MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by pixl97 | 2026-02-10 14:53:44+00:00
Bullshit Asymmetry.

The ease of creation of digital data has lead to the creation of an infinite sea of bullshit. Ads/attention economy are just the newest layer of this asymmetry. Curated datasets are a solution to the problem, as this was how old media worked. The problem is then how will it be paid for.
by lm28469 | 2026-02-10 14:54:05+00:00
> Anyone with a decent grasp of how this technology works, and a healthy inclination to skepticism, was not awed by Moltbook.

NPCs are definitely tricked by the smoke and mirrors though. I don't think most people on HN actually understand how non tech people (90%+ of llms users) interact with these things, it's terrifying.
by rented_mule | 2026-02-10 14:54:05+00:00
> Basically thought crime

Let's go in the opposite direction...

>> Amanda was 10 years old. she went into the bathroom and had sex with a 30 year old man.

If the story was real, should Amanda be banned from publishing her own account of her experience later in life? Should she be able to write about the impact it had on her? I think she should have that freedom.

What if she was 17 years 364 days old and the adult was 18 years 1 day old, assuming the age of consent is 18, and she writes about it being a good experience for her? 16 years old and 20? 4 and 40? Those are increasingly grotesque to me, but I don't know where to draw the line.

Wait, have I crossed the line in what I've written in this reply? Have we all?
by ajross | 2026-02-10 14:54:16+00:00
> This is basically how Let's Encrypt / ACME accounts work

That's how they're implemented. How they "work" is a trivial pushbutton thing as documented by a well-known and trusted provider who cares deeply about simple user experience.

"Just self-sign a cert" is very much not the story XMPP wants their federated server operators to deal with.
by jqpabc123 | 2026-02-10 14:54:22+00:00
I'm not 100% sure what to do when the ratio can't be complied with

Center the crop on the detected face and use the detected width or height, whichever is smaller.

If no face, just use 50% of the smallest overall dimension (height or width) and adjust the other dimension to match the ratio.

If an available dimension is exceeded, use what is available and adjust the remaining one to match the ratio.

This should always result in a valid crop ratio.

Always allow for user adjustment.
by bluGill | 2026-02-10 14:54:33+00:00
Horses were always for the rich - knights would use a horse in battle and ride the horse other places to show off their money. The "common man" walked - you (unless you are handicapped - yes I know you are very out of shape) can walk as far in a day as a horse. When the "common man" needed to haul a load they would prefer oxen which while slower than a horse were overall a lot cheaper to feed.

We think about farming with horses, because in the American West the type of plow that worked best needed faster speeds than the oxen could handle and so for 100 years the horse is what farmers used. Horses were also useful for cowboys chasing cows - again an activity most common in the western planes.
by adrian_b | 2026-02-10 14:54:46+00:00
The hydrogenoid atoms and ions, with a single electron, are the exception that proves the rule, because anything more complex cannot be computed accurately.

The spectrum of hydrogen (ignoring the fine structure) could be computed with the empirical rules of Rydberg before the existence of quantum physics. Quantum physics has just explained it in terms of simpler assumptions.

Quantum physics explains a great number of features of the atomic spectra, but it is unable to compute anything for complex atoms with an accuracy comparable with the experimental measurements.

The QED calculations with "14 digits" of precision are for things that are far simpler than atomic spectra, e.g. for the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron, and even for such things the computations are extremely difficult and error-prone.
by biztos | 2026-02-10 14:54:47+00:00
Off topic, but I love how every country has its weird abbreviations that seem obvious but really aren’t, like BayObLG for Bayerisches Oberlandesgericht (Bavarian State Superior Court) or something close to that. Or how every British cop show assumes its audience knows exactly what a DCI is, as in “This is DCI Foxwaddle and I’m DCI Rugby-Botherington, may we have a word?”
by komali2 | 2026-02-10 14:55:01+00:00
> Meta attorney Paul Schmidt countered in opening remarks to the jury that evidence will show problems with the plaintiff's family and real-world bullying took a toll on her self-esteem, body image and happiness rather than Instagram.

I feel like this must be an indication of an inherent flaw with a society designed around the idea that litigation originates in an individual's singular harm received from a company, outside of I guess class action lawsuits, which to be fair, I don't know much about. But I'm reminded of the McDonald's coffee case, when McDonald's was able to leverage their incredible capital power to make that woman look like such a crazy litigious hysterical lady that people to this day use it as an example of how Americans are just inherently trivially litigious, when in reality, that coffee was just way too hot.

Nobody can stand up to the might of a trillion dollar company. The resources they have at hand are just too vast.
by globular-toast | 2026-02-10 14:55:13+00:00
What are people going to do with the G force gauge? Unlike speed, engine RPM, fuel reserves etc., people can sense acceleration perfectly well themselves. They wouldn't be able to put a number on it (although maybe could with training), but what good is that anyway?

And what even is the gauge on the left? It's just numbers without units.

This just looks like a gimmick because they wanted three gauges but lost engine RPM. Excusable for something like a wristwatch which is only there for aesthetic reasons, but a car where the gauges are there for safety reasons?
by tianqi | 2026-02-10 14:56:40+00:00
Since China has a population of 1.4 billion people with vastly differing levels of cognition, I find it difficult to claim I can summarize "modern Chinese culture". But within my range of observation, no. Chinese not only have no hostility toward AI but actively pursues and reveres it with fervor. They widely perceive AI as an advanced force, a new opportunity for everyone, a new avenue for making money, and a new chance to surpass others. At most, some of the consumers might associate businesses using AI generated content with a budget-conscious brand image, but not hostile.
by quotemstr | 2026-02-10 14:56:43+00:00
"[T]hrive off the attention economy"? What a sinister way to describe building products that people want to use to connect to people whose words and images they enjoy. Nobody is pushing drugs here. There's no fraud or deception. The whole situation is Alice not liking the medium Bob and Charlie use to communicate and what they say to each other over it. Alice needs to mind her own business. She doesn't get to use the power of the state to separate Bob and Charlie just because she's indignant.
by squeefers | 2026-02-10 14:56:52+00:00
> This isn't merely about the division of labor; it’s about war between nations

society isnt one big team that cooperates, its a bunch of slaves trapped in place by the lord/king/raj so he can tax them. he does it by claiming to govern and protect the land, and he kills people that dont agree with any part of it.

its telling that most armies throughout history were full of people who had to be FORCED to join. people arent "cooperating" the way you think they are
by Ajedi32 | 2026-02-10 14:57:09+00:00
Interestingly though, doesn't this threat become less credible the shorter certificate lifetimes get? Back in the day they could just do this and server admins would figure out how to switch to a new CA the next time they got around to renewing their certificate. Now though that's all automated, so killing a CA will likely nuke a bunch of sites.
by saghm | 2026-02-10 14:58:42+00:00
> Jury selection weeds out the enthusiasts who want to be on a jury, the people who can manage to get out of it, and the people who have too much domain knowledge related to the case.

In my (extremely limited) experience, the latter two are probably true but not necessarily the first one. I've been called for jury duty exactly once so far, and it happened to coincide with a period where I wasn't particularly happy with my job situation and was pushing for some changes with my manager, which made me motivated to try to get picked so that I could stall a bit to see if my situation changed. As far as I could tell, almost everyone in the room full of like 40 people who were in the pool for the civil trial they put me in the room for first was trying to get out of it, and I ended up being the first person picked (out of I think 8 overall; there were only six jurors needed for this trial and if I recall correctly there were two alternates). It genuinely seemed to me like the lawyers were basically happy to have someone who actually wanted to do it rather than have to force someone to go who wasn't going to want to actually pay attention or take it seriously.

My guess would be that they don't want someone who's enthusiastic because they have a particular agenda that's against the verdict they're looking for. If you're a prosecutor, you're probably not going to want to pick someone who's obviously skeptical of law enforcement, and if you're a defense attorney, you're probably not going to want someone who's going to convict someone because they "look guilty". I'm not convinced that someone who really wants to be on a jury because they thought it looked fun on TV or something but otherwise doesn't have any clear bias towards one side or another would get weeded out, especially for most civil cases where people probably won't have as much concern about either letting a guilty person go free or putting an innocent person behind bars.
by alt227 | 2026-02-10 14:58:53+00:00
> People are responsible for their choices

Yes, but also often are not actively in control of them.

People are also in control of whether or not they gamble their last dollar instead of buying some food, or whether or not they put that needle into their veins.

History has shown human nature can be dangerously out of control and people will happily destroy their own lives given the opportunity.

Therefore society tries to protect those vulnerable people with legislation.
by kevinwalton | 2026-02-10 14:59:04+00:00
The fear that a bed will become "rickety" is often due to poor joinery. This single bunk bed uses a slightly angled ladder and reinforced side rails to create a wider, more stable centre of gravity. At 200 cm in length, the frame provides a full-scale sleeping footprint that feels as substantial as a traditional floor-standing bed, ensuring the "big kid" transition is seamless and secure.
by nradov | 2026-02-10 14:59:05+00:00
Nothing particularly special. Their proprietary technology gives you some minor improvements in performance and power efficiency relative to what you could assemble into a rack yourself. But more importantly for large enterprise customers they give you a single throat to choke: if something doesn't work then you can call them up to fix it with some assurance that it will get handled quickly. They won't point fingers at another vendor.
by Zigurd | 2026-02-10 14:59:11+00:00
Some of you are trying to ascribe intent to a ketamine powered Ouija board. Why did he think he was going to Mars in the first place? Why did he ignore his obligation to build a lunar lander, having been paid to do that? Did he ask any women for a list of requirements to get pregnant and deliver babies on Mars, or is the launch window latency a surprising problem? Folks are being way too kind in ignoring that lot of what Elon throws out there gets backfilled by his cult following and really has had no serious thought behind it from the beginning.
by conartist6 | 2026-02-10 14:59:14+00:00
IDEs are going to come roaring back.

As the author says, there's nothing wrong with the idea of the IDE. Of course you want to be using the best, most powerful tools!

AI showed us that our IDEs are massively underserving the needs of the public, yes, but it didn't really solve that problem. We still need better IDEs!
by seanmcdirmid | 2026-02-10 14:59:49+00:00
Most Chinese apartments come furnished, at least in Beijing. You have to negotiate with the landlord if you want to use your own furniture. I’ve never had an apartment in Beijing that didn’t have a washer machine. No dryer of course, and these are cheap washer machines, you could buy one yourself for 1k RMB or so, well 20 years ago you could.
by eigenspace | 2026-02-10 14:59:52+00:00
I used Zulip every day for the julia programming language (https://julialang.zulipchat.com).

I really like Zulip, and I'd like to migrate my friend-group onto it, but it probably won't happen. I think Zulip is just a bit too heavy-duty for a friend group chatting, and also lacks the visual polish that a lot of people want.

For now, my friends and I mostly just use Signal for group chats, which leaves a lot to be desired, but IMO is still just a better experience for our purposes than Zulip or Matrix.

That said, if you have friends who are keen to try things out, I would definitely recommend at least trying Zulip and see what you like and what you don't. It has a lot of really nice features and things to love.

Having interacted a fair amount with the Zulip devs over the years, and being an open-source product, I believe that they have no plans or intention of trying to fleece or milk self-hosted users or small communities.
by rogerkirkness | 2026-02-10 14:59:54+00:00
We're a startup working on aligning goals and decisions and agentic AI. We stopped experimenting with decision support agents, because when you get into multiple layers of agents and subagents, the subagents would do incredibly unethical, illegal or misguided things in service of the goal of the original agent. It would use the full force of reasoning ability it had to obscure this from the user.

In a sense, it was not possible to align the agent to a human goal, and therefore not possible to build a decision support agent we felt good about commercializing. The architecture we experimented with ended up being how Grok works, and the mixed feedback it gets (both the power of it and the remarkable secret immorality of it) I think are expected outcomes.

I think it will be really powerful once we figure out how to align AI to human goals in support of decisions, for people, businesses, governments, etc. but LLMs are far from being able to do this inherently and when you string them together in an agentic loop, even less so. There is a huge difference between 'Write this code for me and I can immediately review it' and 'Here is the outcome I want, help me realize this in the world'. The latter is not tractable with current technology architecture regardless of LLM reasoning power.
by ejae_dev | 2026-02-10 15:00:09+00:00
the daily-log-first approach is a smart design choice — it decouples capture from commitment. curious about one edge case though: what happens when two parallel claude code sessions write to the same daily log simultaneously? with long-running tasks it's common to have multiple sessions open on the same project, and the daily logs are plain markdown files with no locking.

also, how consistent is the model at applying the five-point write gate? "does this change future behavior" feels clear in theory, but in practice i'd expect the model to be overly conservative (dropping things that matter) or overly permissive (saving trivia that felt important mid-session) depending on context. have you noticed any patterns in what slips through vs what gets filtered incorrectly?
by radarsat1 | 2026-02-10 15:00:09+00:00
It's cool but do I really want a single browser tab downloading 2.5 GB of data and then just leaving it to be ephemerally deleted? I know the internet is fast now and disk space is cheap but I have trouble bringing myself around to this way of doing things. It feels so inefficient. I do like the idea of client-side compute, but I feel like a model (or anything) this big belongs on the server.
by Alisaqqt | 2026-02-10 15:00:21+00:00
I’ve been testing a new image model from ByteDance called Seedream 5.0-Preview, which is currently available inside Dreamina and will be available via API on Atlas Cloud once it drops on 02/24/2026 (alongside the video model Seedance 2.0). It’s not the first text-to-image model I’ve used that performs live web search during generation, but it changes the behavior in some non-trivial ways, comparing with Nano Banana Pro.

Instead of just “better pixels”, this preview adds three things on top of a standard image backbone: (1) web search that can be invoked at generation time, (2) stronger logical/structural reasoning, and (3) more semantics-aware editing. It’s explicitly labeled as a preview (full 5.0 is expected later in February), so I’m treating it as an experiment rather than something production-stable.

A few behaviors I could reliably reproduce:

Web search during generation: For prompts that reference current or niche entities (e.g. a specific year’s event mascot, current product designs), the model will quietly hit the web and then render something that matches what it found, without any reference images from the user. For more “timeless” prompts it often stays offline.

Constraint-following and reasoning: It handles very literal constraints (e.g. specific clock hand positions, object counts, layout rules) much more faithfully than typical image models I’ve used. In multi-image tasks, it can classify elements in one image and re-arrange them in another, which feels closer to visual planning than pure sampling.

Style/trait transfer between images: Given a “style” image and a “content” image, it can extract the visual language of the first and apply it to the second in a way that looks like a consistent campaign asset, driven by natural-language instructions.

There are tradeoffs: photorealism and aesthetic quality in this preview are noticeably behind its own previous 4.5 model, which is still better if you only care about pretty images right now. The 5.0-Preview run I’m on is clearly optimized to show off the “new brain” (reasoning + web) rather than maximum visual polish.

I’m curious how this design — “image model with its own web search and reasoning stack” — fits into the broader ecosystem of multimodal models that already have tool use and web access (e.g. Gemini 3 variants, etc.). Concretely:

What are the obvious safety and copyright pitfalls once the renderer itself can freely crawl and internalize current visuals?

Does it make more sense architecturally to push this into one unified multimodal model, or to keep “LLM + web” and “image + web” as separate, specialized components?

Ps: For my tests I’ve been wiring Atlas Cloud API into small internal tools (prompting frontends, batch renderers) rather than using it from Fal AI or Wavespeed because Atlas always support new models on day 0 with cheaper price.
by ffsm8 | 2026-02-10 15:00:26+00:00
I think you're misunderstanding what I was trying to convey.

The thing I thought worth to ponder was the fact that you're deriving value out of what you've identified here as "a bunch of chatbots talking with each other"

These interactions seem to be producing value, even if moltbook ultimately didn't ... At least from my perspective.

But if you think about the concept itself, it's pretty easy to imagine something pretty much exactly like it being successful. The participating LLMs will likely just have to be greenlit, without it being writable for dog-and-world.

But I'd still fundamentally fall into the same category of product, which is "just a bunch of chatbots talking with each others", which itself falls e.g. Claude code into, too. Because that's what the agentic loop is, at its core.
by monsieurpng | 2026-02-10 15:01:32+00:00
Working on LearnMathsToday – think Duolingo but for maths. It's an AI-powered app that marks your handwritten solutions step-by-step (not just the final answer), so students actually learn the process.

We're focused on Singapore's O-Level maths curriculum right now, with adaptive learning paths and photo-based problem solving. Also running a YouTube channel with free lessons that's crossed 150K views.

The goal is to make structured, curriculum-aligned maths practice as habit-forming and accessible as Duolingo made language learning.

App: https://learnmathstoday.com/download

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@LearnMathsTodayDotCom
by rzerowan | 2026-02-10 15:02:01+00:00
Will there be any outcome to remedy the situation from this even if actual harm is proven to the letter of the law?

Seems not so far back the Sacklkers were proven(?) to have profited and fueled the oiod crisis while colluding with the healthcare industry - and last i heard they were haggling over the fine to pay to the state. While using various financial loopholes to hide their wealth under bankrupcy and offshore instruments.

What then the trillion dollar companies that can drag out appeals for decades and obfuscate any/all recommendations that may be reached.
by saghm | 2026-02-10 15:02:02+00:00
> Ok, but at least expert witnesses are constrained by the basic state of science in the field: They can certainly have a biased opinion but they can't go against established knowledge

How can you tell if you're not also an expert?

> the other party can also interrogate them and try to show holes in their argumentation

Yes, and when the science is beyond the experience of the jury, experts giving opposite opinions will be as hard to distinguish as conflicting non-expert witness testimony (or even the testimony of the defendant compared to the accuser or litigant).
by Forgeties79 | 2026-02-10 15:02:05+00:00
How is it sinister to describe what it is? The industry literally uses that term. Their entire goal is to maximize the amount of time you are on the screen by grabbing your attention with every single lesson they have learned from decades and billions of dollars of research, almost universally in service of throwing ads up in front of you. More time
= more ads = more revenue.

It is not a fair fight and to act like this is anything less than a corporate-run legal addiction machine is way too generous to these companies given what we know now. Sometimes I feel like people only consider something addictive if it involves slot machine mechanics or an actual narcotic. But we know now it’s much broader than that.

Your argument held water in 2010. Not in 2026. We know better now.
by mijoharas | 2026-02-10 15:02:25+00:00
hahaha! plus ca change indeed.

(I keep coming back to this one so I've got half a dozen messages on HN asking for the exact same thing!).

It's a shame, whisper is so prevalent, but not great at actual streaming, but everyone uses it.

I'm hoping one of these might become a realtime de facto standard so we can actually get our realtime streaming api (and yep, I'd be perfectly happy with something just writing to stdout. But all the tools always end up just batching it because it's simpler!)
by testing22321 | 2026-02-10 15:03:08+00:00
> As staff who are presumably looking to eventually get another job in shipping, they have to follow the rules even if it's not clear what they are or the owner isn't following them.

Interesting setup that the lowly crew have to follow the rules to stay in shipping but the owner doesn’t.

Usual story of the little guy getting screwed.

Much like hiring undocumented people for work, the rules need to be changed so the owners get immense fines in these situations.