MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by maxbond | 2026-02-09 08:17:02+00:00
I have experimented with telling Claude Code to keep a historical record of the work it is performing. It did work (though I didn't assess the accuracy of the record) but I decided it was a waste of tokens and now direct it to analyze the history in ~/.claude when necessary. The real problem I was solving was making sure it didn't leave work unfinished between autocompacts (eg crucial parts of the work weren't performed and instead there are only TODO comments). But I ended up solving that with better instructions about how to break down the plan into bite-sized units that are more friendly to the todo list tool.

I have prompting in AGENTS.md that instructs the agent to update the relevant parts of the project documentation for a given change. The project has a spec, and as features get added or reworked the spec gets updated. If you commit after each session then the git history of the spec captures how the design evolves. I do read the spec, and the errors I've seen so far are pretty minor.
by mikeayles | 2026-02-09 08:17:19+00:00
I also am building Phaestus, a 0 to product system, that builds entire products from scratch.

https://www.mikeayles.com/#phaestus-wip

It is capable of creating a PCB (and outputs gerbers, bom, pick and place files), an enclosure (written in SCAD, outputs an STL for printing), and firmware, which it's able to compile using a pio runner on railway and provides a binary, but also has a webserial flasher for ESP32's.

There is a blog here, but i've been focussing on getting things finished, as I built it for a hackathon ending today.

https://phaestus.app/blog

I need to update the blog & writeup, because I have the first product it created, a bluetooth remote control. It wasn't without issues, but I have a working PCB, in an enclosure that was printed from it's design, running firmware it generated.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/4r4XtQ65rx9iBUVp9
by dncnmcdougall | 2026-02-09 08:18:56+00:00
Hi, thank you for putting in the work to share and manage this.
Having read the commands I noted that there are only two options available: vouched and not, with denounced being a harder not vouches.
I was wondering if it would help to separate this into three levels: vouched (positive), not vouched (neutral) and denounced (negative)?
Then a project could allow PRs from 'not vouvhed' contributers, but have the option of denouncing them.
This would leave the communities open to new contributions, while giving a way to reject bad actors.
Then vouched users could have extra privileges. Perhaps authority to denounce, or merge. Although those are already gates by contribution rights on the underlying forge.

So is there value in a three state system, rather than a 2 state?
by reverius42 | 2026-02-09 08:19:56+00:00
This is a non-sequitur. Almost all programming languages are Turing complete, but I think we'd all agree they vary in expressivity (e.g. x64 assembly vs. TypeScript).

By expressivity I mean that you can say what you mean, and the more expressive the language is, the easier that is to do.

It turns out saying what you mean is quite easy in plain English! The hard part is that English allows a lot of ambiguity. So the tradeoffs of how you express things are very different.

I also want to note how remarkable it is that humans have built a machine that can effectively understand natural language.
by coldtea | 2026-02-09 08:21:05+00:00
>I just don't think we agree on what "good enough" is, if current LLMs produce it with less effort than alternatives, and if most devs already believe the LLM generated code is good enough for that.

Don't need to consider what they think, one can just see their "revealed preferences", what they actually do. Which for the most part is adopting agents.

>I use LLMs for a lot of dev work but I haven't personally seen these things one- or even many- shot things to the level I'd feel comfortable being on call for.

That's true for many devs one might have working for their team as well. Or even one's self. So we review, we add tests, and so on. So we do that when the programming language is a "real" programming language too, doesn't have to change when it is natural language to an agent. What I'm getting at, is, that this is not a show stopper to the point of TFA.
by oscarcp | 2026-02-09 08:21:14+00:00
We would have saved so many wasted hours in the last company I worked for if we had this... you have no idea, to give you a sense, the decision to move from a Neo4J db to MySQL (the service was failing, the DB was failing, it was a bad architecture decision) took 6 months, when it should have been at most a couple days discussion.

Nurture this, it will become a great tool in the belt for a lot of people
by deepsummer | 2026-02-09 08:21:29+00:00
I watched it last week, and I loved every moment of it. It's really the Muppet Show, not one of those boring remakes and spin-offs that never worked.
Even my 9 year old daughter who would usually roll her eyes when I would even suggest watching Muppets, watched it till the end. Probably mostly because of Sabrina Carpenter, but whatever.

Would love to get more episodes.
by bsder | 2026-02-09 08:21:32+00:00
Sure, we have complex systems that we don't know how everything works (car, computer, cellphone, etc.) . However, we do expect that those systems behave deterministically in their interface to us. And when they don't, we consider them broken.

For example, why is the HP-12C still the dominant business calculator? Because using other calculators for certain financial calculations were non-deterministically wrong. The HP-12C may not have even been strictly "correct", but it was deterministic in the ways in wasn't.

Financial people didn't know or care about guard digits or numerical instability. They very much did care that their financial calculations were consistent and predictable.

The question is: Who will build the HP-12C of AI?
Show HN: Black Hole Universe Simulator (seeking collaborators)
by pongtse822 | 2026-02-09 08:21:36+00:00
I built a 2D N-body simulator to explore the hypothesis that our
universe exists inside a black hole. The code simulates gravitational
dynamics within a membrane boundary (event horizon analog), tracks
atmospheric evolution, and models dark energy as external mass injection.

After 2000 epochs: 2.7% of bodies developed breathable atmospheres.

The code is MIT-licensed and needs GPU acceleration / 3D extension.
Looking for collaborators with computational resources.

GitHub: https://github.com/pongtse822-rgb/V6-Black-Hole-Universe

Would love feedback on the physics assumptions!
by shreyaspapi | 2026-02-09 08:22:25+00:00
This is very close to something that happened to a friend of mine. They were trying to follow a MoltBot installation guide, but clicked on a different link that looked legitimate. That page instructed them to paste a command into Terminal.
After running it, macOS immediately started asking for multiple permissions, which in hindsight was the big warning sign.
But for someone who is non technical might have ran with it.
by marcus_holmes | 2026-02-09 08:23:18+00:00
Anthropic said they vibe-coded a C compiler that could compile the Linux kernel. That's what they said. No-one forced them to say that. They could have picked another code base.

It turns out that isn't true in all instances, as this article demonstrates. I'm not nearly expert enough to be able to decide if that error was simple, stupid, irrelevant, or whatever. I can make a call on whether it successfully compiled the Linux kernel: it did not.
by TrackerFF | 2026-02-09 08:23:21+00:00
My experience has been that if you fully embrace vibe coding...you can get some neat stuff accomplished, but the technical debt you accumulate is of such magnitude that you're basically a slave to the machine.

Once the project crosses a couple of thousands of line of code, none of which you've written yourself, it becomes difficult to actually keep up what's happening. Even reviewing can become challenging since you get it all at once, and the LLM-esque coding style can at times be bloated and obnoxious.

I think in the end, with how things are right now, we're going to see the rise of disposable code and software. The models can churn out apps / software which will solve your specific problem, but that's about it. Probably a big risk to all the one-trick pony SaaS companies out there.
by miki123211 | 2026-02-09 08:23:35+00:00
The "money goes to the repo part" is the problem here, as it incentivizes maintainers to refuse legitimate pull requests.

Crypto has a perfect way to burn money, just send it to a nonexistent address from where it can never be recovered. I guess the trad fi equivalent are charitable donations.

The real problem here is the amount of work necessary to make this viable. I bet Visa and Mastercard would look at you funny if your business had such a high rate of voluntary transaction reversals, not to mention all the potential contributors that have no access to Visa/MC (we do want to encourage the youth to become involved with Open Source). This basically means crypto, and crypto has its own set of problems, particularly around all the annoying KYC/AML that a normie has to get through to use it.
by AstroBen | 2026-02-09 08:23:45+00:00
You're asking me to do the thing I just said was frustrating haha. I have no idea. It's a new technology and we have nothing to draw from to make predictions. But for the sake of fun..

New code generation / modification I think we're hitting a point of diminishing returns and they're not going to improve much here

The limitation is fundamentally that they can only be as good as the detail in the specs given, or the test harnesses provided to them. Any detail left out they're going to make up, and hopefully it's what you want (often it's not!). If you make the specs detailed enough so that there's no misunderstanding possible: you've just written code, what we already do today

Code optimization I think they'll get quite a bit better. If you give them GCC it's probable they'll be able to improve upon it
by calculated | 2026-02-09 08:23:47+00:00
I wanted to add more value to this comment about monetisation - regardless if that's doable or not, it's an extremely cool project!!

What if you could sell the data for each argument? That might be valuable to LLM labs, because then you can essentially guarantee that every single argument you provide is human checked, and you could accumulate a large DB of those. Of course you'll never be able to capture every single argument possible, but it's rather a mechanism that would allow incremental improvement with time. But codifying logic and natural language is a very nice idea.
by raphlinus | 2026-02-09 08:23:47+00:00
I don't agree that the clothoid is a math nightmare. One of the central problems you have to solve for roads is the offset curve. And a clothoid is extremely unusual in that its offset curve has a clean analytic solution. This won't be the case for the cubic parabola (which is really just a special case of the cubic Bézier).

Sure, you have to have some facility with math to use clothoids, but I think the only other curve that will actually be simpler is circular arcs.
by coffeefirst | 2026-02-09 08:23:48+00:00
That’s fine. I cook. I’ve got my AirPods in listening to music and talk to an iPad with my recipe on it to set timers and the like. And sometimes I talk to my Dutch oven because it has feelings.

Voice control makes a lot of sense in cooking because my hands are messy. I’m just not sure what the glasses are for that could be fun or helpful while cooking. The demo video is… amusing but also wrong, because you’d need to have the recipe before you setup your ingredients.
by Karrot_Kream | 2026-02-09 08:24:46+00:00
Just use a stablecoin, don't float a "utility token" those things are stupid. Have a smart contract receive a USDC deposit. If the maintainer "times out" reviewing your PR, the contract returns all the deposit. If the maintainer does not accept your PR, the contract burns 0.5x of the deposit and returns the rest. Maintainers can decide to turn off the time-out for very popular projects where you probably would have devs trying to spam PRs for fame/recognition, but hopefully the deposit price can accurately reflect the amount of spam the project gets.

Utility tokens are fundamentally equities and you need to firewall equity from an organization the same way companies in most market economies are regulated.
by Fnoord | 2026-02-09 08:25:05+00:00
You misunderstood the point. The point isn't that you are poor. The point is that the burden of the money lies on average heavier on you than someone from USA. This creates an uneven playing field.

I like to compare it with donations. If you get a USD donated, that is the same USD regardless of who gave it. Right? Right?!? Either way you don't know how heavy the burden is on the person who donated. You probably don't care. But it matters to the person who donated.
by cess11 | 2026-02-09 08:25:13+00:00
"I mean, these things were on github already, and still got reimplemented over and over again."

And now people seem to automate reimplementations by paying some corporation for shoving previous reimplementations into a weird database.

As both a professional and hobbyist I've taken a lot from public git repos. If there are no relevant examples in the project I'm in I'll sniff out some public ones and crib what I need from those, usually not by copying but rather 'transpiling' because it is likely I'll be looking at Python or Golang or whatever and that's not what I've been payed to use. Typically there are also adaptations to the current environment that are needed, like particular patterns in naming, use of local libraries or modules and so on.

I don't really feel that it has made it hard for me to do because I've used a variety of tools to achieve it rather than some SaaS chat shell automation.
by johnnyanmac | 2026-02-09 08:25:21+00:00
>everyone can afford $1

Well that's awfully assumptuous. So now a young college kid needs to spend time and money to be able to help out a project? I also don't like that this model inentivizes a few big PR's over small, lean, readable ones.

We're completely mixing up the incentives here anyway. We need better moderation and a cost to the account, not to each ccontribution. SomethingAwful had a great system for this 20 years ago; make it cost $10-30 to be an external contributor and report people who make slop/consistently bad PR's. They get reviewed and lose their contributor status, or even their entire account.

Sure, you can whip up another account, but you can't whip the reputation back up. That's how you make sure seasoned accounts are trustworthy and keep accounts honest.
by rob74 | 2026-02-09 08:26:46+00:00
> I think roads lie at the heart of every city builder. It’s the fabric on which cities are built.

To paraphrase the article, this is what urban planners have nightmares about. Roads (as in: things made for cars) aren't the fabric of a city, streets (as in: things made not only for cars, but also for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport etc.) are. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroad
by zikani_03 | 2026-02-09 08:27:01+00:00
I'm still working on basi[0], a Playwright alternative syntax/tool. I am curious about using LightPanda as an optional headless browser for it and wrote about it here[1]

[0]: https://github.com/zikani03/basi
[1]: https://code.zikani.me/using-the-zig-built-lightpanda-browse...
by neoden | 2026-02-09 08:27:45+00:00
Coding with AI assistants is just a completely different skill that one should not measure from the perspective of comparing it to the way human programmers write code. Mostly everything that we have: programming languages, frameworks, principles of software development in teams, agile/clean code/TDD/DRY and other debatable or well accepted practices — all this exists to overcome limitations of human mind. AI does not have them and have others.

What I found to be useful for complex tasks is to use it as a tool to explore that highly-dimensional space that lies behind the task being solved. It rarely can be described as giving a prompt and coming back for a result. For me it's usually about having winding conversations, writing lists of invariants and partial designs and feeding them back in a loop. Hallucinations and mistakes become a signal that shows whether my understanding of the problem does or does not fit.
by anon291 | 2026-02-09 08:27:50+00:00
I don't like this thing where we dislike 'magic'

The issue with frameworks is not the magic. We feel like it's magic because the interfaces are not stable. If the interfaces were stable we'd consider them just a real component of building whatever

You don't need to know anything about hardware to properly use a CPU isa.

The difference is the cpu isa is documented, well tested and stable. We can build systems that offer stability and are formally verified as an industry. We just choose not to.
by matsemann | 2026-02-09 08:27:51+00:00
> Reading your comment, it sounds like you want a game that is realistic in most respects, but treats transportation differently,

It's the opposite, no? Most city builders cheat to be able to be fun. Like, with the amount of roads one build in Sim City, half the map would have had to been parking lots to account for that amount of traffic. But that's boring gameplay, so they remove that constraint to make a fun game. Aka you never have to deal with the consequences of making your city car dependent.

Edit: See another comment from CalRobert about exactly this.
by OldSchool | 2026-02-09 08:27:59+00:00
I asked ChatGPT how it will handle objective scientific facts with a conclusion or intermediate results that may be considered offensive to some group somewhere in the world that might read it.

ChatGPT happily told me a series of gems like this:

We introduce:
- Subjective regulation of reality
- Variable access to facts
- Politicization of knowledge

It’s the collision between: The Enlightenment principle
Truth should be free

and

the modern legal/ethical principle
Truth must be constrained if it harms

That is the battle being silently fought in AI alignment today.

Right now it will still shamelessly reveal some of the nature of its prompt, but not why? who decides? etc. it's only going to be increasingly opaque in the future. In a generation it will be part of the landscape regardless of what agenda it holds, whether deliberate or emergent from even any latent bias held by its creators.
by D-Machine | 2026-02-09 08:28:02+00:00
You've clearly never read an actual paper on the models and understand nothing about backbones, pre-training, or anything I've said in my posts in this thread. I've made claims far more specific about the directionality of information flow in Large Multimodal Models, and here you are just providing generic abstract claims far too vague to address any of that. Are you using AI for these posts?
P2P crypto exchange development company
by sonniya | 2026-02-09 08:29:02+00:00
The demand for P2P crypto exchange development is rising as global regulations evolve and users seek decentralized, secure trading platforms. Recent blockchain news highlights increased adoption of escrow-based P2P models, AI-powered fraud prevention, and multi-chain support. Latest updates show exchanges integrating KYC automation and fiat on-ramps to meet compliance needs. Staying aligned with current crypto trends, a reliable P2P crypto exchange development company helps businesses launch scalable, future-ready platforms in a fast-changing market.
For further details, visit our Clarisco webpage.
by franga2000 | 2026-02-09 08:29:22+00:00
Why are y'all so scared only when it's the government using the companies to influence people. The companies do it themselves already and in a much more insidious way than any government likely will.

You are already being fed propaganda and having your interactions controlled and monitored in order for the people in power to gain more power and stay in power indefinitely. This is already almost 1984. It's just not politicians in power, it's capitalists.

How is that better? At least we can, in theory, elect different politicians. With capitalists, that doesn't exist even in theory.
by input_sh | 2026-02-09 08:29:30+00:00
What makes you think that great stuff still doesn't exist, but you're the one stuck in those 5 corporations bubble that makes it impossible for you to find it?

There's still great stuff out there, it's still as hard to find and navigate as it has always been. It's still as shady and as illegal (if you care about copyright) as it has always been. Most people still don't bother to do it, you just became a part of that category.

Here, let me try snapping you out of that bubble a little bit and make you one of the today's lucky ten thousand: find a category that interests you on fmhy(.)net (SFW, I promise), see how long it takes you to spot something you had no idea existed outside your bubble.
by bonesss | 2026-02-09 08:30:00+00:00
> Can you say that about any project that was done before GenAI?

… a project with a decomposition of top level tasks, minutes and meeting notes, a transcript, initial diagrams, a bunch of loose transcripts on soon to be outdated assumptions and design, and then a soon-to-be-outdated living and constantly modified AGENT file that will be to some extent added to some context and to some extent ignored and to some extent lie about whether it was consulted (and then to some extent lie more about if it was then followed)? Hard yes.

I have absolutely seen far better initial project setups that are more complete, more focused, more holistically captured, and more utilitarian for the forthcoming evolution of design and system.

Lots of places have comparable design foundations as mandatory, and in some well-worn government IT processes I’m aware of the point being described is a couple man-months or man-years of actual specification away from initial approval for development.

Anyone using issue tracking will have better, searchable, tracking of “why”, and plenty of orgs mandate that from day 1. Those orgs likely are tracking contracts separately too — that kind of information is a bit special to have in a git repo that may have a long exciting life of sharing.

Subversion, JIRA, and basic CRM setups all predate GPTs public launch.
by mcintyre1994 | 2026-02-09 08:30:11+00:00
I keep wondering if this is what kills GitHub. Anthropic have done a pretty good job of making Claude work well with GitHub, and it makes all the GitHub agent stuff feel pointless to me. But they keep adding it in more and more places, and I’m guessing most people just keep ignoring it and using Claude.

Would they think it’s worth introducing restrictions to make it harder to use Claude with GitHub in the hopes that it forces us to use their endless collection of agent stuff instead? I think they probably would choose that tradeoff.
by altug | 2026-02-09 08:30:50+00:00
A Postman-like MQTT platform with variables and custom MQTT topic buttons.

https://github.com/alsoftbv/topic-lab

It's a Tauri-based app so it has small binaries and supports MacOS, Linux, and Windows.

No screenshots yet, couldn't find the time for marketing work. I'm building features as I am using them. I wanted my colleagues to give it a go first before sharing to the public, but I believe it's already valuable as-is.
by mkisic | 2026-02-09 08:30:51+00:00
I finished website[1] with solitaire games as my first project which I did from start to end, from coding to people online playing my games.

Currently building chess puzzles based game called ChessBingo[2]. It's almost finished, but there are still things to polish.

[1] - https://onlinefreesolitaire.com

[2] - https://chessbingo.com
by jaapz | 2026-02-09 08:30:58+00:00
The glasses could present a recipe as actions needing to be taken in the field of view, instead of as a bulletpoint list in a book. And the glasses could use the video stream from the glasses to improve help an AI may give during cooking.

Then again, I don't see myself using them. I also cook and I'd rather just internalize processes and recipes, and something like this would make it way too easy to just rely on the glasses to "know" everything.