical grounds rather than about matters of functionality, whereas with Wayland, the opposite is the case.
by dgfl | 2026-02-11 01:50:00+00:00
I think most of them are valid questions!

(1) is perhaps more of a question requiring a strict definition of consciousness in the first place, making it mostly circular. (2) and especially (3) are the most interesting, but they seem part of the easy problem instead. And I’d say we already have indications that the latter option of (4) is true, given your examples from (5) and things like sleep (the most common reason for humans to be unconscious) being in distinct phases with different wake up speed (pun partially intended). And if you assume animals to be conscious, then some sleep with only one hemisphere at a time. Are they equally as conscious during that?

My imaginary timeline of the future has scientific advancements would lead to us noticing what’s different between a person’s brain in their conscious and unconscious states, then somehow generalize it to a more abstract model of cognition decoupled from our biological implementation, and then eventually tackle all your questions from there. But I suspect the person I originally replied to would dismiss them as part of the easy problem instead, i.e. completely useless for tackling the hard problem! As far as I’m concerned, it’s the hard problem that I take issue with, and the one that I claim isn’t real.
by 2close4comfort | 2026-02-11 01:51:40+00:00
It is an interesting time to be at the peak of accumulated knowledge of a 50 year career and then see a tool that has the ability to create the code to preform a task I need. But that creation doesn’t feel the same and does take interaction from outside usually to make that code useable. I think that time for required interaction will be short lived and as code bases are slowly supplanted with generated code things will be more homogenized. I pray that will lead the people being allowed to solve more complex issue and I can’t wait to see the advancements to come. I just hope we can look back and say it was worth it, that don’t we end up with a bunch of AI generated crap that degrades technology by obscuring the useful and we end up worse than before.
by permenant | 2026-02-11 01:53:11+00:00
Suprisingly, the "axe head" sections each on one side of the circular top and bottom openings are unnessecary to the functioning, and just there for show.

It's also near a fort on the Antonine Wall, a further-north version of Hadrian's wall- so it's been the shortest route across Britain for quite a long time...
by lunatuna | 2026-02-11 01:53:18+00:00
I don’t think a lot of people here have been in the typists room or hung out with the secretaries. There were a lot of people taking care of all the things going and this has been downloaded and further downloaded.

There was a time I didn’t have to do my expenses. I had someone just know where I was and who I was working for and and took care of it. We talked when there was something that didn’t make sense. Thanks to computers I’m doing it. Meaningless for sure.
by grouchy | 2026-02-11 01:53:28+00:00
You install the React SDK, register your React components with Zod schemas, and then the agent responds to users with your UI components.

Developers are using it to build agents that actually solve user needs with their own UI elements, instead of text instructions or taking actions with minimal visibility for the user.

We're building out a generative UI library, but as of right now it doesn't generate any code (that could change).

We do have a skill you can give your agent to create new UI components:

```
npx skills add tambo-ai/tambo
```

/components
by themaninthedark | 2026-02-11 01:53:30+00:00
I am saying "No. Full stop." to the idea that we ever had a time when the government was attempting to carry out their roles in good faith.

"For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law" - Óscar Benavides, former president of Peru.

This can only be true if the law is broad and relies on "good faith". This is why laws and court ruling are often narrowly tailored, to prevent a precedent being set that will open the door for future abuse down the road.

>Investigative agencies are going to be able to investigate people. So supposing that the "US government can ... investigate Richard Spencer ... based on a web post" isn't a compelling argument unless your goal is to completely reject the concept of government. As has been often said, you can get a grand jury to indite a ham sandwich.

I suppose I could have fleshed out this argument a little further, a distillation of my point would be that "investigations" are carried out with little or flimsy evidence as a pretext to go on fishing expeditions to find something, anything to actually charge the person with.

>we need to neuter the concept of sovereign immunity
I wish we could get the government to hold themselves accountable, however they would need to pass a law to override the concept and they do not seem to be in any hurry to do so.

I am not attempting to say I told you so to you, nor normalize the situation. I disagree with your assessment that there ever was a "better time" and invite not only you but everyone to stand against bad laws and practices no matter the letter after the name.
by zinekeller | 2026-02-11 01:54:04+00:00
There is a point though - Mastercard and Visa treats them as "prepaid" credit cards, which are different from both true prepaid cards (as issued in the US), charge cards, and true debit cards (former Maestro and Visa Electron). Again, different regions have different lines for this, especially in Europe.

IIRC, bunq in the Netherlands issues Mastercard "credit cards" (with no "debit" annotation as on true Mastercard debit cards). They're treated as credit cards for Mastercard purposes but are backed by deposits.
by grayhatter | 2026-02-11 01:54:21+00:00
> If I paste in a blog post verbatim and pretend I wrote it, that’s plagiarism. If I use a tool to generate a starting point and shape it into what I need, that’s just a different kind of authorship.

If you cloned chapters from multiple books, from multiple different authors, didn't decide on the sentence structure, didn't choose the words yourself, didn't decide which order your going to place these chapters, didn't name the characters. At what point do you no longer get credit for writing the book?

What if it's code? what if you didn't decide which order you should call these functions. Didn't make the decision about if you're gonna write var i, or idx, or index. Didn't make a decision if this should be an u32, or an i64. Didn't read any of the source code from that new dependency you just added. Didn't name the functions, oh but no, you did have to edit that one function because it wouldn't compile, so you just renamed it like the error suggested... At what point does the effort you put in become less significant than the effort duplicated from the training set? How much of the function do you have to write yourself, before you take credit? How many chars have to by typed by your fingers, before you claim. You made this?
by kijin | 2026-02-11 01:54:39+00:00
Back in the 90s and 00s, lots of companies churned out software products that were sold once, supported forever. It was a sort of Ponzi scheme, supporting old customers with money from new customers. Which was okay during a period of high growth. But sooner or later the market matured, growth plateaued, and the cost of ongoing maintenance became a much bigger problem.

Right now you're growing fast and swimming in VC money, so this is probably not an issue. At some point, though, you might find that even hardware depreciation cycles don't provide as much of a safety cushion as you hope they will. In an economic downturn, people might suddenly realize that Oxide hardware actually remains serviceable much longer than they expected. :)
by chadcmulligan | 2026-02-11 01:55:31+00:00
misogynistic behaviors were cultural at the time, I agree they're abhorrent but people are embedded in their culture. The same is said of Hitchcock, (as an example) and his behaviour was unacceptable by todays standards. We've come some way from that but still a way to go.

From the about the authors in the OP's link "Feynman was a remarkably effective educator. Of all his numerous awards, he was especially proud of the Oersted Medal for Teaching, which he won in 1972.". He probably didn't do a lot of the stuff he popularised, but that was what he did, it is a skill taking abstract stuff and making it coherent. I know when I did physics (in the 90's) many swore by his books, particularly for quantum, it was a bit of a secret we'd have these incomprehensible books on quantum, and someone would say - have you seen "The Feynman lectures", they are good, I wish we had the videos available at the time.
by kalleboo | 2026-02-11 01:56:24+00:00
We used to have a "cash card" in Sweden in the 90's[0]. It flopped because nobody wants to keep manually re-filling it with value all the time. It's much more convenient to have a card that pulls from your bank account (either instantly via debit or monthly via credit). In the mass market, convenience always trumps privacy.

The places where a "cash card" have gained popularity have all been using the "backdoor" of public transit payments that are so ubiquitous they also get accepted by retail (e.g. Suica in Japan, Octopus in HK, EasyCard in Taiwan, etc)

[0] https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_(betalsystem) based on the Belgian Proton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_(debit_card)