MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by andkenneth | 2026-02-28 01:43:38+00:00
I'm wondering how this plays out in practice. Does the administration decide to strongarm contractors into cutting all ties? Will that extend to someone like google who provides compute to anthropic? Will the administration just plain ignore any court ruling? (as they've shown they're ready to do recently with the tarrifs situation)

If the legal system works as intended, the blast radius isn't too big here and something Anthropic will accept even if it hurts them. Maybe they even win and get the supply chain risk designation lifted. But I have zero faith that the legal system will make a difference here. It all comes down to how far the administration wants to go in imposing it's will.

Bleak.
by adastra22 | 2026-02-28 01:44:11+00:00
This restriction is viral. If AWS hosts Claude models, Lockheed can no longer use AWS for anything. Every defense contractor will pull out. What if Lockheed uses Asana or Jira or Slack? Guess what, they better not use Claude ANYWHERE in their organizations, or else all defense contractors will have to drop these products. Any any other company whose product they use in the design or manufacture of their products - if anyone, anywhere is using Claude products, they have to be dropped.

The downstream effects of this are HUGE.
by drawnwren | 2026-02-28 01:44:11+00:00
I'm in a weird spot where I do agree with your assessment of the core claim. But putting that aside, in the world where the DoW's claim _is_ correct -- I think you don't have any choice other than to designate them a supply chain risk.

Disregarding who is right or wrong for a moment, if the DoW are right (which I'm not personally inclined to believe, but we're ignoring that for the moment) -- how else can they avoid secondhand Claude poisoning?

Supposing they really want to use their software for things disallowed by Claude's (now or future) ToS, it seems like designating it a supply chain risk is the only way they can ensure that their contractors don't include Claude (either indirectly as a wrapper or tertially through use of generated code etc)
by WalterBright | 2026-02-28 01:44:29+00:00
Jet engines - Frank Whipple (England) and Franz Ohain (Germany) invented them. In both cases the governments were not interested in them until flying jet aircraft were demonstrated. Lockheed was ordered by the government to abandon their jet engine project and focus on piston engines instead (which resulted in the US having to get started on jet aircraft by buying British machines).

Human genome - J. Venter was the first to sequence the human genome, privately funded.

the entire space industry - Liquid fuel rockets were pioneered by Goddard, through private funding.

Radar - originated from late 19th-century experiments on radio wave reflection, pioneered by Heinrich Hertz in 1886. While Christian Hülsmeyer patented a "telemobiloscope" for ship detection in 1904

The proto-Internet - Pioneered by Samuel Morse, see "The Victorian Internet" by Tom Standage. Privately funded.

Optical data storage - Invented by D Gregg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Paul_Gregg, at a private company.

Nuclear energy - a very long list of contributors. See "The Making of the Atomic Bomb".

And so on.
by thimabi | 2026-02-28 01:44:32+00:00
The problem with forcing public policy on companies is that companies are ultimately made from individuals, and surely you can’t force public policy down people’s throats.

I’m sure nothing good can come out of strong-arming some of the brightest scientists and engineers the U.S. has. Such a waste of talent trying to make them bend over to the government’s wishes… instead of actually fostering innovation in the very competitive AI industry.
by mulmen | 2026-02-28 01:44:37+00:00
This smells like funding schools based on student test results. Won't it disadvantage the most vulnerable areas? If I live in a state with some poor areas and some wealthy areas why would the most qualified people not compete to represent the wealthy areas?

If the problem is representatives using insider knowledge to enrich themselves then just hire more Inspectors General. If the problem isn't insider knowledge specifically then make whatever allows them to get rich illegal.
by matheusmoreira | 2026-02-28 01:45:00+00:00
> not allowing GCC to be used as a library

Nothing wrong with that move from a strategic point of view. The objective was to leverage GCC and make others play ball. People who wanted GCC should have been forced to do things the free software way.

Only problem with this is it turned out GCC didn't provide enough leverage. Replacing GCC wasn't difficult enough. People implemented LLVM instead and the rest is history.

Compare that to Linux which literally leaves companies behind in the dust when they refuse to merge. No kernel ABI stability: if out-of-tree stuff gets broken it's not their problem. Companies have a choice: play ball or pay the maintenance costs required to keep up with the biggest free software project ever. That's how it should be.

> his comments on Jeffrey Esptein

By "everything" I of course meant his ideas on computer freedom which is the context of this thread. I don't know or care about his opinions on Epstein.

> a refusal to in any way compromise

As he should. If anything he's not extreme enough. Compromise is the root of many evils.

> a recognition that free software, while nice, does not in any way solve the underlying issues he claims it does

Elaborate.
by nwallin | 2026-02-28 01:45:08+00:00
That's not true. The Bible provides a recourse for unwanted pregnancies in the form of a procedure to perform an abortion.

Which is another reason the Bible should be banned from being accessed by minors. If a child needs an abortion, they should consult a medical professional. They should not read about how to perform an abortion in an app on their phone and attempt to perform the procedure themselves.
by uniq7 | 2026-02-28 01:45:30+00:00
In this case I think the opponents made a huge mistake by calling themselves Department of War, and it's something that can be exploited.

Department of Defense was the actual lie, the newspeak term. They were not really defending anything, they were using military power globally for pursuing economic interests. However, it was easy to convince people that the whole endeavor was a good thing, because defending your country against the baddies is good, and you should support anyone doing that (otherwise you'd be a traitor!). Thank you for your service (defending us).

On the other hand, the term Department of War is hard to sell, because most people don't want to participate in a war or support someone who wants to start one. Thank you for your service... invading other countries? killing and raping innocents? ransacking resources?

This is an irrelevant detail, but if I'd read the title "Department of Defense vs. Meta", I'd first think Meta is leaking confidential info to other countries. However, if I'd read "Department of War vs. Meta", I'd think Meta doesn't want to promote an unnecessary war.
by dragonwriter | 2026-02-28 01:47:07+00:00
> FISA warrants were even more incredible, with well below 1% rejection rates.

That's potentially much less incredible, and in any case not directly comparable, because its the final, not on-first-submission, rate, and also doesn't count applications withdrawn after a preliminary rejection that allows modificaitons but before a final ruling. It only counts the share of those that get a final ruling where that is an approval.
by nkurz | 2026-02-28 01:47:42+00:00
I was bothered that it seemed to be an extremely direct copy of this 2008 German commercial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mTLO2F_ERY

It took the same scenes, but in keeping with the theme, made them slightly worse.

If they didn't acknowledge this somewhere, they should be called out on it.
by mindslight | 2026-02-28 01:47:44+00:00
The "Orwellian newspeak" at least makes an effort to aim for positive values, despite falling short. That's the point.

Also, please define what you mean by "leftist". It seems like it just refers to anybody who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law these days? That used to just be called being an American, but social media is a hell of a drug.
by bikelang | 2026-02-28 01:48:12+00:00
> It seems all at once, everywhere that many groups that have a vested interest in forcing precedent and compliance of non-anonymous access across the computer world. It smacks of something less-than-organic.

I think you’ve nailed it here. How many of these people campaigned on this issue? Where were the grassroots to push this? Where did this even come from?

Somebody, somewhere - with a heck of a lot of money - wants to see this happen. And I don’t think they have good intentions with it.
by eth0up | 2026-02-28 01:48:31+00:00
You seem pretty smart. If suddenly, after over a decade, schizophrenic artifacts appear in one single isolated subject, - a subject well known and documented with equal and greater concerns among highly credible sources - does that perhaps imply that the subject itself may be inducing schizophrenia? Maybe a pathological system is inducing pathological effects? Strangely, I feel fine.

Regardless, gaslight as you will; The public will see the implications, which is that questioning LLMs, to some (you?), is symptomatic of psychological pathology. In my opinion, that level of trust, or Faith, is naive for such a novel but powerful technology.

And the basic premise seems to be: user questions sensitive system attributes. Pathologize user. Imply system is infallible and any doubt suggests mental incapacitation. Point out all possible flaws in user while deflecting any attention to system.

That's tried and true. I wish you luck. Meanwhile, the message becomes clearer and clearer.
by Leftium | 2026-02-28 01:48:54+00:00
My app uses this moonshine-voice python package, so you can experience it yourself here: https://rift-transcription.vercel.app/local-setup

I made moonshine the default because it has the best accuracy/latency (aside from Web Speech API, but that is not fully local)

I plan to add objective benchmarks in the future, so multiple models can be compared against the same audio data...

---

I made a custom WebSocket server for my project. It defines its own API (modeled on the Sherpa-onnx API), but you could adjust it to output the OpenAI Realtime API: https://github.com/Leftium/rift-local

(note rift-local is optimized for single connections, or rather not optimized to handle multiple WS connections)
by shelled | 2026-02-28 01:49:05+00:00
History and the world are strewn with people (and hence entities) that fled the land and kept the fight on (and alive) from outside, and it mattered. In fact, it helps. Other options could be acquiesce or extinguish.

But, is there a safe haven that'd stand up against the blatant bullying and daily (or more frequent) national threats/trolling (which often stem from social media and sometimes become reality)?
by charcircuit | 2026-02-28 01:49:34+00:00
1. The restriction applies to even writing documentation, adding comments, scanning for bugs, or even scanning for security vulnerabilities in systems for fully autonomous weapons. As automated vulnerability discovery gets stronger and stronger it is critical that have the ability to have a strong defense.

2. It is a principled take on that private companies shouldn't be making the decisions what their tools can and can't be used for in such an important sector.
by hash872 | 2026-02-28 01:49:58+00:00
The Department of Energy funded much of the early research into fracking in the 70s

https://www.energy.gov/hgeo/articles/does-early-investment-s...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking_in_the_United_States
https://clearpath.org/tech-101/hydraulic-fracturing-a-public...
by mwkaufma | 2026-02-28 01:50:05+00:00
"The reason is that the compiler decided to allocate the backing store on the stack. Because it knows what size it needs to be (10 times the size of a task) it can allocate storage for it in the stack frame of process2 instead of on the heap1. Note that this depends on the fact that the backing store does not escape to the heap inside of processAll."

This is definitionally small-object boxing optimizations.
by skissane | 2026-02-28 01:50:30+00:00
> If Trump can do this to Anthropic, a Dem President will do it to xAI. We have no idea where the contagion stops.

Will the next Democratic President do it to xAI? On what grounds?

The Biden admin negotiated a contract with a supplier with terms which are – to the best of my knowledge – rather unprecedented – do Pentagon contracts normally have terms like this, restricting the government's use of the supplied good or service? Do missile or plane contracts with Boeing or Lockheed Martin contain restrictions on what kind of operations that hardware will be used in? I don't think that's the norm. So the next administration tears up a contract made by the previous admin with unusual terms – nothing unexpected about that. The "hardball" of declaring them a "supply chain risk" is escalating this dispute to a never-before-seen level, but the underlying action of cancelling the contract isn't. I honestly suspect the "supply chain risk" aspect will be suspended by the courts, and/or heavily watered down in the implementation; but the act of cancelling the contract in itself seems legally airtight.

Next Democratic administration inherits a contract with xAI (and quite possibly OpenAI and/or Google too) – with presumably standard terms. I can totally understand the political desire for vengeance. But what's the actual legal justification for it? Facially, the current administration has a politically neutral justification for what they are doing, even if some suspect there is some deeper political motivation. Will the next Democratic administration have such a facial justification for doing the same to xAI?

Plus, Democrats always sell themselves on "we obey norms". They have the structural disadvantage that either they keep their word on that, and can't do the same things back, or they break their word, and risk losing the people who supported them based on that word.
by jmyeet | 2026-02-28 01:50:33+00:00
The part of this you're missing is that China doesn't want it [1].

Why? Because China will make their own. This has been obvious to me for at least 1-2 years. The US doesn't allow EUV lithography machines from ASML to be exported to China either. I believe the previous export ban on the most advanced chip was a strategic error because it created a captive market of Chinese customers for Chinese chips.

China will replicate EUV far quicker than Western governments expect. All it takes is to throw money at a few key ASML engineers and researchers and the commitment of the state to follow through with this project, which they will.

I'm absolutely reminded of the atomic bomb. This created quite the debate in military and foreign policy circles about what to do. The prevailing presumption was that the USSR would take 20 years to develop their own bomb if it ever happened.

It took 4 years.

And then in 1952 the US detonated the first thermonuclear bomb. The USSR followed suit in 1953.

[1]: https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...
by renewiltord | 2026-02-28 01:51:30+00:00
None of this is relevant. They’re saying “our stuff can’t be used effectively for X but you can use it for Y”. It’s like if someone was saying “dude the o ring is going to fail on the shuttle launch” and you respond “if we have random people permitted to stop the shuttle launch every time we will never get off the ground”.

The rhetorical technique of generalizing a specific constraint is very effective in the peanut gallery but hopefully we don’t want our shuttles to blow up.
by orionblastar | 2026-02-28 01:51:43+00:00
The main target is businesses for AI. Not the average person, but Microsoft wants to have the average person use Copilot. https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1p92qzs/you_hea... But people are rejecting Copilot, and Microsoft has most of their datacenters not in use except for clients like OpenAI. OpenAI might take its business to Google or Amazon because Microsoft Copilot competes directly with them.
by bsder | 2026-02-28 01:51:51+00:00
> The problem isn't Google.

Wrong. Google is very much the problem. If Google had not been allowed to buy YouTube, for example, YouTube and Google would have had to compete with one another.

> The problem is that people want a "free internet" without ads, and without any form of data harvesting. But they also don't want to pay any money, because the internet, as we all know, "is free".

We have evidence against. Several video sites were taking payments back before YouTube became dominant (especially the Japanese ones, for example). YouTube squashed them all by being "free" not by being "better".
by pinkmuffinere | 2026-02-28 01:53:09+00:00
It's fascinating to me that this decision was set for 5 pm ET on a friday, and I think it may be more responsible to set big deadlines like this for a time while the stock market is open. I imagine this will negatively impact confidence in the US economy at large, and stock markets will reflect that. But since the market is closed, we'll have to wait till Monday, with the tension/anticipation of a drop building. If the deadline had been set for say, midday thursday, the market would have responded immediately, but at least you wouldn't have the building anxiety over the weekend. Of course the result wasn't known ahead of time, and I imagine some people will argue that the weekend will give investors time to cool off instead of following their gut reaction. But personally I don't find those arguments very convincing.
by decidu0us9034 | 2026-02-28 01:53:11+00:00
It's not privacy-respecting at all to create some side channel between your browser and OS to transmit some information about a "user profile." If this were about browser vendors it might make sense but they're targeting operating systems (presumably for the malicious vendor lock-in type of reasons you cite? idk, it's strange). I would like someone to explain how this would even be implemented securely. It's certainly non-trivial.
by jkrejcha | 2026-02-28 01:53:48+00:00
> Does that mean that the admin will have to manage dob of every student when creating accounts ?

That already happens to some extent although the mechanism by which this happens might depend on the school district. The `dateOfBirth` LDAP attribute is probably the most obvious method (which admittedly should probably not be used due to the ease in accessing this info in the default configuration) but there are others.

In secondary school when my account was set up we were told that our initial password (that we had to change on first logon) was our DOB
by renewiltord | 2026-02-28 01:54:02+00:00
Lots of these guys are Chinese and Indian. They’re not dumb enough to join a union knowing what unions do to minorities haha. Last time the unions had power they lobbied to make sure these guys couldn’t be citizens. And already the Georgia unions got the Koreans deported and Korea is an unequivocal ally.

Look at these names. It would be suicide. Prepare to have citizenship revoked if the unions get their power back.

Atish Agarwala
Current employee, Google, Research Scientist
Gabriel Wu
Current employee, OpenAI, Member of Technical Staff
Leo Gao
Current employee, OpenAI, Researcher
William Feng
Current employee, OpenAI, Research Scientist
Angelica Chen
Current employee, Google, Senior Research Scientist
by sershe | 2026-02-28 01:54:47+00:00
So? That is exactly how every other lever like this applies, by both parties. It has absolutely nothing in common with Russian arbitrary draconian speech repression and to suggest that it is insulting. It's like, technically wage tax is like forced labor so it's basically similar to slavery, right? Somehow very few people would make this argument.

Now, the reason the admin can do that is because every district in the country is yoked to federal funds. This gives them a massive power lever. As far as massive power goes, it's strange that HN understands this well with surveillance but not with anything else. Surveillance is really great, if you could magically make it only usable by people you agree with, say to find lost pets or catch armed robbers and nothing else.

However if you create a power, it will also be used by people you disagree with, for the purposes you abhor. The only solution is to remove the power.

If not, what is your other solution, never allow people who disagree with you to win elections?
by no_wizard | 2026-02-28 01:55:13+00:00
This letter and all of this is meaningless.

If they actually wanted to do something they wouldn’t have sat back and funded Republican political campaigns because they were pissed about the head of the ftc under Biden.

But they didn’t. They gave millions to this guy and now they’re feigning ignorance or change ir wherever this is.

It’s meaningless. Utterly meaningless.

Get what you pay for, I suppose.
by jmyeet | 2026-02-28 01:56:19+00:00
Once again we have the US actually doing what the says China might do in the future.

It's true that Chinese companies are extensions of the state. But they serve the state. And the state has thus far served the citizenry eg raising 800M people out of extreme poverty. China's HSR network of 32,000 miles of track was built in 20 years for ~$900B. That's less than the annual US military budget.

You can look at the relationship between the US government and US companies in one of two ways:

1. US companies serve the government but the government doesn't serve the people. After all, where's our infrastructure, healthcare, housing and education? or

2. The US government serves US corporate interests to enrich the ultra-wealthy.

Either way a handful of people are getting incredibly wealthy and all it takes is for a little corruption. Political donations, jobs after government, positions on boards and so on.
by elbanic | 2026-02-28 01:56:34+00:00
The moment I let my guard down, my AI agent started burning through my wallet.
I stepped away for a brief moment to grab a coffee, and it got stuck in an infinite loop, trying to fix a bug with the same failing approach over and over for 30 minutes. By the time I checked back, it had chewed through $10 in tokens.

That moment made me realize, AI agents lack the "Struggle Equity" that senior developers carry.

We have a "gut feeling" for architectural risks such as race conditions, retry storms, consistency failures, learned through years of painful experience. But these patterns don't always surface when we're context switching or delegating to AI.

Dev Sentinel is my attempt to externalize this intuition.

Instead of just documenting knowledge, it treats failure patterns as triggers. When the agent is about to walk into a trap I've fallen into before, Dev Sentinel signals a reminder. Crucially, it evolves these isolated moments of frustration into generalized patterns, turning subjective struggle into reusable architectural intuition.

It’s an experiment: Can we turn our intuition into automated architectural guardrails?

Dev Sentinel is my attempt to externalize this intuition.

I’m looking for feedback from others who have tried to formalize their "gut feelings" into code. Does this resonate with your workflow, or is there a better way to offload "Struggle Equity" to AI agents?