MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by probably_wrong | 2026-02-06 14:22:00+00:00
The comment by user senko [1] links to a post from this same author with an example for a specific coding session that costs $15.98 for 8 hours of work. The example in this post talks about leaving agents running overnight, in which case I'd guess "twice that amount" would be a reasonable approximation.

Or if we assume that the OP can only do 4 hours per sitting (mentioned in the other post) and 8 hours of overnight agents then it would come down to $15.98 * 1.5 * 20 = $497,40 a month (without weekends).

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46905872
by brundolf | 2026-02-06 14:22:07+00:00
One thing people have pointed out is that well-specified (even if huge and tedious) projects are an ideal fit for AI, because the loop can be fully closed and it can test and verify the artifact by itself with certainty. Someone was saying they had it generate a rudimentary JS engine because the available test suite is so comprehensive

Not to invalidate this! But it's toward the "well-suited for AI" end of the spectrum
by r_lee | 2026-02-06 14:22:15+00:00
I have headphones on 24/7 and while outside, but if I didn't have them I wouldn't exactly mind, I'd probably widh I wouldn't have to hear the loud noises (cars, bus engine sound etc)

I feel like with Tikatok etc. its really just that your entire attention both audio and visual is stuck in that thing, it's not an auxiliary activity
by zbentley | 2026-02-06 14:22:16+00:00
> It's whether we trust adults to manage their own media consumption, or if we need regulatory guardrails for every compelling app

I think there's a wide regulatory spectrum between those extremes--one that all sorts of governments already use to regulate everything from weapons to software to antibiotics.

It's easy to cherry-pick examples where regulation failed or produced unexpected bad results. However, doing that misses the huge majority of cases where regulation succeeds at preventing harms without imposing problematic burdens on people. Those successes are hard to see because they're evidenced by bad outcomes failing to happen, things working much as they did before (or getting worse at a slower rate than otherwise might happen).

It's harder to point to "nothing changed" as a win than it is to find the pissed-off minority who got denied building permits for reasons they disagree with, or the whataboutists who take bad actions by governments as evidence that regulation in unrelated areas is doomed to failure.
by throw10920 | 2026-02-06 14:22:28+00:00
> I've personally reported 17 bugs in GCC over the last 2 years

You are an extreme outlier. I know about two dozen people who work with C(++) and not a single one of them has ever told me that they've found a compiler bug when we've talked about coding and debugging - it's been exclusively them describing PEBCAK.
by jqpabc123 | 2026-02-06 14:22:32+00:00
This implies there is underlying fundamental analysis that can be applied to Bitcoin price.

The underlying fundamental analysis is rejected out of hand by anyone who chooses to speculate in Bitcoin --- the fundamental value may not be $0 but it's safe to say that is way less than it's currently price. Once the mining networks are no longer profitable, the value will be $0.

Bitcoin is not a good currency or a store of value. Fundamentally, it's just another version of a non-fungible token (NTF).

To see where BTC is ultimately headed, just look at NFT's --- aka the Bored Ape Yacht Club. These are now selling for about 4% of their all time high. And they are much more "rare" and "collectible" than Bitcoin.
by concats | 2026-02-06 14:22:40+00:00
> Most of these seem concretely doable, and maybe effective. But the core of the addictiveness comes from the "recommender system", and what are they supposed to do there? Start recommending worse content? How much worse do the recommendations have to be before the EC is satisfied?

I agree with you, this is rather odd. And sort of missing the problem.

All apps are about attention. The percentage of the time spent using the app when it shows you your good content (Whatever it is that you're interested in) determines how addictive it is. And the percentage of time it's showing you bad content (Ads, 'screen time breaks', manual scroll time, more ads, loading screens, sponsor ads, filler content (youtube for instance is full of this), etc) counteracts the addictive properties because nobody likes it.

What's the end goal here? Right now TikTok is winning the attention economy race against the other apps because it's more focused on the user's preferred content. Is that what we want to reduce? To show more uninteresting other stuff on the screen? Like blank 'wait 5 minute' statics? Or just more ads?

I get that we don't want a generation of socially inept phone addicts, but this won't solve anything I fear. People will still want the good content, forcing the most customer friendly (it feels wrong to say that about TikTok) app to become more enshittified is a bewildering solution.
by gh0stcat | 2026-02-06 14:22:42+00:00
I would say it's slightly worse but they're both not great, as someone who was addicted to being fed something at all times, I was really avoiding every having to spend time with myself if that makes sense. That being said, it's mostly about intention. Are you excited to finally listen to that amazing album or audiobook on your walk after work? That's usually more healthy than when I would scroll on tiktok during my day to avoid feeling anything other than dopamine and avoid bad feelings. It's really about self awareness for me.
by komali2 | 2026-02-06 14:22:52+00:00
> Node.js (which OpenClaw uses) calls os.networkInterfaces() at startup via libuv’s uv_interface_addresses, which needs AF_NETLINK to query interfaces through netlink. Without it, you get a cryptic Unknown system error 97. Took me a few deploy cycles to figure that one out.

I believe you can use other runtimes, but then certain connectors, like telegram, may break.
by maccard | 2026-02-06 14:22:52+00:00
> You don't need a full prod db, you need a facsimile mirroring the real thing but 1/50th the size.

My experience has been that the problems in CI systems come from exactly these differences “works on my machine” followed by “oops, I guess the build machine doesn’t have access to that random DB”, or “docker push fails in our CI environment because credentials/permissions, but it works when I run it just on my machine”
by jacquesm | 2026-02-06 14:22:55+00:00
I came across this while looking at all kinds of clocks and the origins of operational amplifiers. I've used these but never realized that you could use the hysteresis to make counters.

I originally found this link:

https://www.pa3fwm.nl/projects/sdr/

About a completely home-grown software defined radio that is on the web as well at http://websdr.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/ , you can use it to listen to all kinds of interesting signals, for instance an atomic clock, DCF77 at 77.5 KHz CW.
by plqbfbv | 2026-02-06 14:23:19+00:00
I mostly agree with the points, but I've also managed to throw AI efficiently at the problem.

We're running a self-hosted GitLab -> hosted GitHub migration at my company (which to me feels a downgrade), and without LLMs I would have spent weeks just researching syntax for how to implement the requirements I had.

I asked Claude to simply "translate these GL templates to GH actions, I want 1 flow for this, 1 flow for that, etc" and it mostly worked. Then in the repos I link the template and ask Claude to write the workflow that uses the template with the correct inputs. I think I saved maybe 3 months worth of coding and debugging workflows. Besides maybe picking slightly outdated actions (e.g. action@v4 instead of action@v6), 95% of the work was ok, and I had to tweak a couple things afterwards.
by whizzter | 2026-02-06 14:23:25+00:00
Asimov's sci-fi has both hard and soft parts (especially his later works).

The main thing is that Asimov was more of a bright person(mensa member and professor) and good at making conjectures about development based on technology and it's impact on humans, rather than a great writer per-se (there's some famous interview from the 70s that makes a fair bit of things that weren't obvious at the time).

Like how he immediately goes to the feasibility of non-human total surveillance when concluding that the total surveillance of a population on the level of 1984 by humans is infeasible.

So this review is to large parts to be taken as an post-fact analysis about 1984 both from a standpoint of the predictions of it's conjectured future and an attempt to see _why_ conjectures failed (much of it, being attributed to Orwells need to expose his hatred for how infighting perverts socialistic causes).
by bdcravens | 2026-02-06 14:23:45+00:00
I used to listen to the SaaStr podcast a few years ago. The way the host was always trying to prop up Jason Lemkin (the "author" of this article and the founder of SaaStr) gave me some weird cult of personality vibes. Add to that the fact that their annual SaaS conference (though they've been certain to "AI" to the marketing) generate some $10M in ticket sales suggests they may not be the most objective news source.
by program_whiz | 2026-02-06 14:23:59+00:00
Agree, I think the issue is that taxes specifically flow to "the government" in the abstract. If there was a simple law like "95% of income or gains above $10M are taxed and redistributed equally via check / IRS rebate to every citizen automatically" then it could be a high-trust system that helps out everyone. Politicians, though greedy and self-interested, would have little choice but to continue the program untouched, similar to social security.

I'd also feel a lot better about "Elon gets $200B payout", because he gets $2B and $198B goes to tax payers -- seems pretty fair. $2B is still more than anyone ever needs to live a lavish life of luxury and/or start any reasonable self-business, or buy off any politicians.
by alistairSH | 2026-02-06 14:24:25+00:00
Related, it's wild what the porters on the Inca Trail carry. Both the weight and the pace they move. We'd get up and start hiking after breakfast, the porters pack up camp, start hiking 30-60 min after us, fly-by us mid-morning, and have a cooked lunch ready by the time we get to the lunch spot. Repeat again for dinner/night. The trail itself isn't technically challenging, just lots of elevation gain/loss each day and at a high enough altitude to make unacclimatized people feel pretty bad.
by Storment33 | 2026-02-06 14:24:33+00:00
I mean all CIs work out of the box, although I have no interest in self hosting CI.

Jenkins is probably a bit like Java, technically it is fine. The problem is really where/who typically uses it and as there is so much freedom it is really easy to make a monster. Where as for Go it is a lot harder to write terrible unmaintainable code compared to Java.
by KaiserPro | 2026-02-06 14:24:33+00:00
> Is it worse than walking around 8 hours a day listening to music? Having headphones on while washing dishes and walking the dog?

If you think about cognitive load, then I would say yes.

Listening to music or even talking with headphones does consume some of your brain power, but you are able to execute physical tasks reasonably well. For example I am able to do DIY (apart from measuring) whilst listening to audiobooks. I can do all the household chores too (washing up, clothes, tidying vaccuming etc)

I cannot do that with short videos playing. firstly I have to hold the device, secondly I'm not looking at what I am doing, thirdly, moving pictures attract my attention.

In the same way that that most people are utterly unable to do "thinking work" (ie stuff that requires inner monologue and visualisation [sorry aphantasia people]) with a TV within visual range. I know that some people are able to do ironing infront of the TV, but I'd struggle with that to do a good job
by omgbear | 2026-02-06 14:24:35+00:00
I've got this setup recently via pipewire! With something like barrier for kvm, it's great!

I have an alias on each side -- one gets a new source, the other a new sink.

audio_recv='pactl load-module module-native-protocol-tcp port=4656 listen=0.0.0.0'
audio_send='pactl load-module module-tunnel-sink server=target:4656'
by bfrog | 2026-02-06 14:24:47+00:00
C isn't really the protocol though, its just a way every language has of exporting simple symbols. Otherwise how else does this work, you'd never every language to understand every other languages symbol name encoding scheme, some of which are complete jibberish (I'm looking hard your way C++).

The real protocol in action here is symbolic linking and hardware call ABIs.

You could always directly call Rust functions, but you'd have to know where to symbolically look for them and how to craft its parameters for example.

If this is well defined then its possible. If its poorly defined or implementation specific (c++) then yeah its a shit show that is not solvable.
by waynenilsen | 2026-02-06 14:25:07+00:00
Frontend QA is the final frontier, good luck, you are over the target.

The amount of manual QA I am currently subjected to is simultaneously infuriating and hilarious. The foundation models are up to the task but we need new abstractions and layers to correctly fix it. This will all go the way of the dodo in 12 months but it'll be useful in the meantime.

agent-browser helped a lot over playwright but doesn't completely close the gap.
by DanielHB | 2026-02-06 14:25:24+00:00
> speak to the staff, collate what they have to say, and launder it back to the boss

My wife is a management consultant and this is _exactly_ what she does in half of her projects. But it is a bit more sinister than that, the management consultant feed the info back to the _top_ bosses bypassing the middle-management hellscape.

For example, she did a project for a big bank where she interviewed 70 or so people her main output was a streamlined virtual machine requisition flow (which included merging a couple of teams together and configuring the ticketing system they already had). It used to take devs 6 months to get a VM. I bet the devs where yelling at their middle managers to sort it out, but their managers didn't have or want to actually bring it up with upper management with a plan on how to do it.

I joke that companies could just do that internally, have some people interviewing the leaf nodes in the org to find out top-down initiatives to help work get done, but companies simply don't do this.
by bluGill | 2026-02-06 14:25:31+00:00
You can't do that. A small bike shed is often just put some concrete blocks on the ground, and then build on top of them with wood. A correct house needs a stronger foundation at higher costs (sheds larger than bike shed are build the same way), but is still made of wood. A skyscraper is built with a very different foundation, and needs a steel frame that would not be affordable in a house. In between the two there are also building made of brick which allows building taller than wood. (and there are lots of other options with different costs - engineered wood is different)

Point is though eventually some system runs out of ability. It works different in programming from physical construction, but the concept is the same, eventually you can't make a bad early design work anymore.
by ajross | 2026-02-06 14:25:33+00:00
> Not for general purpose use, only for demo.

What does that mean, though? I mean, it's already meeting a very high quality bar by booting at all and passing those tests. No, it doesn't beat existing solutions on all the checkboxes, but that's not what the demo is about.

The point being demonstrated is that if you need a "custom compiler" or something similar for your own new, greenfield requirement, you can have it at pretty-clearly-near-shippable quality in two weeks for $20k.

And if people can't smell the disruption there, I don't know what to say.
by gh0stcat | 2026-02-06 14:25:34+00:00
It's bad I can't say that I did it with willpower alone but Brick helped immensely. Their product is great, not a subscription, and even though there are competitors or you could build something like this for your phone, they're good with customer service and I would recommend their product.

Also, Unhook for removing suggestions/comments/etc from Youtube, you can basically turn everything off until it becomes a search bar and your subscriptions.

Get a good website blocking browser extension.
Remove anything that resembles a "recommendation" or avoid it like the plague.

https://getbrick.app/
by r_lee | 2026-02-06 14:25:52+00:00
personally I haven't used tiktok ever but Instagram reels are the real thing

however, I must say that youtube shorts is the worst of the bunch, even if I'm trying to be entertained, it's full of just slop spam and "top 5" or something that I'm not interested in, while reels are actually funny

I remember I'd sometimes try and get into it, scrolling just to see if I can find one thing that's actually good and just quitting because I got frustrated.

it's truly the worst of the bunch in my opinion.

and they've definitely made the overall experience worse on youtube while focusing all efforts on shorts and funneling you to it.
by _aavaa_ | 2026-02-06 14:26:34+00:00
The significant problem with that book is that it commits the primary energy fallacy. It sees that we need X GWh of chemical energy from fuels and says we have to replace it with X GWh of electricity. Which is of course completely wrong since it ignores the efficiencies of the processes and conflates two different things simply because they are measured in the same units.
by alphazard | 2026-02-06 14:26:58+00:00
> This is unwanted, first because it produces individuals powerful enough to topple the people’s will

Making the government resistant to manipulation is a distinct problem.
It's a game theory/mechanism design problem, and its solution doesn't require taking in lots of money.
Giving the government more power/money causes people to spend more effort to manipulate it, so any weaknesses are exploited to the fullest extent.

> and second because it is not in the interest of society for wealth to be accumulated rather than moving.

This reveals a significant misunderstanding of how capital works in an economy.
None of the billionaires that come up when you type in "billionaires" into Google have access to liquid cash anywhere near the number that shows up next to their face.
Their money is invested in productive projects, it's paying salaries and invested in equipment.
Concentrating capital is what allows a civilization to take on big projects.
As a society we want big projects to be paid for by individuals bearing the risk (skin in the game).
In a free-market, capital concentrates in individuals who, empirically, know how to use it well.
Spending other people's money is a great way to make sure that money is spent frivolously.
You can criticize luxury spending all you want, and taxing that is something most people consider "fair", but you aren't speaking for anyone economically literate when you say that you don't want capital to concentrate.
I want it to concentrate as much as it does naturally.
by crote | 2026-02-06 14:27:04+00:00
I consider even "legitimate" ads scams. My products are more expensive (the marketing budget doesn't fall out of the sky, after all), and I am rewarded by being forced to view extremely annoying content in my day-to-day life? As a consumer, that sounds like a horrible deal to me!

On top of that, most ads provide no value whatsoever. Take the classic Coca-Cola vs Pepsi: they are fishing from the same pool so ads are primarily going to steal customers away from the other brand. Both sides spending billions on marketing would result in roughly the same outcome as both sides spending nothing on marketing, so the ads are a net negative for society.

There is also of course advertising in order to inform your potential market that your product exists at all. But if your product is so great, why haven't I heard about it via things like independent reviews or personal recommendations already? And if two products seem to have the same features for the same price, the one which isn't heavily advertised is probably the better choice: it is likely already more popular for a reason, and there's a decent possibility that the money they aren't spending on advertising is going towards useful things like quality and customer support.

I completely understand why companies in a heavily capitalist society are spending money on ads, but you can't convince me that the world wouldn't be a more pleasant place without them.
by myrmidon | 2026-02-06 14:27:19+00:00
Your article is careful to never explicitly state correlation between the vaccine and those seven girls deaths. Without such a link, your argument falls apart.

> So answer me honestly: Did that same billionaire (Bill Gates) and his organisation (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) do the same exact trials in his home country (USA)? "clinical trials of unproven vaccines on thousands of poor minor girls, without consent of then and their parents"

This accusation is toothless. You would need to show two things:

- There were actual unacceptable risks or side-effects from the vaccine under test (your article completely fails to show this, and if you believe it does, then you are simply a victim of clickbait formulations)

- The study was done in India because of risks to subjects deemed unacceptable in the US (and not simply because it was cheaper)

What the article does show is that there was shoddy handling of consent. Which is valid criticism! But it is also somewhat unsurprising given the low literacy rate at that time and place. And this alone is simply not sufficient foundation for your accusations.
by Terretta | 2026-02-06 14:27:23+00:00
The paradox in post is resolved by limiting the planning to Russian doll like nested timeframes and scopes, upgrading from endless 2 week sprints and quarterly or annual "planning" to cycles within cycles, scoped to human magnitudes of time, and JIT re-planned at the Nyquist interval of each cycle by those at the corresponding level of the enterprise org chart who must also be domain leads with mastery at that level and who have retained ability to probe two levels below while practiced at bringing along at least one level up.

The 1970 Royce paper was about how waterfall didn't work, and most "Agile" is a subset of DSDM, each flavor missing a necessary thing or two whether working in large systems or growing them greenfield from nothing. But DSDM wasn't "little a" agile (and SAFE just isn't). There is a middle way.

If you like applying this stuff (e.g. you've chatted with Gene Kim, follow Will Larsen, whatever, sure, but you've deliberately iterated your approach based on culture and outcome observability), feel free to drop me a note to user at Google's thing.
by scottmf | 2026-02-06 14:27:36+00:00
Just tested and yes, but it's a little tricky so your `c` script will have to manage session IDs:

1. Start a new session and provide a random UUID:

claude -p "The secret word is potato" --session-id 550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000

> I see you've shared a secret word. I'll keep that in mind — the secret word is **potato**.
> Is there something I can help you with today?

2. Use the -r/--resume flag with the same UUID for follow up messages:

claude -p "What is the secret word?" -r 550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000

> The secret word is **potato**.
by nate | 2026-02-06 14:27:58+00:00
I'm about to launch an agent I made. Got an A+. One big reason it did so well though, right or wrong, is the agent screenshots sites and uses those to interpret what the hell is going on. So obviously removes the secret injections you can't see visibly. But also has some nice properties of understanding the structure of the page after it's rendered and messed with javascript wise. e.g. "Click on an article" makes more sense from the image than traversing the page content looking for random links to click. Of course, it's kinda slow :)