MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dewey | 2026-02-14 00:54:10+00:00
I've only enjoyed using Protobuf + gRPC after we've started using https://buf.build. Before that it was always a pain with Makefiles building obscure commands, then developers having different versions of the Protobuf compiler installed and all kinds of paper cuts like that.

Now it's just "buf generate", every developer has the exact same settings defined in the repo and on the frontend side we are just importing the generated Typescript client and have all the types instantly available there. Also nice to have a hosted documentation to link people to.

My experience is mostly with Go, Python and TS.
by duxup | 2026-02-14 00:54:26+00:00
The contrast from the "hey there's nothing wrong with this" and those who were involved is pretty noticeable.

>Asked by a reporter Wednesday morning what she’d given to the lawmakers, Bextel said, “it’s nobody’s business.” Asked if it was a check, Bextel repeated, “it’s nobody’s business,” and walked away.

-

>When a reporter told Brady that WyoFile and the News&Guide had confirmation that Bextel was handing out checks, Brady said, “Oh, you do?”

>Brady then asked the reporter, “Where’s the check from?”

>“That’s my question to you. Who is the Teton County donor?” the reporter asked.

>“Well, figure it out,” Brady said before walking back onto the House floor, where reporters are prohibited.
by deathanatos | 2026-02-14 00:54:27+00:00
(Since I cannot edit the post.)

These posts are so tiring. The statement is an outright and blatant lie, because it's grift. The grifter wants to silence dissent by rendering it "non-existent", so that the grift can take the position of being a foregone conclusion. There is no dissent. The statement is outrageous, given the obvious amount of dissent in the comments, and the positive reaction of my fellow commenters to it. "AI built a browser from scratch." It did not. "AI built a compiler." It can't compile hello world. "AGI is coming & nobody disagrees." But the truth takes its time getting its shoes on while a lie already spread across the world.

It's doubly tiring since I (and I suspect, many of this) are having AI stuffed down our gullets by our respective management chains. Any honest evaluation of AI comes to the result that it's nowhere near capable, routinely misses the mark, and probably takes more time to verify its answer than it does to use. But I suspect many people are just skipping the verification step.

& it's disappointing to see low-quality articles like this make it, time and again, and it feels like thoughtful discussion no longer moves minds these days.

I'll try to express this without the snark going forward, though.
by famouswaffles | 2026-02-14 00:54:29+00:00
>DeepMind wrote the paper

Yeah and it was Open AI that actually scaled it and initiated the current revolution and actually let people play with it.

> while Google's API arrived later than OpenAI's it isn't as late as some people think.

What a bizarre understatement. Google would not launch an API for Palm till 2023, nearly 3 years after Open AI's GPT-3 launch.

>Microsoft funded OpenAI and popularized early LLMs a lot with Copilot

Another 2023 release.

Yeah let's not pretend Open AI didn't spearhead the current transformer effort because they did. God knows how far behind we would be if we left things to Google.
by wahern | 2026-02-14 00:54:52+00:00
> they point out that the majority of the 80 million people living on America were killed on the first 100 years of colonization. they do talk impartially as it being one of the biggest holocaust known to the humanity. i don't agree on excluding death numbers from disease. it wasn't something like the Black Death (25 million) where effected countries weren't in war, nor they were also being blown out of existence by superior (war) technology

A majority of deaths by disease occurred before Europeans even made contact with the regional population. So to differentiate the Black Death because it didn't involve a state of conflict doesn't make sense. Most of the natives who died had never even seen a European, let alone live in a state of conflict with them. In fact, AFAIU disease began sweeping across the Americas before colonial conquests had even begun, initial transmission occurring during exploratory and trade missions.
by SpicyLemonZest | 2026-02-14 00:55:15+00:00
I think you're being uncharitable towards option 2. When a physicist says "nobody disagrees that perpetual motion machines are impossible", are they saying that Jimbo who thinks he's built one in his garage is subhuman? Of course not. What they mean is that all experts who've seriously considered the issue agree, and they see so little substance in non-expert objections that it's not worth engaging.
by Nevermark | 2026-02-14 00:55:35+00:00
> And at the end of the day, AI can be unplugged

We can't stop OpenClaw, because humans are curious. It just takes one unleashed model with a crypto account and some way to make money for the first independent AI's to start bleeding into cyberspace.

We can't opt out of AI competition, because other individuals, organizations and nation states are not going to stop, and not going to leverage their AI if they get ahead of us.

> AI job loss would quickly eclipse all other political concerns.

True. I think this is one of only a few certainties.
by AnthonyMouse | 2026-02-14 00:58:59+00:00
It's ludicrous by modern standards because the premise of owning other people is ludicrous by modern standards. Giving states more votes based on them having more people there who can't actually vote is exactly the same amount of ludicrous, but that's also the part that isn't there anymore.

The primary thing the electoral college does in modern day is allow -- not even require -- states to allocate all of their state's voting power to the candidate that wins the majority of the state. With the result that they mostly do that and then states like New York and Texas get ignored in Presidential elections because nobody expects them to flip and getting 10% more of the vote is worthless if it's still less than half.

Ironically it's the partisans who are effectively disenfranchising the people in their own state. If the states that go disproportionately for one party didn't want to be ignored then all they'd have to do is allocate their electoral votes proportionally according to what percent of the vote the candidate got in that state. Then getting 10% more of the vote in a big state would be as many electoral votes as some entire states. But the non-swing states are by definition controlled by one party and then they're willing to screw over their own population to prevent the other party from getting any of that state's votes.
by bnchrch | 2026-02-14 00:59:05+00:00
This is an understate and often unsaid take. But its 100% right.

Its also why you'll hear many engineers opine over functional programming.

Most start by thinking about
1. What does a system do for me?

Then onto
1. What actions does a system do?
2. Where should files and folders live?
3. Where should services live?

and stop there.

But the true key is when you just think about how data moves through your system.

Then you learn to simplify.

No classes, no hidden state, just simple functions with an input and an output and nothing else.

Long story short: Think about your system in data, and learn how to keep your code super simple to help with that thinking
by tsoukase | 2026-02-14 00:59:35+00:00
The war has started: EU burocracy vs TK. In the past EU has rarely directly attacked a single company with so specific points. But anytime they were consistent and dedicaded to the target and usually won. The only time they lost was at stopping summer-time which was abandonded at when Covid started.

They avoid to mention the rest of social media platforms, which happen to be US based. It seems they chooce a single quick and easy China-based target more like an experiment to decide for the rest.
by iugtmkbdfil834 | 2026-02-14 01:00:12+00:00
The interesting thing is that the time to oppose it these encroachments was somewhere between 2001 and say.. 2015 ( some events, but nothing in particular other than general acceptance by general populace ). And now the masses are crying foul? Now is absolutely not the time to try to get online invisibility cloak.
by grovesNL | 2026-02-14 01:00:28+00:00
I think most non-trivial cross-platform graphics applications eventually end up with some kind of hardware abstraction layer. The interesting part is comparing how wgpu performs vs. something custom developed for that application, especially if their renderer is mostly GPU-bound anyway. wgpu definitely has some level of overhead, but so do all of the other custom abstraction layers out there.
by robkop | 2026-02-14 01:00:35+00:00
I get this at least once a week. And then once you have to dig in and understand the full mental model it’s not really giving you any uplift anyway.

I will say that doing this for enough months has made my ability to pick up the mental model quickly and to scope how much need to absorb much quicker. It seems possible that with another year you’d become very rapid at this.
by v3pi | 2026-02-14 01:01:07+00:00
I just launched a deterministic structural verification service for regulated docs and workflow artifacts. It compares a reference vs an evaluated version and produces a reproducible evidence package (hash ledger + concordance/divergence witnesses) that can be reviewed offline. No AI, no similarity scoring—just deterministic outputs meant to stand outside the producing system.

Demo + sample deliverables: www.V3pi.com
by scottshambaugh | 2026-02-14 01:02:18+00:00
I haven't been responding to comments since the volume is way too high, but have read most of them. I'm really glad this is resonating with people and generating a lot of discourse - what happened to me gets to the heart of a lot of the big questions about the AI world we are birthing and these discussions are long past due.

There are new developments since yesterday and I have responses to some of the general themes in a new post.

Post: https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on...

HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47009949
by tonymet | 2026-02-14 01:02:37+00:00
The Password Autofill features are all premature and broken. In Safari & Apps, the autofill prompt doesn't show, or it will show once and never again. Manual autofill trigger fails, and negotiating autofill providers is premature.

The other big area is Autocomplete & Autofill while using external keyboard. There is no control over autocomplete except for CAPSLOCK. correcting autocomplete leads to autocomplete re-complete infinite loop.

I could go on for another 6-10 bugs but just want to highlight your great work and that autocomplete is an entire category of keyboard bugs on iOS / iPadOS
by Grimblewald | 2026-02-14 01:03:11+00:00
You're not getting it. Making app is a solved problem, especially if app function, features, and purpose is derivative of existing things,

Think of it like image generation AI. You can make acceptable if sloppy art with it, using styles that exist. However, you cannot create a new style. You cannot create pictures of things that are truly novel, to do that you have to pick up the brush yourself.

coding with llms is the exact same thing. It can give you copies of what exists, and sometimes reasonable interpolations/mashups, but i have not seen a single succesful example of extrapolation. Not one. You simply leave the learned manifold and everything gets chaotic like in the example i provided.

If AI can make what you want, then the thing you made is not as novel as you thought. You're repurpising solved problems. Still useful, still interesting, just not as ground breaking as the bot will try and tell you.
by ImPostingOnHN | 2026-02-14 01:03:14+00:00
> we must decide if we cripple freedom to protect the weak

Well, we do want to protect the weak (that's a function of society, after all), and I'm totally okay with removing infinite scrolling from social media apps (or "crippling freedom" as you put it). I don't see any significant benefit it provides to individuals or society. Indeed, it has a negative impact on both. So it sounds like a win/win.
by WalterBright | 2026-02-14 01:03:44+00:00
> something comparable to what the Roman Empire had done

Not in sophistication. For examples:

The Pantheon - https://www.pantheonroma.com/en/pantheon-history/
There are no domes in Mayan architecture.

The aquaducts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_aqueduct
The romans mastered the arch. The Mayans never used them.

Roman iron and steel - the Mayans used copper and gold.

Roman ships had keels - Mayan ships did not. Cannot sail upwind without keels.

Romans used the wheel - Mayans did not.

Romans used papyrus for writing, and would send letters around the empire - the Mayans wrote on bark.

And so on.
by EdNutting | 2026-02-14 01:04:51+00:00
At least Einstein didn't just suddenly turn around and say:

```ai-slop

But wait, this equation is too simple, I need to add more terms or it won't model the universe. Let me think about this again. I have 5 equations and I combined them and derived e=mc^2 but this is too simple. The universe is more complicated. Let's try a different derivation. I'll delete the wrong outputs first and then start from the input equations.

<Deletes files with groundbreaking discovery>

Let me think. I need to re-read the original equations and derive a more complex formula that describes the universe.

<Re-reads equation files>

Great, now I have the complete picture of what I need to do. Let me plan my approach. I'm ready. I have a detailed plan. Let me check some things first.

I need to read some extra files to understand what the variables are.

<Reads the lunch menu for the next day>

Perfect. Now I understand the problem fully, let me revise my plan.

<Writes plan file>

Okay I have written the plan. Do you accept?

<Yes>

Let's go. I'll start by creating a To Do list:

- [ ] Derive new equation from first principles making sure it's complex enough to describe reality.

- [ ] Go for lunch. When the server offers tuna, reject it because the notes say I don't like fish.

```

(You know what's really sad? I wrote that slop without using AI and without referring to anything...)
by replooda | 2026-02-14 01:04:54+00:00
Just you wait, I'll get... What's the name of the LLM thing again? ClawFish or something? I forgot — and the LSP is down, so that's that. Anyways, I'll tell the MoltClawde (???) to skillfully vibe code a skill for generating vehement anti-blackpill diatribes, then equip it and reply to your post with a such vehement — but, you know, sort-of lyrical — anti-blackpill diatribe, your pill will shine so much, it will make post-balrog Gandalf look like pre-balrog Gandalf and your own LLMthingmaclaude will wax poetical about not surrendering to generalized societal stupidity while it publishes balrog-related CVEs about curl's GAND_ELF() preprocessor directive.
by pplar39 | 2026-02-14 01:05:53+00:00
Adding a data point from actual use. I've been building a large Rust project (207 files, ~39K lines) primarily through Claude Code in orchestrate mode. Today I ran the same types of tasks through Spark via Codex CLI on a bare-metal Linux box — test module generation, file-level refactoring, struct generation from specs.

Observed roughly 5x wall-clock improvement for implementation work. What took Claude 3–4 minutes finished in under a minute. Not a controlled benchmark — just consistent observation across a dozen tasks today.

The 5x sitting between the 1.37x (SWE-Bench at matched accuracy) and the headline 15x makes sense to me. Benchmarks isolate problem-solving. Real coding sessions are dominated by "here's a clear spec, write it" work where raw throughput matters more than reasoning depth. That's where Spark pulls ahead hardest.

To solarkraft's point — what surprised me too was that quality didn't noticeably degrade. Speed and comparable accuracy, at least for well-defined tasks. I expected a tradeoff. Didn't find one for this class of work.

The gap closes fast for anything requiring architectural reasoning across the full codebase. When the problem is ambiguous, Claude still wins clearly.

What I'd recommend: let Claude handle all the reasoning — architecture, tradeoff analysis, spec writing — then hand Spark a fully defined task and force it to just execute.

Don't let Spark think. Let it build. The combined throughput is significantly higher than either model alone
by abelanger | 2026-02-14 01:06:01+00:00
Hi everyone, I enjoyed building this TUI for myself and wanted to write down how I did it. I appreciate all the thoughts and feedback! The web app is our main investment, but I think there's a slice of developers who really like to interact with TUIs, so I'm going to keep working on it.

For the demo at https://tui.hatchet.run, to answer some messages asking about it: I built this with the fantastic ghostty-web project (https://github.com/coder/ghostty-web). It's been a while since I've used WASM for anything and this made it really easy. I deployed the demo across six Fly.io regions (hooray stateless apps) to try to minimize the impact of keystroke latency, but I imagine it's still felt by quite a few people.
by dbmnt | 2026-02-14 01:06:02+00:00
Gboard hasn't been updated in 4 years and as a result the UI doesn't always display properly. It's especially jarring on iOS 26. It doesn't fit into the OS keyboard target area properly (on my iPhone 17 Pro, at least).

I've tried pretty much every reputable third-party keyboard app in the App Store. Unfortunately, there's really nothing better than the stock one.
by andwur | 2026-02-14 01:06:15+00:00
That's inaccurate for standard thickness drywall sheet, which is usually a 20kg maximum parallel load (e.g. vertical for a wall) regardless of fixing method. Orthogonal load is even less. You might be able to attach a TV or cabinet but it would definitely not be safe, any additional weight or dynamic load would quite likely rip it off the wall with no warning.

The recommended approach for anything with moderate weight or above is to anchor to the studs and never rely on the drywall itself for retention.
by jackfranklyn | 2026-02-14 01:06:28+00:00
I build automation tools for bookkeepers and accountants. The thing I keep seeing firsthand is that automation doesn't eliminate the job - it eliminates the boring part of the job, and then the job description shifts.

Before our tools: a bookkeeper spends 80% of their time on data entry and transaction categorisation, 20% on actually thinking about the numbers. After: those ratios flip. The bookkeeper is still there, still needed, but now they're doing the part that actually requires judgment.

The catch nobody talks about is the transition period. The people who were really good at the mechanical part (fast data entry, memorised category codes) suddenly find their competitive advantage has evaporated. And the people who were good at the thinking part but slow at data entry are suddenly the most valuable people in the room. That's a real disruption for real humans even if the total number of jobs stays roughly the same.

I think the "AI won't take your job" framing misses this nuance. It's not about headcount. It's about which specific skills get devalued and how quickly people can retool. In accounting at least, the answer is "slowly" because the profession moves at glacial speed.
by palata | 2026-02-14 01:06:31+00:00
> This is the attitude that made me keep my patches to myself.

That's your choice. Now if you open source your patches (in a fork, or in PRs to the upstream repo), someone other than the maintainer could benefit from it. So it's still helpful.

> If you make your project public, it means you want and expect people to use it

No. I benefit from others open sourcing their code, so I open source mine when I can. Because if nobody does it, then I don't benefit from it. But I don't care if people use it or not.

> You could at least write some documentation, so I don't waste my time

No. You are responsible for your time. If it takes you days to realise that you struggle understanding what my project does, that's on you. I am not responsible for you wasting days.

> If you set up a bug tracker, then at least have the decency to answer bug reports.

No. If you report a bug there, it can be useful to someone other than the maintainer, so it's still worth it.

> but at least you could give

I gave you a whole project that you apparently find useful, and all you have to say about it is "at least I could give more"?

> If you open it up to pull requests, it means you want people to contribute

No! Again a PR is a way to share a patch. Even if the maintainer never even looks at it, it may be useful to someone else.

> If you can't do at least these things, just say it's abandoned on the front page and be done with it.

I added a licence that explains what you should expect. I don't know of a single popular open source licence that sets any of the expectations you have. All they say is that you can reuse the code under some conditions.
by mananaysiempre | 2026-02-14 01:06:32+00:00
Lago, a startup selling support and hosting for AGPLv3 billing software, seem to overwhelmingly post about how building billing software is hard. Such posts can be interesting when it amounts to “here’s a specific hard thing and here’s how we solved it in concrete terms”. Even if recognized as content marketing, it can hook a tech-inclined person. (See: Cloudflare postmortems, once upon a time.)

Unfortunately, all the Lago posts I’ve encountered on HN are more along the lines of “here’s a vaguely threatening list of probably-hard things, so you shouldn’t try to solve them”. (Compare: “Falsehoods programmers believe about X” and the like, where the threatening part is present, but the vagueness is not, so the reader can’t help but start putting together a solution in their head.) There’s probably a target demographic for this sort of thing, but programmers are not it.
by tehjoker | 2026-02-14 01:06:57+00:00
What they did to snowden was illegitimate but at least they had the cover that he was an insider that had signed a contract with the government. They are going after random ass people expressing a 1A opinion now. Legally very different ballgames even though both dissenters are correct to voice their opinions and knowledge and should not have been pursued for objecting to extravagant government wrongdoing.
by nickff | 2026-02-14 01:07:42+00:00
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-right...

> "Article 10 of the Human Rights Act: Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

Seems to be about as strong as the Soviet Constitution's protections: https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02....
by kaycey2022 | 2026-02-14 01:08:05+00:00
Everybody should line up behind this. AI agents are not sentient. We need to stop even considering them like that. The buck must absolutely stop with the humans who operate or provisioned the bot. The more we waffle around this topic the more likely someone, or a lot of people, will get hurt.

The moment you fix responsibility with the humans 99% of the BS companies are trying to pull will stop.