MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Der_Einzige | 2026-02-07 04:13:27+00:00
I am so tired of game designers/developers being so pathetically wrong about stuff like this. Modders have to CONSTANTLY fix these boneheaded, user hostile decisions in nearly every game. A lot of game developers are not the people actually loving/playing their games in the same way that the cello maker is usually not the cello player.

Even many popular mods fuck this up! DEI in Total War Rome 2 needs submods to make the AI play by the same rules as the player!!! This is top of the most subscribed list right now FOR A REASON!!! https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=36258...

Make the AI play by the exact same rules as the player. Make a scaling AI difficulty slider which goes from "piss easy" to "insane grandmaster" but without cheats. It's not that hard to do this, the chess engine crowd figured it out back in 2001. FEAR figured it out in 2004. Game AI has straight up not improved and at many times gotten worse in the ensuing two decades.
by nickpsecurity | 2026-02-07 04:14:10+00:00
It could be difficult. My first thought would be a SELinux policy like this article attempted:

https://danwalsh.livejournal.com/28545.html

One might have different profiles with different permissions. A network service usually wouldn't need your hone directory while a personal utility might not need networking.

Also, that concept could be mixed with subprocess-style sandboxing. The two processes, main and sandboxed, might have different policies. The sandboxed one can only talk to main process over a specific channel. Nothing else. People usually also meter their CPU, RAM, etc.

INTEGRITY RTOS had language-specific runtimes, esp Ada and Java, that ran directly on the microkernel. A POSIX app or Linux VM could run side by side with it. Then, some middleware for inter-process communication let them talk to each other.
by tharkun__ | 2026-02-07 04:15:13+00:00
I don't know of an actual paper either. It's rather just a really good anecdote that illustrates the point.

The first time I heard this was actually just in person from a trainer at work. He told this over like 10 minutes or even more as an engaging story. The monkeys went "Uuuuh banana!" each time. Until they didn't ;) That's essentially how it stuck in my mind. Through the Uuuuh banana! exclamation.
by kazinator | 2026-02-07 04:16:45+00:00
There is no "C's convenient inline assembly": that is a vendor extension, if available, and its convenience could vary considerably.

The manipulation of memory by C programs is close semantically to the manipulation of memory by assembly programs. Memory accessed through pointers is similarly "external" to both assembly language and C programs.

The evaluation of C program code is not close to assembly language. C programs cannot reflect on themselves portably; features like parameter passing, returning, and allocating local storage during procedure activation, are not in the programming model.

C loses access to detailed machine state. Errors that machine language can catch, like overflows, division by zero and whatnot, are "undefined behavior". An assembly language program can easily add two integers together and then two more integers which include the carry out from the previous addition. Not so in C.

Assembly language instruction set designs (with some exceptions) tend to bend over backwards to preserve the functioning of existing binary programs, by maintaining the illusion that instructions are executed in sequence as if there were no pipelining or speculative execution, or register renaming, etc.

Meanwhile, C compiler vendors bend over backwards to prove that code you wrote 17 years ago was wrong and make it fail. C is full of unspecified evaluation orders and various kinds of undefined behavior in just the basic evaluation model of its syntactic, built-in constructs; and then some more in the use of libraries.

In assembly language, you would never have doubt about the order of evaluation of arguments for a procedure.

Even when it comes to memory, where C and asasembly language agree in many points, there are some subtle ways C can screw you. In assembly language, you would never wonder whether copying a structure from one memory location to another included the alignment padding bits. In C you also don't have to wonder, if you use memcpy. Oh, but if you use memset to clear some memory which you don't touch afterward and which goes out of scope, the compiler can optimize that away, oops!
by DoctorOetker | 2026-02-07 04:17:31+00:00
By saying that something is impossible to do cost-effectivey, one is implicitly claiming they have rigorously combed through the whole problem space, all possible configurations and materials, and exhaustively concluded it is not possible cost-effectively.

Imagine now instead of a pyramid, a cone. Imagine the cone is spinning along its symmetry axis. One now has a local radial pseudoforce, a fake gravitational force along the radial direction (away from the symmetry axis).

Now any fluid with a liquid-gas phase transition above the desired radiator temperature but below the intended maximum compute operating temperature (and there is a lot of room for play for fluid choice because the pressure is a free parameter) can be chosen to operate in heat-pipe fashion. Suppose you place the compute at a certain point along the outer rim of the cone, and fluid that condenses on the cone wall will flow to the circular rim at the base. the compute is inside a kind of "chimney" and the lower half of the chimney (and the compute in it) are submerged by the fluid. The fluid boils and vaporizes, and rises up the chimney and is piped to the central axis and flows out in a controlled distributed fashion. all of the pipes could be floppy aluminum foil (or mylar etc.) pipes, since they are all pressurized during normal operation.

Some of the liquid phase could be pumped up to the central axis at the base and cool the rear side of the solar panels as well. I don't see the problem. The power density of solar panel heating (and thus power density on the cone surface) are very similar and perfectly manageable with phase-transition cooling /condensing.

At some point you are just prodding until people hand you working designs on a silver platter.
by rcv | 2026-02-07 04:17:50+00:00
Staying true to your username at least. While I hear you in principle, I don’t think shaming people into not building things is going to work out. Even if you could convince some people, you’ll never reach them all. Someone will build it. IMO energy is better spent figuring out how to best structure our society to handle the seemingly inevitable end state where superhuman AI is commonplace.
by KevinChasse | 2026-02-07 04:20:07+00:00
Interesting approach. I like that this is explicit about human recovery rather than pretending crypto alone solves catastrophe.
That said, this design and fully stateless systems like mine (deterministic derivation, no escrow) are solving opposite failure modes. Shamir-based social recovery assumes:
trusted third parties remain reachable,
they are willing and able to cooperate,
and that recovery is an exceptional event.
Stateless systems assume the inverse:
no one can be relied on,
recovery is impossible by design,
and the primary threat is silent compromise rather than lockout.
Neither is “better” universally; they’re value judgments. What I appreciate here is that the tradeoffs are made explicit instead of buried behind UX.
One open question I’d be curious about: how you reason about coercion risk over time (friends change, incentives change), and whether you see this as something users should periodically re-shard as relationships evolve.
by hsuduebc2 | 2026-02-07 04:20:59+00:00
If I understand it correctly, a prolactinoma can make it harder to have children mainly because high prolactin can disrupt ovulation, but it does not automatically mean having a child is impossible. In many cases, treatment brings prolactin back to normal and fertility can return. And if carrying a pregnancy is not possible for medical reasons, there can still be options like IVF, and having someone else carry the pregnancy where it is legal and appropriate. So it may be more complicated and it can be very hard in some cases, but it is not an absolute dead end. A hopeless tone is not very useful here because it can discourage people from exploring realistic options and evidence based treatment paths.
by brendangregg | 2026-02-07 04:21:28+00:00
Again, many comments here saying I only care about the money, and while comp is an important factor I think it characterizes me as someone I'm not, and forgets what I've been doing for the past two decades. I've spent thousands of hours of my life writing textbooks for roughly minimum wage, as I want to help others like me (I came from nothing, with no access tech meetups or conferences, and books were the gateway to a better job). I've published technologies as open source that have allowed others to make millions and are the basis for many startups. I'm also helping pioneer remote work and hoping to set a good example for others to follow (as I've published about before). So I think I'm well known for caring about a lot of things during the past couple of decades.
by trimethylpurine | 2026-02-07 04:21:48+00:00
Do you have kids? If not, I agree with you. Make the hard decision and take a loss. And thank you for your sacrifice.

If you do, I can't agree with you.

Also I wouldn't compare software development for a marketing company with a violent disagreeable effort. There's bad and there's worse, objectively.

Anyway, not saying you're wrong, but I'm not so quick to judge someone by a job that they probably hate.

Or to wrap 100,000 people in the same blanket. We're all individuals. No one should be judged by the actions of others.
by georgemcbay | 2026-02-07 04:23:04+00:00
> And we do not need gigawatts and gigawatts for this use case anyway. A small local model or batched inference of a small model should do just fine.

I guess I'm a dinosaur but I think emailing the friend to ask what they are actually up to would be even better than involving an LLM to imagine it.

Asynchronous human to human communication is a pretty solved problem.
by tock | 2026-02-07 04:23:06+00:00
> OK, but is it a problem if you get recommended repos on github? What I mean that perhaps it's not the good recommendation algorithm that is the problem? It seems like banning tcp/ip because porn is bad.

Please stop trying to compare social media recommendation algorithms with stuff like github. Its clearly a different animal with different set of business goals. And noone is saying ban tcp/ip. TikToks recommendation algorithm is not a fundamental building block like tcp/ip. I think you would be fine without it.

> In China for example (IIRC) below 18 you cannot use these apps past some hour and not above some time limit per day. That seems far from correct solution but seems better than banning it outright and seems to be addressing most concerns.

Sure thats fine too. I think my solution is better.

> Personalized content is crucial for functioning information platforms. Imagine if usenet had a single group only. The information sea is vast and the ways to browse and access it seem to only be diminishing. Relaying solely on LLMs outputs does not seem like a safe bet. We've been living off black boxes outputs since altavista, but it's nice to at least have many different black boxes to chose from.

The algorithms today are still a black box. You don't know "why" certain content is being shown to you. You don't know which political party paid to show you what kind of ideology. I personally know facebook used to show hateful anti-(your opposite religion) posts in India during election times. You could click "i'm not interested/report the content" and they would still show you the same stuff. It only stopped after election season stopped. These companies are being paid to manipulate you.

> (HN is very much a FYP, it's just that.we like similar stuff)

It is user curated and everyone sees the same leaderboard of posts. No personalisation. I'm fine with such simple curation.
by csullivannet | 2026-02-07 04:23:19+00:00
> Trusted emergency contacts must be existing Bitwarden users

While the motivation is similar this basically kills the feature. It requires that your friends not only use but continue to maintain their accounts.

From my understanding of OP's implementation, being completely offline they can basically just keep the key on a USB or file store of any kind.

Personally I think the most robust solution is single key access (a la emergency kit), distributed in one or more secure bank vaults for redundancy (many still do offer these for free or cheaply for small boxes). Put instructions in your (living) will and done.
by tiny-automates | 2026-02-07 04:25:35+00:00
this is close to what i've landed on too. the pre-commit hook is non-negotiable. i've had Claude Code report "all checks pass" when there were 14 failing eslint rules. beyond the static analysis though, i keep hitting a harder problem: code that passes every lint rule, compiles clean, and greens the test suite but implements a subtly wrong interpretation of the spec. like an API handler that returns 200 with an empty array instead of 404, technically valid but semantically wrong. evaluating behavioural correctness against intent, not just syntax or type safety, is the gap nobody's really cracked yet. property-based testing helps but it still requires you to formalize the invariants upfront, which is often the hard part.
by rcpt | 2026-02-07 04:27:04+00:00
> purely aesthetic reasons

This is huge though.

People aren't setting them on fire during protests, and if an FSD Tesla plows into a farmers market, it might not even make the news.

People hate tech so much that self-driving companies with easy-to-spot cars have had to shut down after just a few mistakes.

Disguising Teslas as plain old regular human-driven cars is a great idea and I wouldn't be surprised if they win the market because of this. Even if they suck at driving.
by bigstrat2003 | 2026-02-07 04:28:00+00:00
People have been saying "the models from (recent timeframe) are so much better than the old ones, they solve all the problems" for years now. Since GPT-4 if not earlier. Every single time, those goalposts have shifted as soon as the next model came out. With such an abysmal track record, it's not reasonable to expect people to believe that this time the tool actually has become good and that it's not just hype.
by _ache_ | 2026-02-07 04:29:21+00:00
It's redish. Ok it has a blur and details on the foreground but could have been any image with blurred background and a face.

"very low frequency detail", we are talking about a 512x512 picture here, it has low and high frequency details (FFT speaking) like most photos.

"Good for edges detection" doesn't mean anything. Like, is the image good for edge detection or the algorithm is good at detecting edges ? What does "subjective edges" even mean ? Does it mean hard to spot ?

That looks like technical reasons but it just noise. They literally grab a playboy magazine and decided it was well enough (and indeed, it wasn't that bad, yes). Still not professional. The message is "We have playboy magazines at work and we are proud of it".
by tiny-automates | 2026-02-07 04:29:25+00:00
i've been building agent tooling for a while and this is the question i keep coming back to. the actual failure mode isn't messy code, agents produce reasonably clean, well-typed output these days. it's that the code confidently solves a different problem than what you intended. i've had an agent refactor an auth flow that passed every test but silently dropped a token refresh check because it "simplified" the logic. clean code, good types, tests green, security hole. so for me "quality" has shifted from cyclomatic complexity and readability scores to "does the output behaviour match the specification across edge cases, including the ones i didn't enumerate." that's fundamentally an evaluation problem, not a linting problem.
by biggggtalkguy | 2026-02-07 04:31:04+00:00
The blog author is the same guy who wrote this when leaving his previous company https://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2025-12-05/leaving-intel.h... :

> I also supported cloud computing, participating in 110 customer meetings, and created a company-wide strategy to win back the cloud with 33 specific recommendations, in collaboration with others across 6 organizations.

> My next few years at Intel would have focused on execution of those 33 recommendations, which Intel can continue to do in my absence. Most of my recommendations aren't easy, however, and require accepting change, ELT/CEO approval, and multiple quarters of investment. I won't be there to push them, but other employees can (my CloudTeams strategy is in the inbox of various ELT, and in a shared folder with all my presentations, code, and weekly status reports). This work will hopefully live on and keep making Intel stronger. Good luck.

OpenAI deserves these big shots.
by alephnerd | 2026-02-07 04:31:46+00:00
Ignore the haters (who sadly have become extremely common on HN now).

I loved your work back when I was an IC, and I'm sure this is a common sentiment across the industry amongst those of us who started systems adjacent! I still refer to your BPF tools and Systems Performance books despite having not written professional code for years now.

Can't wait to read content similar to what you wrote about when at Netflix and Intel albeit about the newer generation of GPUs and ASICs and the newer generation of performance problems!
by wentingr | 2026-02-07 04:32:00+00:00
Location: Toronto / Vancouver, Canada
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: Yes
Technologies: C# Unity C++ Java Python
Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QS1xqi-SX9hxn8aDPINkVaJOF8H...
Email: ricky.wen@mail.utoronto.ca

Hi I'm Ricky, a game developer with industry experience with Unity and C#. I am looking for full time game development positions starting in September 2026. I am open to any game engine and language.
by vlovich123 | 2026-02-07 04:32:24+00:00
Ethanol free fuel in an engine designed for ethanol blend can result in incomplete combustion, leaving deposits in fuel injectors and valves. The car companies don’t care about this for the purposes of determining gas mileage.

Californians I think still remember the smog of the 90s in LA that kicked us to make our air pollution standards the highest in the nation. Going away from that I think sounds more like a nightmare than a dream for most Californians.
by agumonkey | 2026-02-07 04:32:43+00:00
> your potential customers will just think "thanks for the idea, I'll just make my own."

yeah, and i'm surprised nobody talks about this much. prompting is not that hard, and some non software people are smart enough to absorb the necessary details (especially since the llm can tutor them on the way) and then let the loop produce the MVP.

> Or maybe cheaper code just means ever-more-specialized workflows instead of pushing users to one-size-fits-all tooling.

Interesting thought
by zozbot234 | 2026-02-07 04:34:33+00:00
How Does Class Size Vary Around the World? (OECD, 2012) shows that there are countries such as Japan and South Korea with some of the largest average class sizes, and excellent educational achievement. Clearly it's far from the only or even the most important factor. The United Kingdom is one country that skews the other way, though there are countries like Estonia with similarly small classes that seem to do a lot better.
by tiny-automates | 2026-02-07 04:34:35+00:00
i go back and forth on this. when i'm working on something where the hard part is the actual algorithm, say custom scheduling logic or a non-trivial state machine, i need my hands in the code because the implementation is the thinking. but for anything where the complexity is in integration rather than logic, wiring up OAuth flows, writing CRUD endpoints, setting up CI pipelines, agents save me hours and the output is usually fine after one review pass. the "code as thought" argument is real but it applies to maybe 20% of what most of us ship day to day. the other 80% is plumbing where the bottleneck is knowing what to build, not how.
by cameldrv | 2026-02-07 04:35:12+00:00
I think that for an average person a few years ago, probably there’s nothing meaningful they could have done.

For a smart VC with some money and with some knowledge of biology and willing to put in some hours, and with a disease that is “on the bubble”, i.e. not a slam dunk for modern medicine, but also not a death sentence, that there’s a decent chance that he can meaningfully improve the outcome.

I also see what you’re saying about the vibe and making it about himself, but that’s also helping him get attention… here we are talking about it. With more attention he’s going to get more skilled people helping her out.
by dietr1ch | 2026-02-07 04:36:43+00:00
In Assistant having higher-ups spitting ideas and random thoughts ended up in people mistakenly assume that we really wanted to go/do that, meaning that chaos resulted in ill and cancelled projects.

The worst part was figuring what happened way too late. People were having trying to go for promo for a project that didn't launch. Many people got angry, some left, the product felt stale and leadership&management lost trust.
by polyglotfacto | 2026-02-07 04:37:12+00:00
So let’s say you fund a single engineer for an open‑source project with $20k. The outcome will be a prototype with some interesting ideas. And yes, with AI assistance that single engineer might get much further than without (but not using any of the techniques presented in this blog). People can coalesce around the project as contributors. A seed was planted and watered a bit.

In this case, the $20k has been burned and produced zero value. Just look at the repo issues: looks like someone trying to get attention by spamming the issue tracker and opening hundreds of PRs. As an open source project, it’s a dead end.

So it doesn’t matter that this is “likely decrease in price over the next few years”? The value is zero, so even if superintelligence can produce this in an instant at zero cost in six months, the outcome is still worth zero.

You’re conflating production cost with value.

In terms of quality, to anyone using those coding agents, it should be clear by now that letting them run autonomously is a bad idea. That’s not going to change unless you believe LLMs will turn into something entirely different over time.

Note that what works with humans—social interaction creating innovation—doesn’t translate to LLM agents for a simple reason: they don’t have agency, shared goals, or accountability, so the social dynamics that generate innovation can’t form.
by vlovich123 | 2026-02-07 04:38:16+00:00
OS is such a broad term, especially when applied to Windows which is closer to a Linux distro. Is it the kernel? Windows is fine there as by all accounts the issues are higher up. They’ve had some problems with their update process which is surprising - historically that team would have been populated by the better engineers. most of the other problems have been in the shell and UI where good engineering discipline is not to be quite as expected.
by ksec | 2026-02-07 04:38:20+00:00
I have been using Safari Full time for ~13 years already, 2025 was the first time I felt Safari finally didn't have any quicks or rendering errors that Chrome and Firefox dont encounter.

It is still the slowest browser though if you have more than 30 Tabs. I hope they wont reduce resource on Safari developement and continue to work on it.