MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by JasonADrury | 2026-02-04 16:07:19+00:00
What a bizarre take.

>It just seems like journalism to me.

What does that even mean? Are you trying to suggest that journalism is inherently okay? A piece of despicable journalism simply cannot exist?

>No details were reported that would reasonably be expected to compromise anyone's safety.

So it's okay because he failed at what he set out to do? I'd counter that regardless of whether or not the doxing was successful, publishing this information serves no other purpose but to aid future attempts.

>Why should it be disallowed to investigate the ownership of a website?

You have to be kidding, I feel like anyone with even just the most basic social skills would be able to understand that absolutely nobody gives a shit about what you do as long as it doesn't affect other people.

> And, to that point, archive.is isn't so different from a store. They accept donations, so it seems perfectly reasonable to ask and answer questions about where the donations go IMO.

Obviously it is very different from a store.

Besides, why would you spend time trying to identify the owner of a store who is obviously not interested in identifying themselves? Surely the right choice is to pass in approximately 100% of such cases.
by mmahemoff | 2026-02-04 16:07:36+00:00
Sure, if the bot is actually committing fraud, but there's perfectly valid use cases that don't involve fraud, e.g., buying groceries, booking travel. And some banks provide APIs, so it's allowed for a bot to use them. However, any of that can easily lead to flagging by overzealous systems. Having a separate account flagged would give the user a better chance of keeping their regular payments system around while the issue is resolved.
by mekdoonggi | 2026-02-04 16:08:10+00:00
Could not possibly agree more. When did we accept, "Users are doing the scamming, not the company" as an excuse? If it's your platform, you should be held responsible for all the illegal actions that it enabled.

If a magazine published a page with a scam, they're responsible. Same should apply to social media.

I literally don't care if it puts them out of business because the moderation would be too severe.
by jacquesm | 2026-02-04 16:08:26+00:00
> There are no shortage of successful people who say so themselves.

Yes, I know some of those. But usually they are either very light users or they achieved their success before becoming heavy users.

I also know some pretty heavy users that are adamant that they are doing better than before but their environment does not usually agree. This is a thing that is fairly common with heavy drug users though.
by MaxLeiter | 2026-02-04 16:08:57+00:00
My friend and I were able to give claude a (no longer updated) unity arcade game. It decompiled it and created a one-to-one typescript port so it can run in the browser and now we're adding multiplayer support (for personal use, don't worry HN - we won't be distributing it). I'm very excited for what AI can do for legacy software.
by larodi | 2026-02-04 16:09:16+00:00
Yep, and there are so many of these examples, as you said - most SMBs. But I know also more recent companies having it similarly.

On the other hand - we did recently pitche some brand new RAG for TBs of complex schematics for a company in the Netherlands, and guess what - they didn't like the enterprise rates that the middleman offered, not because they did not like the demo (which they loved absolutely), and not because it was late or incomplete (it took less than a month). Had I approached this company directly, with normal rates, I would be deploying it in production already. It's very telling, and not good news for large SAAS vendors.
by SoftTalker | 2026-02-04 16:09:22+00:00
If you want people to vote at over 90% you need to make it compulsory as Australia does. IMO the problem with doing this is that the people who don't care or don't believe it matters are now going to be annoyed that they have to do it. They will vote randomly, or just pick the first candidate listed, etc. just to be done with it. I saw the same behavior in school by kids who didn't care about the standardized tests they had to take. They just filled in bubbles on the answer sheet at random.

If you don't care enough to inform yourself about the candidates or at least have a party affiliation, it's probably best that you don't vote.
by garettmd | 2026-02-04 16:09:53+00:00
prompt: what's the term for financial moves where you keep finding new investors to pay off the previous ones

GPT-4o mini: The term for financial moves where new investors are continually recruited to pay off previous ones is often referred to as a "Ponzi scheme." Another similar term is "pyramid scheme," where returns are paid to earlier investors from the contributions of newer investors, but with a structure that typically requires participants to recruit others to earn returns. Both schemes are unsustainable and illegal.
by lo_zamoyski | 2026-02-04 16:10:08+00:00
Uniqueness is not the aim. Who cares if something is uniquely bad? But in any case, yes, if you use LLMs uncritically, as a substitute for reasoning, then you obviously aren't doing any reasoning and your brain will atrophy.

But it is also true that most programming tedious and hardly enriching for the mind. In those cases, LLMs can be a benefit. When you have identified the pattern or principle behind a tedious change, an LLM can work like a junior assistant, allowing you to focus on the essentials. You still need to issue detailed and clear instructions, you still need to verify the work.

Of course, the utility of LLMs is a signal that either the industry is bad at abstracting, or that there's some practical limit.
by skybrian | 2026-02-04 16:10:10+00:00
When powerful people, companies, and other organizations like governments do a whole lot of very good and very bad things, figuring out whether this rounds to “more good than bad” or “more bad than good” is kind of a fraught question. I think Anthropic is still in the “more good than bad” range, but it doesn’t make sense to think about it along the lines of heros versus villains. They’ve done things that I put in the “seems bad” column, and will likely do more. Also more good things, too.

They’re moving towards becoming load-bearing infrastructure and then answering specific questions about what you should do about it become rather situational.
by bunderbunder | 2026-02-04 16:10:16+00:00
Not to mention that making the upper stage and payload fairing much bigger and heavier juat so you can recover them is not an automatic win. You can recover it, but you’ve also made it much more expensive in the first place. And the booster needs to be bigger, heavier and more expensive, too.

It’s not an automatic deal breaker, of course. Falcon 9 is obviously a promising success. But Starship is also working with some new challenges that Falcon 9 didn’t have to worry about.

Many of these stem from design compromises that were forced by Starship’s secondary goal of being capable of a trip to Mars. In that respect, it very much resembles another major project to produce a heavy launch vehicle with a reusable combination payload fairing and upper stage that is also capable of carrying a human crew: the Space Shuttle.
by mike_hearn | 2026-02-04 16:10:23+00:00
Truly magical thinking, you say? OK, let's rewind the clock to 2008. In that year two things happened:

- SpaceX launched its first rocket successfully.

- California voted to build high speed rail.

Eighteen years later:

- SpaceX has taken over the space industry with reusable rockets and a global satcom network, which by itself contains more than half of all satellites in orbit.

- Californian HSR has spent over thirteen billion dollars and laid zero miles of track. That's more than 2x the cost of the Starship programme so far.

Building stuff on Earth can be difficult. People live there, they have opinions and power. Their governments can be dysfunctional. Trains are 19th century technology, it should be easier to build a railway than a global satellite network. It may seem truly magical but putting things into orbit can, apparently, be easier.
by alyxya | 2026-02-04 16:10:40+00:00
The best and proven linear attention is the Gated DeltaNet or variations of it, used by Kimi and Qwen. Anyone who thinks linear attention can't work is forgetting that models are a fixed size so attention should always be compressable to be linear. Another way to think of the feasibility of linear attention is that the standard attention mechanism can be made linear simply by removing the softmax so the kv cache stores the kv product as a constant size matrix instead. Softmax just normalizes attention, but it's not theoretically required.
by yibg | 2026-02-04 16:10:46+00:00
My natural reaction here is like I think most others; that yes Grok / X bad, shouldn't be able to generate CSAM content / deepfakes.

But I am having trouble justifying in an consistent manner why Grok / X should be liable here instead of the user. I've seen a few arguments here that mostly comes down to:

1. It's Grok the LLM generating the content, not the user.

2. The distribution. That this isn't just on the user's computer but instead posted on X.

For 1. it seems to breakdown if we look more broadly at how LLMs are used. e.g. as a coding agent. We're basically starting to treat LLMs as a higher level framework now. We don't hold vendors of programming languages or frameworks responsible if someone uses them to create CSAM. Yes LLM generated the content, but the user still provided the instructions to do so.

For 2. if Grok instead generated the content for download would the liability go away? What if Grok generated the content to be downloaded only and then the user uploaded manually to X? If in this case Grok isn't liable then why does the automatic posting (from the user's instructions) make it different? If it is, then it's not about the distribution anymore.

There are some comparisons to photoshop, that if i created a deep fake with photoshop that I'm liable not Adobe. If photoshop had a "upload to X" button, and I created CSM using photoshop and hit the button to upload to X directly, is now Adobe now liable?

What am I missing?
by NoiseBert69 | 2026-02-04 16:10:49+00:00
Jet engines are tested for this.

They basically can shoot (not only throwing!) entire frozen chicken cadavers into engines with zero damage.

The only way they managed break the entire engine was to place little explosives on the turbine wings. Even that didn't cause a fatal disintegration of the jet engine.

Somewhere on YT there's a super entertaining video from a test facility.
by slfnflctd | 2026-02-04 16:10:49+00:00
I was using all lowercase as my default for internet comments (and personal journal entries) for at least a solid decade, starting from some point in the 90s. I saw it as a way to take a step back from being pretentious.

I eventually ran into so much resistance and hate about it that I decided conforming to writing in a way that people aren't actively hostile to was a better approach to communicating my thoughts than getting hung up on an aesthetic choice.

Having started out as a counterculture type, that will always be in my blood, but I've relearned this lesson over and over again in many situations-- it's usually better to focus on clear communication and getting things done unless your non-standard format is a critical part of whatever message you're trying to send at the moment.
by 4er_transform | 2026-02-04 16:10:51+00:00
Unions are everywhere and always a market distortion. Using political power to pull wealth into your union that would otherwise spread to the rest of society via competition (in labor and capital markets) is bad.

The only good unions are the ones that serve geopolitical interests of states that are positive for humanity. A steel workers union is subsidized by the rest of society, but if it keeps steel production in the US, making the US more formidable and able to project humanity-advancing policy, then it is good.

Unions freeze market forces, which raises wages, but those raised wages come directly from other parts of the economy and do so inefficiently (cost more than a dollar elsewhere to increase the wages by a dollar). This is because it distorts comparative advantages. Inequality can be reduced by unions, but only in short term. By freezing market forces in this pocket you are creating inefficiencies, which come at a cost over time (like competitive and bad actors becoming dominant).

Wages and inequality was better in the 1950s/60s US despite of unions. The US was 50% of the global economy, had dollar dominance, just about the only industrial base intact, a skilled workforce with a clear competitive advantage. These are what made wages high and inequality low.

Take the long-term perspective and center humanity rather than picking winners and losers. Unions are an emotionally charged topic because labor groups reap power from them and business groups lose power from them. This is noise. We should make decisions like this based on what serves humanity’s long term interests, and unions (and business cartels/lobbies) hold humanity back.
by tekacs | 2026-02-04 16:11:19+00:00
WER is slightly misleading, but Whisper Large v3 WER is classically around 10%, I think, and 12% with Turbo.

The thing that makes it particularly misleading is that models that do transcription to lowercase and then use inverse text normalization to restore structure and grammar end up making a very different class of mistakes than Whisper, which goes directly to final form text including punctuation and quotes and tone.

But nonetheless, they're claiming such a lower error rate than Whisper that it's almost not in the same bucket.
by indoordin0saur | 2026-02-04 16:11:19+00:00
I'd say this is more a symptom of the content creator knowing nothing about the subject matter they are presenting on. Which would be fine, except that as someone presenting the content they usually represent themselves as knowledgeable about the subject matter material. Showing stock footage of an Andean mountain when the foliage in the foreground is clearly shows that it is somewhere in the sub-arctic (spruce trees and lupine native to Alaska for example) is total idiocy.
by ndsipa_pomu | 2026-02-04 16:11:39+00:00
I don't think it's whataboutism to point out the far bigger problem. There's evidence to show that vehicle pollution leads to respiratory issues in children and certainly reduces life expectancy. Meanwhile cannabis smoke has not been shown to have anything near that level of toxicity and is certainly less common.

It hardly makes any sense to focus on the far smaller issue that doesn't seem to cause any issues apart from pearl clutching.
by somehnguy | 2026-02-04 16:11:51+00:00
Just as an aside, you can put as much effort as you want in, there is no guarantee.

My identity was stolen to take out large student loans when I was 3 years old. I learned of it when I was graduated and was trying to take out loans of my own - it was a mess.

I certainly didn't do anything risky as a baby to result in my identity being stolen but it happened anyway.
by gunsle | 2026-02-04 16:12:19+00:00
I live in MN where it’s effectively been decriminalized for years. I believe 100% it has had extremely negative effects on the general populace. I see it in myself and all of my Gen Z/millennial friends that smoke regularly. The amount of money I’ve wasted alone on weed is frankly disgusting, and it’s not looked down upon like it would be if I was at the liquor store every other day blowing my paychecks.

Agreed completely on the day drinking point. That’s actually what got me to quit initially years ago. I realized, would I be drinking right now before work? Hell no. So why am I okay with getting high?
by rayiner | 2026-02-04 16:12:22+00:00
Prisoners can’t vote because they’re mostly bad people who shouldn’t get a say in how the country is run. It’s not incompatible with democracy to recognize that children aren’t smart enough to vote. So why is it incompatible with democracy to recognize other people shouldn’t be allowed to vote, due to low IQ or criminal behavior or whatever—as long as the criterion itself is meaningful?

IQ isn’t “phrenology.” It’s one of the most well established facts in social science. The military uses what’s essentially an IQ test to exclude people from serving in the military. If the military thinks you’re unable to serve competently, why should you be allowed to vote?

Similarly, limiting the vote to people with deep roots in America would give black people on average more power. Black Americans whose families have centuries of experience with American culture should have more of a say than my parents who came to America at 40 and have no cultural experience with participating in democracy. It’s an extension of something that’s already in the constitution: requiring the president to be a natural born citizen. We already recognize that depth of roots in the country are important.
by pbhjpbhj | 2026-02-04 16:12:34+00:00
>if the people responsible for enforcing human rights can arbitrarily decide you don't have them, you don't have human rights

But the "arbitrary" there is too account for the situation where the democratic application of the law wants to inspect the communications of suspected terrorists, and where a judge agrees there is sufficient evidence to grant a warrant.

Unfortunately, that law does nothing against situations like the USA/Russia regime where a ruler dispenses with the rule of law (and democratic legal processes too).

You can't practically have that sort of liberalism, where society just shrugs and chooses not to read terrorists communications, those who wish to use violence make it unworkable.
by rtkwe | 2026-02-04 16:12:41+00:00
Yes the difference come from a close parsing of the 5th amendment, telling cops the password or code for a device or safe is pretty clearly compelling speech and adverse testimony while allowing cops to gather fingerprints and DNA has long been held as allowed so biometrics were analogized to that. It's also similar to the rule that cops can't force you to tell them the code to a safe but they're allowed with a warrant to destructively open the safe (if it falls under the terms of the warrant). Combine those too legal threads and it's at least reasonable to see how that line gets drawn from previous rulings.
Show HN: Grok Imagine – High-fidelity FLUX.1 generation with cinematic video
by thenextechtrade | 2026-02-04 16:12:42+00:00
Hi HN,

I’ve been working on Grok Imagine (https://grok-imagine.me/), an implementation of xAI’s image generation logic powered by the FLUX.1 engine.

Most tools in this space either have extreme prompt-filtering or struggle with complex details like text rendering and anatomy. By leveraging the Flux model, I’ve focused on:

Precision: Superior text rendering within images (something DALL-E 3 still struggles with).

Artistic Range: Native support for what xAI calls "Spicy Mode"—providing an unfiltered creative canvas that mainstream tools often censor.

Motion: A lightweight Image-to-Video pipeline to breathe life into your generations.

I'm curious to hear from the community about the latency you're experiencing and how you find the prompt adherence compared to Midjourney v6.

Website: https://grok-imagine.me/
by ptorrone | 2026-02-04 16:13:03+00:00
this isn’t an adafruit-specific stance, it’s a web-wide problem. automated scraping and bot traffic is enough to take independent sites offline, and cloudflare is a tool we use to keep the site available at all. we publish full-text rss with no blockers here: https://blog.adafruit.com/rss
. if cloudflare trips on your browser and you want an article, email me and i’ll send it in whatever format you want, we're always working to make it easier, it's hard, would rather have help than snarks and dunks.
by bicepjai | 2026-02-04 16:13:03+00:00
> It’s funny how I spend so much time on HN, yet couldn’t point out a single username besides dang.

That’s very true. These days, when I come across especially thoughtful comments, I’ll sometimes click through to the user’s profile afterward. I think it’s better to judge a comment on its own merits than to let implicit bias creep in based on things like “CEO,” fame, a high-karma account, and so on.
by andy12_ | 2026-02-04 16:13:14+00:00
It really isn't sub N^2. The main attention is only O(Nk), but only thanks to a lightning indexer that still has complexity O(N^2). So overall it still has the same complexity; just with a smaller constant factor [1]

> DSA reduces the core attention complexity of the main model from O(L^2) to O(Lk), where k (<< L) is the number of selected tokens. Although the lightning indexer still has a complexity of O(L^2), it requires much less computation compared with MLA in DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.02556
by okok3857 | 2026-02-04 16:13:19+00:00
Great question: no. I've spent a lot more time making the georeferencing side of things work well than improving search and discovery, and even presentation (like the /viewer/ pages), of the maps on the site. It's something I hope to spend a lot more time on in the coming months. I know, dealing with those sliders is pretty cumbersome in big cities with many volumes (like SF).
by hypfer | 2026-02-04 16:13:24+00:00
I mean arguably, we do not even fully know if even if they did as claimed, they did the _right_ thing.

The underlying assumption we base our judgement on is that "journalism + leaks = good" and "people wanting to crack down on leaks = bad".
Which is probably true, but also an assumption where something unwanted and/or broken could hide in. As with every assumption.

Arguably, in a working and legit democracy, you'd actually want the state to have this kind of access, because the state, bound by democratically governed rules, would do the right thing with it.

In the real world, those required modifiers unfortunately do not always hold true, so we kinda rely on the press as the fourth power, which _technically_ could be argued is some kind of vigilante entity operating outside of the system.

I suppose it's also not fully clear if there can even be something like a "working and legit democracy" without possibly inevitable functionally vigilantes.

Lots of stuff to ponder.

____

Anyway, my point is that I have no point. You don't have to bother parsing that, but it might possibly be interesting if you should decide to do so.

It might also confuse the LLM bots and bad-faith real humans in this comment section, which is good.
by lefrenchy | 2026-02-04 16:13:30+00:00
I do, but i am not claiming that by 2027 i’m going to destroy all jobs and forever change the economy.

There are skills I learn through training and no longer need documentation for.

I didn’t burn shit tons of energy and water consuming the entirety of the internet and the need my user to set up hundreds of markdown files to help me writr boilerplate code.