MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Traster | 2026-02-03 22:15:49+00:00
I'm british so I apprecitate this condition, we need to talk down, we need to down play. An American will celebrate an LLM surprising them, a brit will be disappointed - until an LLM suprises by failing and then we'll be delighted.

There's a lot of hand wringing about how far wrong LLMs can go, but can we be serious for a second, if you're running <whatever the name is now>, you're tech savvy and bear the consequences. This isn't simple child abuse like teenage girls on facebook.

There is a reason people are buying mac minis for this and it's cool. We really need to be more excited by opportunity, not threatened.
by Mountain_Skies | 2026-02-03 22:15:55+00:00
Any country capable of producing nuclear warheads will also be able to toss up enough BBs and other small objects into LEO to wipe out most of Starlink and anything else in LEO. At least on Earth data centers in theory can be hidden and physically hardened. In orbit, even a crude rocket able to reach that plane can become a weapon of mass satellite destruction. Even if those orbits clear out in four or five years, by then whatever ugliness is going on down on the surface of Earth will likely have resolved one way or the other. Starlink is a great military asset for a superpower pushing around smaller states in ways that aren't an existential threat to them. In a real conflict, it's a fragile target beyond the strike capacities of much of the developing world but easily destroyed by any moderate level industrial nation.
by dagss | 2026-02-03 22:16:19+00:00
Not an AI researcher and I don't really know, but intuitively it makes a lot of sense to me.

To do well as an LLM you want to end up with the weights that gets furthest in the direction of "reasoning".

So assume that with just one language there's a possibility to get stuck in local optima of weights that do well on the English test set but which doesn't reason well.

If you then take the same model size but it has to manage to learn several languages, with the same number of weights, this would eliminate a lot of those local optima because if you don't manage to get the weights into a regime where real reasoning/deeper concepts is "understood" then it's not possible to do well with several languages with the same number of weights.

And if you speak several languages that would naturally bring in more abstraction, that the concept of "cat" is different from the word "cat" in a given language, and so on.
by topspin | 2026-02-03 22:16:22+00:00
What happened here is what always happens with all printed and digital material that goes through some evidentiary process.

The shot-callers demand the material, which is a task fobbed off onto some nobody intern who doesn't matter (deliberately, because the lawyers and career LEOs don't want any "officer of the court" or other "party" to put eyes on things they might need to deny knowing about later.) They use only the most primitive, mechanical method possible, with little to no discretion. The collected mass of mangled junk is then shipped to whoever, either in boxes or on CD-ROM/DVD (yes, still) or something. Then, the reverse process is done, equally badly, again by low-level staff, also with zero discretion and little to no technical knowledge or ability, for exactly the same reasons, to get the material into some form suitable for filing or whatever.

Through all of this, the subtle details of data formats and encodings are utterly lost, and the legal archive fills with mangled garbage like raw quoted-printable emails. The parties involved have other priorities, such as minimizing the number of people involved in the process, and tight control over the number of copies created. Their instinct is not to bring in a bunch of clever folk that might make the work product come out better, because "better" for them is different than "better" for Twitter or Facebook. Also, these disclosures are inevitably and invariably challenged by time: the obligation to provide one thing or another is fought to the last possible minute, and when the word does finally go out there is next to no time to piddle around with details.

In the Epstein case, the disclosures were done years ago, the original source material (computers, accounts, file systems, etc.) have all long since been (deliberately) destroyed, and what the feds have is the shrapnel we see today.
by rrm1977 | 2026-02-03 22:17:35+00:00
You have a veyr good point here. Sadly many people try to sell design thinking as a product without digging into its underpinning philosophy at all. This is driven by many business and egineering schools that tend to turn it into a creativity-making machine. Again sadly, it doesn't work. In order to benefit from design thinking, it is important look at it from the perspective of problem framing before the solution framing. You can check the Frame Innovation by Kees Dorst, who is built on the philosophy of Thomas Khun.

Another thing is that design thinking is sold as a process where we as desigenrs never think this way. The IDEO drove this approach to make it easy to understand. This is why I teach my students that design is an arena where all the factors and stages blend. You can check the last paper in the article about the Memoranda and Artfect as it sreflects on other proceeses such as the Agile.
by acdha | 2026-02-03 22:17:58+00:00
It’s a question of feedback time and consistency: e.g. if you run Prettier/Ruff in CI, someone has to wait minutes rather than milliseconds and you either have to fix build failures or grant your CI system commit privileges and deal with merge conflicts. This also means more total CI runner usage while someone’s laptop probably has 10 idle cores.

If it’s on a pull/merge request, you’re wasting reviewer time.

If the hook is blocking secrets, you can’t un-push it with 100% certainty so you have to revoke credentials.

For texts, I tend to have the equivalent of “pytest tests/unit/“ since those are fast and a good sanity check, especially for things like refactoring.

I also run our pre-commit checks in CI for consistency so we’re never relying on someone’s local environment (web editors exist) and to keep everyone honest about their environment.
by JumpCrisscross | 2026-02-03 22:18:27+00:00
Correct. Conquered or colonized in 1720 [1]. A century before the British colonized China with almost the same model (small garrison, literal Mandarin in charge). Put another way, the British controlled Hong Kong for longer than China has Tibet.

The coloniser-colonised model works in the New World. It’s silly outside it as a general model. (And it misfires completely when comparing America and China. Both were colonies. Both have colonized and hegemonised.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_expedition_to_Tibet_(1...
by adefa | 2026-02-03 22:18:34+00:00
Benchmarks using DGX Spark on vLLM 0.15.1.dev0+gf17644344

FP8: https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3-Coder-Next-FP8

Sequential (single request)

Prompt Gen Prompt Processing Token Gen
Tokens Tokens (tokens/sec) (tokens/sec)
------ ------ ----------------- -----------
521 49 3,157 44.2
1,033 83 3,917 43.7
2,057 77 3,937 43.6
4,105 77 4,453 43.2
8,201 77 4,710 42.2

Parallel (concurrent requests)

pp4096+tg128 (4K context, 128 gen):

n t/s
-- ----
1 28.5
2 39.0
4 50.4
8 57.5
16 61.4
32 62.0

pp8192+tg128 (8K context, 128 gen):

n t/s
-- ----
1 21.6
2 27.1
4 31.9
8 32.7
16 33.7
32 31.7
by 4887d30omd8 | 2026-02-03 22:18:36+00:00
This seems different. With a knife the stabbing is done by the human. That would be akin to a paintbrush or camera or something being used to create CSAM.

Here you have a model that is actually creating the CSAM.

It seems more similar to a robot that is told to go kill someone and does so. Sure, someone told the robot to do something, but the creators of the robot really should have to put some safeguards to prevent it.
by mongol | 2026-02-03 22:18:43+00:00
Let's say there is an earth killing event, and let's say there is an outpost on Mars with some people on it. How much does it really matter that some humans survive, in light of the enormous catastrohophe that killed all life on earth? Is it a very worthwhile objective for our species to persist a while longer, or should we not just accept that also life itself will will die out on geological or astronomical time scales?
by perrygeo | 2026-02-03 22:18:56+00:00
I feel the same way. LLMs errors sound most plausible to those who know least.

On complex topics where I know what I'm talking about, model output contains so much garbage with incorrect assumptions.

But complex topics where I'm out of my element, the output always sounds strangely plausible.

This phenomenon writ large is terrifying.
by browningstreet | 2026-02-03 22:19:16+00:00
Do you know the lifespan of those satellites? Do you know how many of those fall out (sorry, de-orbited) of space every year?

Do you know the cost of sending up a payload of them?

Do you know how much $$ you need to extract from those payloads to make the cost of sending them up make sense?

Do you know how much they've lied about Starlink revenue and subscription counts?
by patja | 2026-02-03 22:19:42+00:00
There is more to that clause:

Alone or in combination, annually buys, receives for the business’s commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes, alone or in combination, the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices.

So it only applies if you are buying or selling or sharing PII. Not if you just have 50,000 users/visitors to your website and keep it all private.
by vander_elst | 2026-02-03 22:20:25+00:00
I dunno, tbh I'd be in the camp of putting a banner 'run this at your own risk' and then let it go wild. Some people are going to get burnt, probably quite bad, but I guess it's more effective to learn like that rather than reading stuff upfront and take necessary precautions and maybe these will be cautionary tales also for others.

Thanks to the reports, hopefully, with time, some additional security measures will also be added to the product.
by rpcope1 | 2026-02-03 22:20:38+00:00
I am not surprised at all to see the W series Xeons with very high reliability. I know they tend to be pricier than AMD, and maybe not as fast, but I can't recall the last time I managed to kill an E3/E5/W series Xeon in the last 15 years, no matter how hard they're worked. Intel pooched it with the i-series core parts, but the workstation xeons have always been really reliable and more thrifty with power especially at idle than AMD.
by cromka | 2026-02-03 22:20:49+00:00
I am in the process of migrating from GMail and Proton using imapsync, since Proton's built-in tool imported some 95% of emails only.

Turns out Proton is super picky about RFC compliance and will reject anything that doesn't met the criteria, which sucks because GMail does exactly the opposite and will take almost anything you throw at it.

So I have so far written about 7 different regexes to fix some specific mailer issues to make them RFC compliant, with plenty more to go. And even then it still somewhat sucks because I am, effectively, modifying the emails to a state they were not received/sent in.
by matt_d | 2026-02-03 22:21:15+00:00
Main takeaway:

> Our experiments show that Intel’s port assignment policies can diverge significantly from the well-documented "least-loaded eligible port" model, illustrated in Figure 1. Using carefully crafted two-instruction microbenchmarks preceded by an LFENCE, we consistently observed dynamic scheduling policies. Instead of a fixed distribution across eligible ports, the port assignment changes as the unroll factor increases, producing distinct regions separated by cutoffs. As illustrated in Figure 2 for the “LFENCE; CBW; CBW” snippet, the port scheduler employs three different strategies depending on the number of loop iterations. At lower unroll factors, one sparsest port is strongly preferred. After a first cutoff, the allocation becomes approximately uniform across all eligible ports, albeit noisy. At a second cutoff, the scheduler shifts again, favoring a different subset of ports. The second cutoff’s unroll factor is twice the first’s unroll factor. These dynamics are not isolated: we observed similar cutoff-based transitions across multiple instructions and instruction pairs, and in some cases, the behavior also depends on the order of instructions in the block or on immediate values used in operands. We believe that this might serve as a new microarchitectural attack surface which can be harnessed towards implementing, e.g., covert channels, fingerprinting, etc. Importantly, the observed cutoffs are consistent and reproducible across multiple runs, but differ between CPU generations. These findings show that static eligibility sets cannot fully describe port assignment. Instead, the allocator follows multiple hidden policies, switching between them in ways not accounted for by existing models.
by mschuster91 | 2026-02-03 22:21:15+00:00
> I'm not at all familiar with French law, and I don't have any sympathy for Elon Musk or X. That said, is this a crime?

GDPR and DMA actually have teeth. They just haven't been shown yet because the usual M.O. for European law violators is first, a free reminder "hey guys, what you're doing is against the law, stop it, or else". Then, if violations continue, maybe two or three rounds follow... but at some point, especially if the violations are openly intentional (and Musk's behavior makes that very very clear), the hammer gets brought down.

Our system is based on the idea that we institute complex regulations, and when they get introduced and stuff goes south, we assume that it's innocent mistakes first.

And in addition to that, there's the geopolitical aspect... basically, hurt Musk to show Trump that, yes, Europe means business and has the means to fight back.

As for the allegations:

> The probe has since expanded to investigate alleged “complicity” in spreading pornographic images of minors, sexually explicit deepfakes, denial of crimes against humanity and manipulation of an automated data processing system as part of an organised group, and other offences, the office said in a statement Tuesday.

The GDPR/DMA stuff just was the opener anyway. CSAM isn't liked by authorities at all, and genocide denial (we're not talking about Palestine here, calm your horses y'all, we're talking about Holocaust denial) is a crime in most European jurisdiction (in addition to doing the right-arm salute and other displays of fascist insignia). We actually learned something out of WW2.
by javascriptfan69 | 2026-02-03 22:21:16+00:00
Social media should not allow algorithms to actively AMPLIFY disinformation to the public.

If people want to post disinformation that's fine, but the way that these companies push that information onto users is the problem. There either needs to be accountability for platforms or a ban on behavior driven content feeds.

People lying on the internet is fine. Social media algorithms amplifying the lie because it has high engagement is destroying our society.
by nextos | 2026-02-03 22:21:25+00:00
I really like everything Uri Alon (last author) publishes, but these types of studies have a history of inflating genetic contributions to phenotypes. Decoupling genetics from environment is not easy as they are both highly correlated.

In fact, the article discussion states: "Limitations of this study include reliance on assumptions of the twin design, such as the equal environment assumption". My take on this is that the main result of the article is probably true, but the 50% figure is likely to be inflated.
by retube | 2026-02-03 22:21:27+00:00
It's lala land nonsense.

- Data centres need a lot of power = giant vast solar panels

- Data centres need a lot of cooling. That's some almighty heatsinks you're going need

- They will need to be radiation-hardened to avoid memory corruption = even more mass

- The hardware will be redundant in like 2 years tops and will need replacing to stay competitive

- Data centres are about 100x bigger (not including solar panels and heat sinks) than the biggest thing we've ever put in space

Tesla is losing market share (and rank increasingly poorly against alternatives), his robots are gonna fail, this datacentre ambition needs to break the laws of physics, grok/twitter is a fake news pedo-loving cesspit that's gonna be regulated into oblivion. Its only down from here on out.
by simonw | 2026-02-03 22:21:35+00:00
A bit odd that this talks about AutoGPT and declares it a failure. Gary quotes himself describing it like this:

> With direct access to the Internet, the ability to write source code and increased powers of automation, this may well have drastic and difficult to predict security consequences.

AutoGPT was a failure, but Claude Code / Codex CLI / the whole category of coding agents fit the above description almost exactly and are effectively AutoGPT done right, and they've been a huge success over the past 12 months.

AutoGPT was way too early - the models weren't ready for it.
by colechristensen | 2026-02-03 22:21:42+00:00
We are not entirely sure the rule of law in America isn't already over.

People are putting a lot of weight on the midterm elections which are more or less the last line of defense besides a so far tepid response by the courts and even then consequence free defiance of court orders is now rampant.

We're really near the point of no return and a lot of people don't seem to notice.
by Terr_ | 2026-02-03 22:21:54+00:00
I'm convinced that >30% of this comes from ideas leaking out of fiction such as like Neuromancer, and percolating through the minds of wealthy people attracted to some of the concepts. Namely, the dream of being a hyper-wealthy dynasty, above any earthly government, controlling an extraterritorial Las Vegas Fiefdom In Space. (Which in the book, also hosted a powerful AI.)

Then they work backwards, trying to figure out some economic engine to make it happen. "Data centers" are (A) in-vogue for investment right now and (B) vaguely plausible, at least compared to having a space-casino.
by filleduchaos | 2026-02-03 22:22:03+00:00
"One hour is plenty of time for flight school" is not doing you any favours in coming across as knowing what you're talking about lol. Good freaking luck completing cross-country flights for an instrument rating with that endurance, never mind your certainty that there are "better options" as if the laws of physics have changed dramatically between 2020 and today.

And I mentioned workhorse aircraft for a reason, considering that the Velis Electro has a payload of...172 kilograms. Turboprops (gas turbines in general) are far more expensive and far less fuel efficient at low altitudes than their piston engine counterparts, which is precisely why piston engines still exist.

The fact that alternative fuels now exist for piston engines does not make the blatantly wrong nonsense you've been throwing out any more correct, such as your suggestion that you can "just run" piston engines on Jet-A. That is something that anyone who actually knows anything about internal combustion engines can tell you for free causes regular piston engines to detonate/knock. Your assertion that piston-engine aircraft have virtually no vital role was similarly ignorant.

And that's besides the fact that black-and-white "if you don't agree with whatever half-assed or plainly incorrect crap I say in support of The Cause™ you're an apologist" nonsense lost its efficacy years ago; you might want to find a better soapboxing tactic for 2026.
by fancy_pantser | 2026-02-03 22:22:12+00:00
This is great advice and will give a good background in programming that mirrors what you would learn in a CS program.

I'd also like to suggest studying the practical side of building software that many university programs don't spend much time on. To help address this gap, John Ousterhout wrote A Philosophy of Software Design. He has retired from teaching, but captured the hard-won lessons in the book.

This type of book offers the perspective I wish I had developed more before working in software teams early on, as it would have made me a more valuable developer right off the bat. Instead, I went deep on architecture patterns and language theory, becoming somewhat insufferable to my peers (who were very tolerant and kind in return!) for the first few years. 20 years later, I can see that I was trying to hammer a CS "peg" into a business-software-shaped hole :)
by Veen | 2026-02-03 22:22:21+00:00
There's a lot of, to put it lightly, bullshit in this blog article, starting with when openclaw was released (late November 2025, not January 25, 2026). The first bit of config — "listen: "0.0.0.0:8080" — is not the default. Default is loopback and it was when I first encounter this project at the end of December.

Essentially, the author has deliberately misconfigured an openclaw installation so it is as insecure as possible, changing the defaults and ignoring the docs to do so. Lied about what they've done and what the defaults are. Then "hacked" it using the vulnerability they created.

That said, there are definite risks to using something like openclaw and people who don't understand those risks are going to get compromised, but that doesn't justify blatant lying.
by mananaysiempre | 2026-02-03 22:22:27+00:00
Say, an endpoint tries to be helpful and responds with “no such user: foo” instead of “no such user”. Or, as a sibling comment suggests, any create-with-properties or set-property endpoint paired with a get-propety one also means game over.

Relatedly, a common (likely already obsolete?) exploitation target for black-hat SEO and even XSS is search pages that echo back the user’s search request.
by wackoos | 2026-02-03 22:22:48+00:00
Location: Europe (EU/US Remote)

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: Ruby on Rails, Hotwire, JavaScript, TypeScript, React, Next.js, Node.js, Docker, AWS

Email: joakin@gmail.com

Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B5VICEgHymhVICOVCgd7oKl2m4z...

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/joaquinvicente

I'm a full-stack Ruby on Rails engineer with nearly 20 years of experience building web applications across e-commerce, cybersecurity, and SaaS.
I specialize in designing robust systems and scalable APIs, improving performance, and shipping maintainable, well-tested code that supports business growth.
I thrive in collaborative environments, enjoy continuous learning, and value strong engineering practices.
by CuriouslyC | 2026-02-03 22:22:54+00:00
While the standard webpage retrieval tools in Claude Code/Codex do some sanitization and filtering, out of the box Pi defaults to curl. This is elegant but wasteful.

I threw together scurl as a simple wrapper over curl to provide agent friendly markdown from web pages, and to limit basic secret exfiltration patterns. I intend to add prompt injection detection/mitigation down the line.
by pinkmuffinere | 2026-02-03 22:22:59+00:00
I strongly dislike that this title has been modified to editorialize (presently titled as "Bruce Schneier: AI and the scaling of betrayal"). From the guidelines:

> please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

The title should be "AI and Trust", or "AI and Trust (2023)"