MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by anon89745 | 2026-02-23 20:21:09+00:00
Hey HN,

I was incredibly frustrated with most "AI Agents" being restricted web chatbots or relying on expensive, slow API calls. I wanted a true, autonomous background employee that could natively execute terminal commands, manage my server health, and respond to my Telegram texts 24/7 without melting my electric bill.

So I built OmniClaw. Instead of leaving a 500W desktop running all day, I engineered the entire python agent swarm to run flawlessly on an old $30 Android phone using Termux (pulling only 2 Watts).

Engineering pain points solved:

Frictionless Local LLMs: The

setup.sh
installer auto-detects RAM. >6GB pulls llama3.1:8b. Weak devices (like phones) auto-map to gemma:1b. No configuration needed.
Native Subprocesses: The worker nodes drop directly into a shell subprocess. To monitor subdomains, it writes a bash script to /tmp/, executes nmap, feeds the stdout/stderr back into the LLM context, and parses the results.
Kernel & Desktop Bridging: I built a C/Rust eBPF bridge so the agent can trace socket layers on Linux. For macOS, there's a zero-friction background SpeechRecognition thread for Voice Wake.
I also built a 1-Click Google Colab Sandbox (linked in the repo) so you can test the Telegram integration without installing anything locally.

Would love to hear your thoughts on autonomous local execution! I'll be here answering questions.
by armcat | 2026-02-23 20:21:19+00:00
> And yet nearly every machine learning engineer would disagree with you, which is a given away that your argument is rooted in ideology.

That's a bold statement! Of course I know the difference, in one case you are learning from correct/wrong answers, and in the other from a probability distribution. But in both cases you are using some X to move the weights. We can get down and gritty on KL divergence vs cross-entropy, but the whole topic is about "theft", which is perhaps in the eye of the beholder.
by roysting | 2026-02-23 20:21:30+00:00
Funny, is not really the term I think of. The common denominator of it has always been manipulative and abusive lying. The parasitic ruling class of psychopaths has always used rather basic and typical abusive patterns like dividing, disparate qualifications, constantly moving targets, refusing success, leading on with promises, evading responsibility and especially consequences, often with yet more abuse and even enlisting others to expand and validate the abuse.

Just alone "going where the talent is" itself is just plain out abusive and narcissistic behavior typical of the worst people, it's clearly not the parasitic ruling class or their parasitic abusiveness ... it's you, that you are not "talented", you are not "worthy" now that they have sucked and drained all they can get from you for decades and generations with all the other euphemistic language like "offshoring" instead of "wanting to profit at your expense but externalize the costs onto you too".

So you did this to yourself ... don't you know... because you are simply not talented enough and now you made the parasites have to go seek the talent elsewhere ... see what you did to the parasites who only just want to do right by you?

Humanity really needs to gain a far greater understanding of what narcissism is, how to identify it, how to resist and stand against it, how to counter it, and even how to utterly destroy and eradicate it and anyone who does it from society.

Many people simply don't even really understand what it is let alone how pernicious and subtle it is in its subversion; but it is utterly destructive, subversive, and parasitic for all of humanity. If we self-eradicate human life on this planet it will 100% be due to our inability to control narcissists like the people who say things like "going where the talent is". Just alone saying that kind of thing is utterly abusive and should be considered treason, because it is... betrayal.
by myrion | 2026-02-23 20:21:54+00:00
There's no dynamic analysis done, necessarily. In the Swiss design, fex, SD-JWTs are used for selective disclosure. For those, any information that you can disclose is pre-hashed and included in the signed credential. So `over_18: true` is provided as one of those hashes and I just show this to the verifier.

The verifier gets no other information than the strictly necessary (issuer, expiry, that kind of thing) and the over 18 bit, but can trust that it's from a real credential.

That's not strictly a zero knowledge proof based system, though, but it is prvacy-preserving.
by LoganDark | 2026-02-23 20:22:03+00:00
A bunch of them have changed since I migrated to iCloud Passwords, but no, that is an actual real passwords database with every internet account of mine that I knew about as of around December 2024.

I tuned the encryption to take a short while to unlock for even a high-tier desktop CPU, to the tune of slow password hashes. I actually somewhat enjoyed the delay every time I opened up the database...
by lukev | 2026-02-23 20:22:30+00:00
This is a highly circular method of evaluation. It correlates "fluency behaviors" with longer conversations and more back and forth.

What it notably does not correlate any of these these behaviors with is external value or utility.

It is entirely possible that those people who are getting the most value out of LLMs are the ones with shorter interactions, and that those who engage in lengthier interactions are distracting themselves, wasting time, or chasing rabbit trails (the equivalent of falling in a wiki-hole, at the most charitable.)

I can't prove that either -- but this data doesn't weigh in one way or the other. It only confirms that people who are chatty with their LLMs are chatty with their LLMs.

In my own case, I find the longer I "chat" with the LLM the more likely I am to end up with a false belief, a bad strategy, or some other rabbit hole. 90% of the value (in my personal experience) is in the initial prompt, perhaps with 1-2 clarifying follow-ups.
by layer8 | 2026-02-23 20:22:36+00:00
> Now that writing code is no longer the bottleneck

I think it’s contestable that writing the code was ever the main bottleneck.

> As I see it, the end goal for all of this is generating software at the speed of thought, or at least at the speed of speech.

The question is what distinguishes that from having AGI, and if the answer is “nothing”, then that will change the whole game entirely again.
by Avamander | 2026-02-23 20:23:05+00:00
Yes, but how on earth is their malicious compliance at providing parental controls a good reason to go for the surveillance state that hurts absolutely everyone?

Social media operators love the surveillance state idea. That's why they aren't pushing against this.

I even cancelled YT Premium because their "made for kids" system interfered with being able to use my paid adult account. I urge other people to do the same when the solutions offered are insufficient.
by MatteoFrigo | 2026-02-23 20:23:22+00:00
ZKP is integrated in Google Wallet and has been running in production for a few months. We (Google) released the ZKP library as open source last year (this is the library used in production).

Announcement: https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/safety-secu...

Library: https://github.com/google/longfellow-zk

Paper: https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/2010

Afterwards, folks from ISRG produced an independent implementation
https://github.com/abetterinternet/zk-cred-longfellow with our blessing and occasional help. I don't know if the authors would call it "production ready" yet, but it is at least code complete, fast enough, and interoperable with ours.
by the__alchemist | 2026-02-23 20:23:32+00:00
This is a nice description (i.e "where is the limit on this type of action?") of a reason why this approach is low on the list, and why ideally we would solve it with one of the other options.

You don't want to give people "moral license" to do this broadly, but we've hit a point where there are no options available that don't have downsides. Stated another way: Taking no action can also be unethical.
by Trung0246 | 2026-02-23 20:23:39+00:00
Here's my very funny implementation of delimited continuation in plain C with zero ASM usage (with help from a specific compiler built-in)

https://gist.github.com/Trung0246/8f801058212d3bbbef82690a31...

Demo (old version with outdated compile flag but still works): https://godbolt.org/z/n9ch4TM3s

It works for gcc/clang/msvc with -O0, -O1, -O2, and even -O3
Haitless: Quit Addiction
by felixkariuki_m | 2026-02-23 20:23:39+00:00
Break bad habits and track your recovery.

Break the cycle. Reclaim your freedom.
Habitless is the science-backed tracker built specifically for the discipline of quitting. Whether it’s smoking, alcohol, vaping, or social media, Habitless provides the visual proof and psychological tools you need to stop addictions for good and stay sober.
WHY HABITLESS?
Most apps track new routines. Habitless tracks your freedom. By combining high-precision streak counting with real-time financial savings, we turn your recovery into a rewarding journey you can actually see.

KEY FEATURES
• Precision Streak Counter: Track your sobriety down to the second. See exactly how long you’ve been habit-free with our emerald-on-black interface.
• Financial Savings Tracker: See the real-world impact. Input your daily spend on cigarettes or drinks and watch your total savings grow in real-time.
• Milestone Journey & Badges: Unlock 20+ psychological badges as you progress from "24 Hours Clean" to "Long-term Freedom."
• Smart Notifications: Stay motivated with alerts the moment you hit a new milestone or savings goal.
• iCloud Sync & Backup: Your progress is safe. All streaks and savings are automatically backed up and synced across your Apple devices.
• Relapse Insights: Log triggers like Stress or Boredom to identify patterns and strengthen your defense for your next streak.
WHAT YOU CAN QUIT:
• Substances: Quit smoking, stop vaping, stay sober from alcohol, or track weed-free days.
• Health: Cut out sugar, quit junk food, stop caffeine, or end binge eating.
• Digital: Break social media addiction, stop mindless scrolling, or quit gaming.
• Finances: Stop impulse shopping, gambling, or expensive daily habits.
TOTAL PRIVACY & DESIGN
Your journey is personal. Habitless features a minimalist, private interface with no ads. We prioritize your focus on recovery.
Disclaimer: Habitless is a tracking tool and not a substitute for professional medical advice or addiction treatment. Always consult a healthcare provider for medical concerns.
by raw_anon_1111 | 2026-02-23 20:23:59+00:00
A “bit” more expensive to cover $16 billion of expenses?

So how would that have helped smaller competitors? Where were they going to get the money from to compete if not other lines of businesses or borrowing? Were they going to charge their first 10,000 customers $100,000 a year so they could fund development without either borrowing money or take it from existing businesses?
by linkjuice4all | 2026-02-23 20:24:06+00:00
The easier fix seems like doxxing politicians and embarrassing them until they protect all of their constituents against things like this. We got a small modicum of privacy with the Video Privacy Protection Act [0] after Bork's video rental history was going to be released.

[0] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=video+r...
by wahern | 2026-02-23 20:24:15+00:00
Confession was originally often made in public. Confessional secrecy is more about making it easier for people to freely confess their sins, free of the fear of retribution or shame, very much like why we have doctor-patient confidentiality enshrined in law today. I would imagine confessional secrecy arose very quickly, even if the norm wasn't private confession.

The first reference I could find for confessional secrecy was from a 4th century book written by the 3rd/4th century Persian bishop, Aphraates. In Demonstration VII, On Penance, he councils priests to keep a penitent's confessions secret, "lest he be exposed by his enemies and those who know him. .... If they reveal them to anyone, the whole army will suffer an adverse reputation."

Source: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_Sy0vAAAAMAAJ/page/n251/mo... That's a Syriac to Latin translation. I used Google Translate for Latin to English. There's at least one partial English translation of that book online, but I found their translation more confusing.
by mattmanser | 2026-02-23 20:24:28+00:00
I once called my Dad out about Chinese nationalists setting bombs on ships in the 60s. He reckoned his ship had come to the rescue of one where they'd found a bomb and the command crew had posed with it for a photo and it had gone off, killing or wounding all the crew capable of actually navigating the ship.

No mention on Wikipedia of these terrorist activities, nothing in the history I could find online. He was a bit of a tall tale teller so I called him out on it.

He was quite upset and ended up showing me his ship log book. With the ship name and the rough date, I actually found two news articles that had been scanned by Google scholar conforming that it had really happened.

I bet there's a lot we don't know that happened behind the iron curtain, I wouldn't doubt this just because you can't easily find any references with a quick Google.

If you want the rest of how they saved the ship, they tried to get a junior officer over in a sort of swing. If they'd have succeeded they'd have actually all been entitled to a salvage payment. But it was too rough so in the end they just got the other ship to follow them back to port.

When the pilot came out to dock the ship, he found another bomb.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1734&dat=19661114&id=F...
by Aurornis | 2026-02-23 20:24:30+00:00
> I mean that's kind of a problem with ANY solution. There will be workarounds and ways to break it.

That's unnecessarily reductive.

Yes, every solution will have problems, but not all solutions have similar problems.

If a solution has problems such that it can be immediately reduced to security theater and bypassed by any teenager who cares, it's just extra hassle and privacy degradation for the rest of us.

These details matter. If a weak solution is regulated into law and the government discovers kids are easily bypassing it, they will immediately pivot into requiring more restrictions on it.
by SOLAR_FIELDS | 2026-02-23 20:24:48+00:00
Pointing at the BTC transaction fee and saying it is super expensive is like pointing at a problematic car model and saying all cars are bad.

There are any number of other popular coins out there that have the same or better liquidity as BTC that charge tiny fractions of the fees. And also settle in seconds.

You're saying Bitcoin like BTC, but the parent commenter was probably referring to the giant ecosystem of coins, that happens to include BTC, but also many other much faster and cheaper options, that are used to globally remit payments every day.

What it's replacing, by the way, Western Union, Wise and the like, is also pretty unblockable and unrefundable.
by entropicdrifter | 2026-02-23 20:24:50+00:00
It's simultaneously an RTS and a third person action game, during combat in singleplayer campaigns. You command your troops in real-time, but you have a limited POV.

Realtime Strategy doesn't necessarily require that you have a top-down perspective or a specific set of controls, right? Pretty sure Brutal Legend is also technically considered an RTS
by EvanAnderson | 2026-02-23 20:24:50+00:00
They didn't care about minimizing the number of times the machine was run. They'd put things wherever it suited them without regard for getting as many dishes in a load as possible.

We've got a nice Bosch machine. It's never missed getting something clean. I'm actually pretty amazed by it.

Since it does well I was trying to make sure all the slots were full before running it. That caused friction.
by nytesky | 2026-02-23 20:25:08+00:00
I think it’s part of the Origin Story.

Bitcoin was created by Satoshi Nakamoto almost 20 years ago. There are a number of wallets that people believe belong to Satoshi (have they proven they belong to SN?)

Yet the identification of Satoshi has eluded a global hunt to identify him. Maybe law enforcement has not been involved, but the mystery definitely suggests that BitCoin can help mask identity.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2026-02-23 20:25:08+00:00
I wonder if more companies from different countries would get interested into Distillation efforts.

Because a huge downside of Chinese-models is that these are chinese models with tianmen square and tibet and other issues.

Yet everyone uses them because they thought that it was insanely hard to build and obviously I am not trying to downplay that even now its an incredible accomplishment that they achieve by created such good open source models and providing them at competitive rates.

Now that we know it might be (more?) easier than previously thought. Would more countries, say South Korea, Japan or India want to enter the market as well without much bias on certain topics which are raised about Chinese censorship everytime a new model is discussed at times.

It's a huge risk/rewards ratio thing. From what I can tell, inference is extremely profitable (Deepseek was profitable at inference fwiw) so perhaps, more countries could try to create their own "Deepseek" where they would focus on having a brand value + open-source/selling for entreprise.

Mistral is a good example of that especially with their entreprise related contracts. Speaking of mistral, are they doing distillation too or not
by john_strinlai | 2026-02-23 20:25:37+00:00
you seem really eager to catch me in some sort of "aha gotcha!" scenario so that you can... what? feel good about winning a hackernews argument? you are trying to argue with someone who largely shares the exact same views as you. the only difference between us is that im offering up alternatives and you are hoping that if you yell loud enough that everyone will forget about age verification.

age verification is already being rolled out. so we can either suck it up and try advocate for less shitty versions, or we can bicker amongst ourselves while id/video-based age verification continues to be implemented everywhere.

>...if these tokens are as protective as you claim they are, why would it be important for them to expire?

read above for the conversation that occurred.

>Would you also advocate for the token issued by authoritarians' preferred "send a video of yourself [0] and/or your government-issued photo ID [1] to some random third-party for-profit company" check to frequently expire? If not, what's up with the discrepancy?

a) no, obviously not, because i dont advocate for video or id-based age verification.

b) i know that you know this, and are just pretending to be ignorant for some weird ass reason: various age verification implementations have different risks and benefits.

for some implementations, users are forced to give up significant amounts of privacy in favor of increased accuracy. other implementations give up less privacy, at the risk of reduced accuracy. look at discords implementation for a recent example (it was easier to spoof the client-side verification than the server-side id-based one. more privacy, less accuracy). this type of balancing act is not new. we do the same balancing act with alcohol, smoking, gambling, healthcare, security, development, etc.

so, when looking at potential mitigations for less-accurate methods, while maintaining the same level of privacy, a sensible option is to make the UUIDs time-bound which will limit the time an illicit token is valid. this makes much less sense for id/video-based verification, because they have higher accuracy than my version (paid for by giving up your privacy).

---------

something you said earlier: "Your time and energy are better spent resisting the expansion,".

so, go do that. find the people that are really pushing for age verification, and argue with them. instead of replying to me, use that time to call your state representative or something. im not your opponent here. if it were up to me, we wouldnt have age verification in the first place. you already know that my stance is anti-age verification!

my proposal is not perfect. i dont like age verification. you can have the karma from this argument, its cool, you can "win". what more do you want me to say?
by accelbred | 2026-02-23 20:26:33+00:00
Its for the time being is stuck with LLVM, so I can't currently LTO with GCC objects. Its got a lot higher complexity than I perfer in a language. A lot of features I find important seem perma-unstable. Pin is unnessesarily confusing. No easy way to define multiple compilation units for use with linker object selection and attribute constructor. The easy path is downloading binary toolchains with rustup and not using your disto package manager. You can't use unstable features without the bootstrap env var on distro rust toolchains. Cargo leads to dependency bloat. The std/core crates are prebuilt binaries and bloat binary sizes. Bindgen doesn't translate static inline code. The language has a ton of stuff it exposes just to std and not user code. Unsafe code is unergonomic. No easy way to model a cleanup function that needs more args. No support for returns_twice. No ability to use newer stuff like preserve_none. Can't go-to-definition from a bindgen binding to original header file. Macros pollute global namespace. Can't account for platforms where size_t and uintptr_t are different. Traits can only be relied on if marked unsafe. Can't implement something like defer since it holds a borrow. no_std code still can pull in core::fmt. Can't enforce dependencies are also no_std. Panics are considered safe. No way to add non-function fields to dyn vtables. No way to declare code separately from definition. No way to have duplicate type definitions that merge, making interop between different bindgen generated modules annoying.
by MASNeo | 2026-02-23 20:26:51+00:00
I am working to track and trace and time transactions and while this is possible when and if you know the identity of at least one participant it’s quite another thing when no identity is known at all. Criminals know that so it’s notoriously hard to pull off. Thanks to Daleware secrecy and lax Super PAC rules to disclose sources of funds it’s not going to get easier.

So either your friends are genius saucers or they have effective government intelligence that would be highly appreciated. I’d be interested.

You are spot on regarding the bedroom though. Exporting physical USD is far more lucrative, by the shipload, often by Chinese Money Laundering Organisations, for free.
by fuzzfactor | 2026-02-23 20:26:54+00:00
>If you are working on a product, or ever did work on a product, that made the internet worse rather than better, you have a shared responsibility to right that wrong.

This is how the "predatory debt" involved has built up, and grown exponentially until now, and the only thing Facebook considers as a solution would be to pay it down using other peoples' resources instead of their own.

No one else has matching leverage and the dollar figure would be many billions if not a full trillion or more, which is about what it's worth, and who else could afford that except Facebook?

So it has to come from the collective subtraction of everyone's complete privacy. Just to amount to something comparable.

Add that up and it shows you how valuable privacy really is and what it's worth in dollar figures.

Yes, do the math, privacy is worth more than Facebok no matter what, it always was and always will be.

You can't have both, so big tech should jettison Meta. Who else could afford it?

A more non-existential solution would be for Meta to fully fund a completely anonymous internet to replace the one that they soiled from the beginning, and let them keep the (anti-)social-media exclusive network separate.