MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Aachen | 2026-02-27 15:17:57+00:00
>> it's always a possibility when your public contact information is listed on the web

Sounds correct to me

> Please take further action. My email is public with the expectation that the ToS will be enforced.

What magic wand are you expecting they wave that distinguishes people who need your email address for legitimate from those who need it for illicit purposes? Why wouldn't we apply the same to the entire population and lock up criminals before they've committed crimes?

What you're asking is entirely impossible short of mandatory mind reading
by testfrequency | 2026-02-27 15:17:58+00:00
Anecdotally: The most depressed friends I have are all tech workers who are using AI daily for their personal life, and of course at their respective work places.

I know that’s not a fair correlation to make, but I have friends who use AI casually and not in tech, they seem outwardly fine and don’t make depressive comments about the future.
by scott_w | 2026-02-27 15:18:05+00:00
> “multiple clients / own equipment / flexible hours” is not some automatic escape hatch

I never said the escape hatch was automatic. The number of questions in the HMRC questionnaire make it clear that there's no 1 trigger either way.

> Large consultancies routinely embed the same named individuals at the same client for years, on client kit, during client hours, with no practical substitution, and no one performs a hypothetical employment test on the firm itself.

Because both the contract and working arrangements are different. The consultancy absolutely can substitute one worker with another of equivalent qualifications.

> The difference is that IR35 is only activated when the company supplying the labour is owned by the person doing the labour. That asymmetry is deliberate.

It's deliberate because the nature of the working and contractual relationship is different. I really don't get what's so difficult about this so let me break it down.

In an IR35 in-scope arrangement, the one-person limited company would otherwise pay themselves up to the income tax exemption threshold. They would then take a dividend for the rest of the payment, which isn't subject to NI payments, reducing revenue intake to the government.

In a large consultancy that's contracting staff to work at companies, there are two clear relationships that are different:

1. The contract with the client, where a fee is paid to the consultancy for the work of their employees.

2. The employment contract with the person embedded in the client. This person is paid their salary and, as such already pay income tax and NI.

Can you see how it makes no sense for the consulting company to pay extra tax and NI for the contract with the client?

If you can't understand the difference, and insist that it's based on some class warfare, I really don't think any human on earth has the words to convince you of something so simple, my accountant explained it to me in about 2 minutes when I first asked him about IR35.
by btarmstrong | 2026-02-27 15:18:09+00:00
This is a great lens into agent behavior--particularly Claude Code in this case, but it raises a governance question: when agents autonomously choose tools that have cost implications (paid APIs, cloud resources, licensed software), who's enforcing the budget in a world where agents actually have autonomy to spend real money? Tool selection isn't just a technical preference "problem" — it's a spending authorization problem. The agent picks the "best" tool, but best for whom and at what cost and how is "best" really determined and verified?
by duxup | 2026-02-27 15:18:14+00:00
The story of the El Paso airspace closure seems to have involved multiple chances to properly coordinate but they chose not to. Folks at the pentagon have claimed their use of lasers pose no risk and seem to be skirting or ignoring the law as far as their coordination with the FAA goes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/14/us/politics/el-paso-airsp...
by krapp | 2026-02-27 15:18:35+00:00
Specific programs and laws be temporary - the PATRIOT act is mostly expired now - but the status quo established is meant to be permanent. It's called "shock doctrine" for a reason[0]. The current administration is trying the same thing by presenting "Chinese interference" and "illegal immigration" as being equally existential threats as 9/11.

And some of the uglier implementations may be repealed, ICE may be "reformed," there may be "hearings" and "committees" and that may give the illusion of "returning to normal" but we will never go back to the reality of power before Trump any more than we can go back to the reality of power before 9/11. Absent revolution and civil war, it's simply impossible.

[0]https://medium.com/@s-blog/a-history-of-disaster-capitalism-...
by clarionbell | 2026-02-27 15:18:39+00:00
Modding is one of the better ways to get into coding. I myself have fond memories restoring cut content to Fallout: New Vegas.

It's unfortunate that modding support is relatively rare among game developers. Blizzard used to do quite well in this regard, in their W3 era. And tools they packaged with SC2 weren't bad either. But nothing since then.

Obviously there is Valve, that goes without saying.

Recently, CD Project did make some moves in that direction, but nothing close to what Valve is offering.
by notatallshaw | 2026-02-27 15:18:44+00:00
AI is somewhat helpful but I'm not interested in a company finding a way for me to pay to do my volunteer OSS work. GitHub Copilot offers a permanent free subscription for OSS maintainers.

I previously ignored a free offer when Claude reached out to me as an open source maintainer as it was a glorified free trial. I hope this one continues beyond the listed 6 months, I am not interested in a glorified free trial and if it requires entering credit card details I won't be signing up.
by derbOac | 2026-02-27 15:18:53+00:00
I enjoyed this paper, and there's innumerable things that could be said about ingroup-outgroup dynamics and corruption.

In my personal experiences with corruption with organizations, ingroup membership often becomes increasingly narrowly defined, and defined in such a way as to benefit a certain group of individuals at the expense of others. The underlying rationale is a narcissistic entitlement or rationalization for why one person or small group of people is deserving of disproportiate benefits or flexibility at the expense of others. It starts with some kind of distorted egocentric schema about others in a more distal way, and then becomes increasingly strict and more proximal. Narcissistic egocentrism is at the core; it only manifests more weakly at first, and then becomes stronger. The ingroup boundaries never stop shrinking, because there always has to be some justification for why that particular group — which was never really defined by the initial ingroup boundaries, the ingroup was only a proxy for themselves — is more deserving than others.
by amluto | 2026-02-27 15:19:00+00:00
I wonder if you can get most of the benefit BYOB with a much simpler API:

for await (const chunk of stream) {
// process the chunk
stream.returnChunk(chunk);
}

This would be entirely optional. If you don’t return the chunk and instead let GC free it, you get the normal behavior. If you do return it, then the stream is permitted to return it again later.

(Lately I’ve been thinking that a really nice stream or receive API would return an object with a linear type so that you must consume it and possibly even return it. This would make it impossible to write code where task cancellation causes you to lose received data. Sadly, mainstream languages can’t do this directly.)
by SAI_Peregrinus | 2026-02-27 15:19:27+00:00
The Irish full breakfast (fry up) includes soda bread, often fresh baked. That with the eggs likely puts it in the "Dark Breakfast" sector. Other sorts of full breakfast may also end up there, there's no true fixed set of ingredients in a full breakfast so any egg-heavy variety can end up in the "dark" sector.
by spongebobstoes | 2026-02-27 15:19:28+00:00
this undervalues how financial engineering allows more ideas and companies to be funded

compound interest is a rare exponential force, and it is available to most citizens of a developed country through the stock market

financial futures remain important for farmers to have predictable pricing, and increase crop yields

science is limited by funding at least as much as it is limited by ideas or intelligence

I understand why finance is a popular bogeyman, but the world is rarely black and white
by ai_fry_ur_brain | 2026-02-27 15:19:40+00:00
Yet Google is valued at a 10X multiple, Anthropic a 35X and OpenAI 100x revenue... Nothing abnormal about this at all, imagine think an extermely unprofitable autocomplete tool should be worth 100x revenue lmfao.

However, when youre entrenched with the military/gov like OpenAI (see discord/persona leaks) you're basically invinsible. Especially when that military is the reincarnation of Nazi Germany , and a fourth Reich (The USA).

OpenAI is another BS national security project larping as a private company, like facebook, like starlink ect ect. Hard to get congress to approve your mass surveillance programs so you get them funded through markets with fake entrepreneurs like Elon and Altman.
by nkurz | 2026-02-27 15:20:11+00:00
I used Claude to come up with this translation for the submission a couple days ago:

And what she said was all true (And that she said was all true). I married her (I wifed on her), and she was a very beautiful woman (and she was full beautiful wife), wise and steadfast in battle. I had never before met such a woman (Not met I never before such a woman). She was in battle as bold as any man, and yet her face was lovely and fair (and though however her countenance was winsome and fair).

But we are not at all free (But we nothing free not are), because we could never depart from Wulfsfleet (because we never not might from Wulfsfleet depart), unless we find the Lord and slay him (unless we the Lord find and him slay). The Lord has bound this place with cunning arts (The Lord has this place with cunning-crafts bound), so that no man may leave it (that no man not may it leave). We are here like birds in a net, like fish in a weir.
And we seek him still (And we him seek yet), both together, husband and wife, through the dark streets of this grim place. May God help us nonetheless (However God us help)!
by sunaookami | 2026-02-27 15:20:45+00:00
So one could stub out https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Page_Visibi... or fake it via an extension (there are actually some already that disable the API by injecting JS that always returns "visible", f.e. https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/disable-page-visibi...). Don't know if there are more.
by armoredkitten | 2026-02-27 15:20:51+00:00
To me, the wording doesn't necessarily imply causality, but it does imply a repeated-measures design. Something being "associated with an increase in symptoms" is different than something being "associated with higher symptoms"; the former suggests that participants were measured at multiple time points, and there is a factor that could explain that change over time. But reading through the study, it was just a single time point.

Regardless, you're correct that it also shouldn't be taken to imply a causal relationship.
by yodsanklai | 2026-02-27 15:20:51+00:00
As other pointed out, it's very difficult to answer as we're not you...

Ideally, I'd try to talk to people who made similar decisions (e.g. Turkish migrating to Portugal or similar) so you can perhaps add new information to your options.

Regarding the financial weight: this money is lost already, so shouldn't be taken into account for the decision.

Living abroad is aways a valuable experience. On the other hand, if you have a low income and little opportunity for growth, this can be a frustrating on the medium term. If you go that path, maybe try to think ahead to see what will be your next step. Suppose you don't like Portugal, could you fall back to your option B after 2 years?
by sigbottle | 2026-02-27 15:21:16+00:00
I don't think psychology is useless, not one bit. But specifically the way modern papers publish findings make me distrust basically all statistical studies in the social sciences, aside from even the most basic philosophical issues that arise from these kinds of studies (people are very different, etc.).

Like even if you accept a bunch of premises to make the studies even work, the raw stats are often so bad and there's no rigor to try and actually explain alternatives that I just have stopped reading them entirely.

Again, I'm not one to hate on the social sciences. History, anthropology, politics, law, psychology, sociology, all of that is very interesting and important. But the horrible statistics that don't understand garbage in garbage out have turned me off of it. Much rather read qualitative studies that actually try to gather detailed, real data, even if it's not as automated as a random survey
by ontouchstart | 2026-02-27 15:21:16+00:00
https://www.gnu.org was there for decades, much older than SO and google.

I know GNU -> Google -> SO -> LLM is a culture shift, this is how human attention goes. The search engine and LLM only capture the latest group attention and we have short memory. That is why reading is a critical skill for us as human beings, we can't afford to outsource that to machine. (Same with writing.)
by AnthonyMouse | 2026-02-27 15:21:38+00:00
They're all fines. The person receiving something while paying nothing isn't the one being fined. They're doing the thing you have to do in order to not be fined. Indeed, that's where the financial penalties being paid by everyone else are going.

Go ahead and try to distinguish this from de jure financial penalties. If you get cited for speeding, that's definitely a fine, right? But the money then goes into the same general fund as other tax revenue. We're not even consistent in what we call this. The "tax" on cigarettes is clearly a penalty intended to deter usage, the proponents openly admit to it. The federal tax code is absolutely riddled with rules that cause you to pay a different amount based on whether you do or don't do something. The debates about which forms of taxation to use are fundamentally about which activities we want or don't want to be disincentivizing -- witness the people who openly express the intention to tax the rich specifically as a penalty for having too much money. Meanwhile the Georgists think we should use Land Value Tax instead of penalizing people for working.

The penalties for doing something look like you paying them when you do it. The penalties for not doing something look like them paying you when you do it. But because they don't actually have any of their own money, it's never actually them who is paying you, which means that everyone who "gets paid" (i.e. isn't penalized) is extracting that money from the penalties paid by everyone else. Who wouldn't have had to pay that both in the case where they did the thing required to avoid the penalty and where the government offered no such disincentive for not doing it by not collecting the money in taxes and other fines.

You're trying to make an exception out of the person who is actually paying $0 in all taxes, but to begin with that is extremely uncommon, e.g. good luck directly and indirectly avoiding property tax if you live indoors, or avoiding indirectly paying federal income tax if you eat food or consume any other goods or services. It's pretty plausible that such people don't really exist, and even if some did, the penalty still applies to everyone else.

And even for the hypothetical person who somehow directly and indirectly paid actual zero in all taxes, if they stop doing the thing, their personal finances still see the same disincentive as everyone else -- they still get penalized for not doing it. If we had a UBI and then someone got cited for speeding but the speeding fine was less than the UBI, would you say that they aren't being penalized for speeding? No, because if they hadn't gotten the citation they would have gotten more. And so it is with not doing something.

The reason this is important is that there are things the government isn't supposed to punish you for doing, meaning they're not to give you any disincentive of any kind. Offering you money -- which for substantially everyone in real life is actually their own money -- and then taking it away if you do the thing they're not allowed to punish you for doing, is punishing you for doing it.
by lanyard-textile | 2026-02-27 15:21:38+00:00
It's a spectrum, right?

It would be showing greater higher quality appreciation to offer an ongoing benefit.

But there is some benefit to giving maintainers a generous trial length with your offering. 6 months is certainly long enough to see how well it does or does not incorporate into your project.

It just so happens we almost all universally love the offering.
by jqpabc123 | 2026-02-27 15:21:41+00:00
Correction: BMW has made it much harder for me to justify buying one of their autos.

Unfortunately, this has become an ongoing trend with Euro autos.

The amazing part to me is the fact that they obviously believe that a big FU to the customer won't be returned in kind. Their customers must be either too dumb or too rich to care.
by alephnerd | 2026-02-27 15:21:55+00:00
> First, many people may not want to move, even if their kids or siblings move. Other people have friends and family too.

Absolutely, but then they shouldn't complain on HN that they aren't getting jobs because they aren't open to relocating from Skokie to San Jose.

> many people may not have the skills or drive to get the "median" paying job

The 25th percentile TC for a SWE is 200K in the Bay Area [0]. If you are not even in the top 75 percent of SWEs you are already on the chopping block.

> obviously moving to the Bay Area and NYC is one of the higher probability routes to success and upward movement (at least financial), but it's not without other costs. For those with the desire to attain that financial success, I encourage them to follow the playbook.

The brutal reality is, if you aren't working in the Bay or NYC, we are going to offshore you. We can get the cream of the crop in Europe, Israel, or India with a Chicago, Dallas, or Atlanta TC along with added FDI subsidizes. As such, we have no reason to hire a median employee for 100% WFH who lives outsides the Bay+NYC and pay what is essentially a premium.

Additionally, you don't have to live in the Bay or NYC forever. Spend 10-15 years of your career, build that nest egg, and then return to your hometown if you really dislike the Bay or NYC. You will have reached financial independence and that gives you the flexibility to take a $75k-120k TC dev role (at that pricepoint you are safe from offshoring if you are a Bay+NYC tier developer).

> But I would not expect them to keep friends and family close

If you cannot afford to fly to our fly out your retired parents to stay with you for a couple weeks and can't fly out to meet with them with the priors I mentioned, then you have major issues. Most Asian American (Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, etc) and Eastern European (Russians, Israelis, etc) families would do something similar in the Bay.

[0] - https://www.levels.fyi/t/software-engineer/locations/san-fra...
by bjackman | 2026-02-27 15:22:02+00:00
I think revealed preferences are more useful than a poll would be.

"Do you think forced labour in Malaysia is OK" - nobody answers yes to this.

"Are you willing to make sacrifices, such as imposing liability on local business, in order to discourage forced labour in Malaysia?" - this is the question.

This pattern applies to a lot of stuff. All politicians claim to have a solution to the housing crisis. But most "solutions" are suspiciously absent of downsides. If nothing you propose involves sacrificing anything or creating any losers I conclude you don't actually care about the housing crisis.

You can use this on your managers too. "What are we gonna do about the tech debt?" If the answer doesn't involve delaying features then you should interpret it as "nothing".
by 7402 | 2026-02-27 15:22:26+00:00
US colleges received billions in gifts from non-democratic countries in 2025:

Qatar $7.7 billion

China $6.4 billion

Saudi Arabia $4.7 billion

These countries are not making donations to support democracy and freedom.

https://www.npr.org/2026/02/12/nx-s1-5711359/us-colleges-5-b...
by jabl | 2026-02-27 15:22:48+00:00
I have a small benchmark program doing tight binding calculations of carbon nanostructures that I have implemented in C++ with Eigen, C++ with Armadillo, Fortran, Python/numpy, and Julia. It's been a while since I've tested it but IIRC all the other implementations were about on par, except for python which was about half the speed of the others. Haven't tried with numba.

To bring Julia performance on par with the compiled languages I had to do a little bit of profiling and tweaking using @views.

https://gitlab.com/jabl/tb
by tialaramex | 2026-02-27 15:23:52+00:00
We can't "proportionally" represent a constituency which returns a single individual

So, if you want PR you have to either: Have two distinct classes of MP: Some were directly elected and represent an area, others are just to make the up proportions - but obviously these are just worse right? Second class MPs.

OR Abolish the constituencies entirely, now nobody represents your area and its particular concerns, or everybody does, which as we know amounts to the same thing because of how dilution works.

Unlike other electoral reforms a PR system has deeper implications far beyond the elections themselves. Historically the UK actually didn't have a single electoral system for every constituency, and that was fine†, indeed it works fine in the US today, the thing which needs to be coherent is what happens after the election and PR meddles with that.

† Well, not "fine", this is the era of the famous "Rotten Boroughs" but the fact that the system varies from one place to another wasn't key there.
by Yizahi | 2026-02-27 15:23:52+00:00
Well, I won't pretend I know the answer :) . But I assume that a) they are partially betting on making a normal return on investment (i.e. OAI not crashing), b) they profit from running a huge expense/revenue cycle (a company making say a million of profit and having a billion revenue is favored better than the same but with only ten million revenue), and c) even if all goes wrong, it is still better to get back most of the investment even if not everything and zero profit, compared to a possibility of just losing it all like SoftBank or other investors.
by vonneumannstan | 2026-02-27 15:24:10+00:00
>Without circular investments and valuations what would Open AI be worth? 100B? 300B? Entirely on revenue alone it seems like 20B. Current valuation appears to be two orders of magnitude off.

They just passed $20B in revenue, you can't really expect a company with this much hype and traction to have a 1x multiple.. that's not to say a 35x multiple makes sense either.
by toomuchtodo | 2026-02-27 15:25:29+00:00
When Congress makes the law, you will be accurate. At this time, there is no law that enables the US executive branch to achieve their desired outcome of strong arming Anthropic.

> Many in America also think you can’t say no girls in the Boy Scouts, or no men in a women’s locker room.

Your average American is low functioning, low education, vibe driven with a 6th-8th grade reading level, so this ("What Americans think") is not terribly relevant in my opinion. Provide statute and case law.