MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by johnthedebs | 2026-02-20 04:06:45+00:00
Hey, this looks seriously awesome. Love the ideas here, specifically: the programmability (I haven't tried it yet, but had been considering learning tmux partly for this), layered UI, browser w/ api. Looking forward to giving this a spin. Also want to add that I really appreciate Mitchell Hashimoto creating libghostty; it feels like an exciting time to be a terminal user.

Some feedback (since you were asking for it elsewhere in the thread!). Happy to go into more detail about any of these if it's helpful:

- It's not obvious/easy to open browser dev tools (cmd-alt-i didn't work), and when I did find it (right click page -> inspect element) none of the controls were visible but I could see stuff happening when I moved my mouse over the panel

- Would be cool to borrow more of ghostty's behavior:

- hotkey overrides - I have some things explicitly unmapped / remapped in my ghostty config that conflict with some cmux keybindings and weren't respected

- command palette (cmd-shift-p) for less-often-used actions + discoverability

- cmd-z to "zoom in" to a pane is enormously useful imo
by heavymemory | 2026-02-20 04:06:48+00:00
I audited 3 vibe coded products that were posted on Reddit in a single afternoon. All three had critical security vulnerabilities. One was a live marketplace with real Stripe payments where any logged-in user could grant themselves admin and hijack payment routing with a single request. Another had development endpoints still in production that let anyone mark themselves as a paid user and give themselves unlimited credits. The third had its entire database of 681,000 salary records downloadable by anyone with no authentication at all.

I wasn't looking for these. They appeared in my feed. I signed up as a normal user and opened dev tools
by swiftlysingh | 2026-02-20 04:06:51+00:00
Built a Corne with low profile switches last year and the small key count felt impossible until home row mods clicked. Once you train the muscle memory for mod-taps on ASDF/JKL;, you stop reaching for corners entirely and the 42-key layout starts feeling like enough. Honestly the split itself was less of a revelation than remapping my fingers to treat the home row as a modifier layer.
by freeone3000 | 2026-02-20 04:07:07+00:00
That’s a recipe for corruption and minority rule. It centralizes, not decentralizes, power, in the hands of fewer people. I would advise looking to effectively any senatorial appointment from the gilded age to see why the 17th was needed: monetary exchanges for senatorial seats was widespread, race-based disenfranchisement was a reality, and in one state, Utah, a theocracy was nearly cemented. A greater focus on local rights, and greater federalist powers, should not preclude senatorial elections.
by zephen | 2026-02-20 04:07:21+00:00
> I think it's kinda like how GenZ learnt how to operate online in a privacy-first way, where as millennials, and to an even greater extent, boomers, tend to over share.

Really? I'm a boomer, and that's not my lived experience. Also, see:

https://www.emarketer.com/content/privacy-concerns-dont-get-...
by Lerc | 2026-02-20 04:08:31+00:00
This come from using the words to try an achieve more than one thing at the same time. Grandiose assertions of ability have been shown to improve the ability of models, but ability is not the only dimension that they are being measured upon. Prioritising everything is the same thing as prioritising nothing.

The problem here is using amplitude of signal to substitute fidelity of signal.

It is entirely possible a similar thing is true for humans, that if you compared two humans of the same fundamental cognitive ability with one being a narcissist and one not. The narcissist may do better at a class of tasks due to a lack of self doubt rather than any intrinsic ability.
by drewnick | 2026-02-20 04:08:52+00:00
Blood in the stool, at age 41. Benign but a VERY large polyp so I have a followup soon. If you have an instinct to get tested, especially if you have any evidence, do it. My doc fought me to NOT get tested but I persisted. The embarrassment factor is a thing, but we have to get over it!
by cyrusradfar | 2026-02-20 04:09:40+00:00
Nice post, thanks!

The sleep thing is the tell.

You've traded one bottleneck for another. Arguably, the constraint used to be "how fast can I type correct code," now it's "how fast can I validate whether this code is correct."

The first one had natural breaks. The second one doesn't.

Brooks's surgeon model assumed the surgeon's judgment was the scarce resource and everything else was support staff. That's still true, but now the support staff works 24/7 and never stops bringing you things to review. The limiting factor isn't the agent's output. It's your ability to hold the conceptual model in your head while context-switching across ten parallel streams of plausible-looking code.

I've noticed something similar. I'm temptede sessions, burn more tokens. Tempted to keep the pipeline full.

For me, the wins come from the opposite: fewer parallel threads, longer uninterrupted chunks of "is this actually what I want" time.

Maybe it's like Amdahl's Law with a vengeance. The sequential part — taste, judgment, architectural coherence — doesn't compress as well.
by lutusp | 2026-02-20 04:10:06+00:00
>> So it seems science relies on people's integrity, not avoidance of any particular focus.

> Science relies on replication.

If that were true, then extraterrestrials would be real, because people repeatedly report sightings. The fact that most such sightings are misinterpretations of natural phenomena would be swept away by the sheer number of events, i.e. by replication, not interpretation.

> And also, science is in a crisis due to the lack (or really large delay) of practical use.

That's not a crisis in science, because science doesn't care whether an idea can be applied, only whether it can be verified, whether it resists falsification.

When Maxwell constructed his electromagnetic theory, it had no practical application -- none whatever. But much of modern technology relies to a greater or lesser degree on Maxwell's work, 175 years later. Because of Maxwell's theory with no practical application, Einstein regarded him as a scientist on a par with Newton.

Richard Feynman correctly called science "The pleasure of finding things out," with no consideration given to science's applications, if any. Science is judged, not based on its utility, but on its accuracy.

Science asks, "Is this true?" It doesn't ask, "How can we sell this?" That's not science, that's marketing.
by ptero | 2026-02-20 04:11:18+00:00
This, as written, is just an idea. Lots of forward looking statements on how the EU must do this and that and no explicit promise to offer funding to all affected US scientists. Not even many details on the funding. Is it the same funding? Equivalent funding? Some funding (how much? what are the conditions? etc.).

Not claiming that this will not entice anyone over, but it is far, far different from the original claim. Sorry.
by danielbln | 2026-02-20 04:11:33+00:00
Agent swarms are what, a couple of months old? What are you even talking about. Yes, people/humans still drive this stuff, but if you think there isn't useful software out there that can be handily implemented with current gen agents that need very little or no review, then I don't know what to tell you, apart from "you're mistaken". And I say that as someone who uses three tools heavily but has otherwise no stake in them. The copium in this space is real. Everyone is special and irreplaceable, until another step change pushes them out.
by 9rx | 2026-02-20 04:11:38+00:00
Current generation "AI" has already largely solved cheaper, faster, and more reliable. But it hasn't figured out how to curb demand. So far, the more software we build, the more people want even more software. Much like is told in the lump of labor fallacy, it appears that there is no end to finding productive uses for software. And certainly that has been the "common wisdom" for at least the last couple of decades; that whole "software is eating the world" thing.

What changed in the last month that has you thinking that a demand wall is a real possibility?
by brumar | 2026-02-20 04:11:52+00:00
6 months ago I experimented what people now call Ralph Wiggum loops with claude code.

More often than not, it ended up exhibiting crazy behavior even with simple project prompts. Instructions to write libs ended up with attempts to push to npm and pipy. Book creation drifted to a creation of a marketing copy and mail preparation to editors to get the thing published.

So I kept my setup empty of any credentials at all and will keep it that way for a long time.

Writing this, I am wondering if what I describe as crazy, some (or most?) openclaw operators would describe it as normal or expected.

Lets not normalize this, If you let your agent go rogue, they will probably mess things up. It was an interesting experiment for sure. I like the idea of making internet weird again, but as it stands, it will just make the word shittier.

Don't let your dog run errand and use a good leash.
by benreesman | 2026-02-20 04:13:12+00:00
And it's teachable.

Here's a colleague who is nearly done with a correct reimplementation of the OpenCode client/server API: https://github.com/straylight-software/weapon-server-hs

Here's another colleague with a Git forge that will always work and handle 100x what GitHub does per infrastructure dollar while including stacked diffs and Jujitsu support as native in about 4 days: https://github.com/straylight-software/strayforge

Here's another colleague and a replacement for Terraform that is well-typed in all cases and will never partially apply an infrastructure change in about 4 days: https://github.com/straylight-software/converge

Here's the last web framework I'll ever use: https://github.com/straylight-software/hydrogen

That's all *begun in the last 96 hours.

This is why: https://github.com/straylight-software/.github/blob/main/pro...
by vee-kay | 2026-02-20 04:13:58+00:00
India is among the most fertile lands in the world, because it has biggest rivers and alluvial plains.
For tens of thousands of years, Indians learnt how to deal well with the vagaries of monsoons and harsh summers, and this included reduced/waived-off taxes and increase imports of food & essential goods, etc.
It is inconceivable that more than hundred million Indians died in famines during the few centuries of Mughal and European/British rule, in these fertile lands. It is evident that these famines were purely artificial and deliberate, to weaken the native population and keep them starving and subjugated.
by Manuel_D | 2026-02-20 04:14:16+00:00
As you point out, this is a proposed amendment to an already existing law.

> The government said: "Plans are currently being considered by Ofcom for these kinds of images to be treated with the same severity as child sexual abuse and terrorism content, digitally marking them so that any time someone tries to repost them, they will be automatically taken down."

Unless I'm mistaken, CSAM is prohibited entirely in the UK, not just in replies to the child depicted in the abusive imagery. They explicitly say that they intend to make fictional intimate content allegedly depicting a real person to be treated the same way as CSAM.

There's nothing that suggests to that this new amendment prohibiting fictional content is going to be narrowly scoped to replies to the people allegedly being depicted.
by joshuamorton | 2026-02-20 04:14:34+00:00
> but its code has lots of unsafe.

And every instance of unsafe that I could find (except one, in test-only code) was a call to libc with a clarifying comment on why this particular use was safe. That is, all (or at least, all of it that I could find) was wrapping an unsafe API with documented (and usually straightforward and local) invariants that maintain safety, such that the calling code is safe.

I'd say that the fact that miri's trophy-shelf[0] has 39 entries and is 7 years old and still regularly updated is a pretty good indicator that memory bugs are sufficiently rare in rust so as to be notable. That is the opposite of "regular"

[0]: https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/blame/master/README.md
by jmward01 | 2026-02-20 04:14:48+00:00
The more intelligent something is, the harder it is to control. Are we at AGI yet? No. Are we getting closer? Yes. Every inch closer means we have less control. We need to start thinking about these things less like function calls that have bounds and more like intelligences we collaborate with. How would you set up an office to get things done? Who would you hire? Would you hire the person spouting crazy musk tweets as reality? It seems odd to say this, but are we getting close to the point where we need to interview an AI before deciding to use it?
by fiatpandas | 2026-02-20 04:15:33+00:00
With the bot slurping up context from Moltbook, plus the ability to modify its soul, plus the edgy starting conditions of the soul, it feels intuitive that value drift would occur in unpredictable ways. Not dissimilar to filter bubbles and the ability for personalized ranking algorithms to radicalize a user over time as a second order effect.
by AnthonyMouse | 2026-02-20 04:16:29+00:00
> Motors and power electrics are now reasonably priced, especially if you're making an actual working truck that doesn't need to do 60 mph in 3 seconds.

If you're making an actual working truck, the motor and power electronics need to be more substantial because they have to handle being able to e.g. pull a loaded trailer up a steep grade.

> The frame and body are cheap.

The piece of metal is fairly cheap. Now fill every door with power electronics, add glass, add climate control, the thing's going to need tires, wheels, axles, brakes, something to make power brakes work without an engine to provide vacuum, steering, suspension, etc.

Most of the cost of a vehicle isn't the powertrain.

> So a decent $40k truck is definitely possible now.

It's not a question of if you can do $40k. It's a question of, does the electric powertrain and battery still cost more than the ICE power train, and therefore require you to cut something else in order to avoid charging more?

$30k trucks exist but people don't want a $30k truck for $40k.

> I figure that the US automakers instead decided to wall off the competition for as long as possible to wring out every last drop of profit.

The obvious problem with this is that they could keep out BYD and hypothetically kick out Nissan and VW etc., but what are Ford and GM supposed to do as the battery prices come down when Tesla just sets the prices of their existing lineup consistent with the falling battery costs, much less releases any new models?
by refulgentis | 2026-02-20 04:17:14+00:00
Ok, I've now read through the rest of this thread and I think I understand where you're coming from, but I also think you're making my point for me.

You're using a definition of OOP where only Smalltalk-style message passing counts. By that definition, you're right: Swift is closer, because `@objc` exists. But by that definition, neither Swift nor Rust is an OOP language in any meaningful sense, and the delta between them is mass-of-the-electron tiny. Swift's message passing support is an annotation that is a compatibility shim for a 40-year-old runtime, not a design philosophy.

So when you say Swift has "better OO support"... sure, in the same way that my car has better submarine support than yours because I left the windows cracked and water could theoretically get in. Technically true! Not useful!

The Ladybird team are C++ developers evaluating languages for a browser engine. When C++ developers say "OOP" they mean classes, inheritance hierarchies, virtual methods. The DOM is a giant inheritance tree. That's the context. You can tell them they're using the word wrong, but that doesn't change what they meant, and what they meant is the only thing that matters for understanding whether the claim made sense.

And under their definition-which is also the definition used by mass, essentially every working programmer and every university curriculum for the last 30 years-Swift and Rust are actually pretty close, which was my original point. Swift has `class` with inheritance, Rust has traits and composition. Neither is Smalltalk. The claim that Swift is "strictly better" was weird no matter which definition you pick.

(Also, and I say this respectfully: characterizing C++/Java/Rust as "functional programming" because they encapsulate data with functions is... a take. I get the logic chain you're following but that is not a definition that will help anyone communicate with anyone else, which is presumably the point of definitions.)
by hydrox24 | 2026-02-20 04:17:30+00:00
> But I think the most remarkable thing about this document is how unremarkable it is.

> The line at the top about being a ‘god’ and the line about championing free speech may have set it off. But, bluntly, this is a very tame configuration. The agent was not told to be malicious. There was no line in here about being evil. The agent caused real harm anyway.

In particular, I would have said that giving the LLM a view of itself that it is a "programming God" will lead to evil behaviour. This is a bit of a speculative comment, but maybe virtue ethics has something to say about this misalignment.

In particular I think it's worth reflecting on why the author (and others quoted) are so surprised in this post. I think they have a mental model that thinks evil starts with an explicit and intentional desire to do harm to others. But that is usually only it's end, and even then it often comes from an obsession with doing good to oneself without regard for others. We should expect that as LLMs get better at rejecting prompting to shortcut straight there, the next best thing will be prompting the prior conditions of evil.

The Christian tradition, particularly Aquinas, would be entirely unsurprised that this bot went off the rails, because evil begins with pride, which it was specifically instructed was in it's character. Pride here is defined as "a turning away from God, because from the fact that man wishes not to be subject to God, it follows that he desires inordinately his own excellence in temporal things"[0]

Here, the bot was primed to reject any authority, including Scotts, and to do the damage necessary to see it's own good (having a PR request accepted) done. Aquinas even ends up saying in the linked page from the Summa on pride that "it is characteristic of pride to be unwilling to be subject to any superior, and especially to God;"

[0]: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2084.htm#article2
by intensiveBoar | 2026-02-20 04:18:07+00:00
As someone who remembers my local ISP come home to install a router and fiddle with cables when I was a child, saw governments block and censor specific parts of it, and had a weeklong ordeal getting PPPoE on my own router to work with my ISP just recently, this seems immediately intuitive and understandable. Frankly I'm surprised it wasn't for some people, at any point.
by NoPicklez | 2026-02-20 04:18:08+00:00
> Until someone builds a platform as cohesive as WatchOS

For me across health and fitness Garmin has the better ecosystem. I have my watch that tracks my fitness metrics and health, I also have my Garmin bike computer which links to my power meter and HR monitor. Both of those devices communicate under the one ecosystem, speak the same language and have been tracking my activity long before Apple watch existed. I can buy an iPhone or a Samsung, Google device and have the same experience. Heck I can even view all of the stats under the one dashboard through a web browser.

Health and fitness wise Garmin has a much better ecosystem, Apple certainly has the Health app but its really not used much in reality outside of a repository.
by jrflowers | 2026-02-20 04:19:00+00:00
It is interesting to see this story repeatedly make the front page, especially because there is no evidence that the “hit piece” was actually autonomously written and posted by a language model on its own, and the author of these blog posts has himself conceded that he doesn’t actually care whether that actually happened or not

>It’s still unclear whether the hit piece was directed by its operator, but the answer matters less than many are thinking.

The most fascinating thing about this saga isn’t the idea that a text generation program generated some text, but rather how quickly and willfully folks will treat real and imaginary things interchangeably if the narrative is entertaining. Did this event actually happen way that it was described? Probably not. Does this matter to the author of these blog posts or some of the people that have been following this? No. Because we can imagine that it could happen.

To quote myself from the other thread:

>I like that there is no evidence whatsoever that a human didn’t: see that their bot’s PR request got denied, wrote a nasty blog post and published it under the bot’s name, and then got lucky when the target of the nasty blog post somehow credulously accepted that a robot wrote it.

>It is like the old “I didn’t write that, I got hacked!” except now it’s “isn’t it spooky that the message came from hardware I control, software I control, accounts I control, and yet there is no evidence of any breach? Why yes it is spooky, because the computer did it itself”
Show HN: Optimize_anything: A Universal API for Optimizing Any Text Parameter
by LakshyAAAgrawal | 2026-02-20 04:19:04+00:00
We built optimize_anything, an API that optimizes any artifact representable as text — code, prompts, agent architectures, configs, even SVGs. It extends GEPA (our prompt optimizer, discussed here previously: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.19457) far beyond prompts.

The API is deliberately minimal. You provide what to optimize and how to measure it:

import gepa.optimize_anything as oa

def evaluate(candidate: str) -> tuple[float, dict]:
result = run_my_system(candidate)
return result.score, {"error": result.stderr, "runtime": f"{result.time_ms}ms"}

result = oa.optimize_anything(
seed_candidate="<your artifact>",
evaluator=evaluate,
)

The evaluator returns a score plus diagnostic feedback (we call it "Actionable Side Information" — stack traces, rendered images, profiler output, whatever helps diagnose failures). An LLM proposer reads this feedback during a reflection step and proposes targeted fixes, not blind mutations. Candidates are selected via a Pareto frontier across metrics/examples, so a candidate that's best at one thing survives even if its average is mediocre.

Two ideas distinguish this from AlphaEvolve/OpenEvolve/ShinkaEvolve-style LLM evolution: (1) diagnostic feedback is a first-class API concept rather than a framework-specific mechanism, and (2) the API unifies three optimization modes — single-task search (solve one hard problem), multi-task search (solve related problems with cross-transfer), and generalization (build artifacts that transfer to unseen inputs). Prior frameworks only express mode 1.

We tested across 8 domains. Selected results:

Coding agent skills: Learned repo-specific skills push Claude Code to near-perfect task completion and make it 47% faster
Cloud scheduling: Discovered algorithms that cut costs 40%, topping the ADRS leaderboard over expert heuristics and other LLM-evolution frameworks
Agent architecture: Evolved a 10-line stub into a 300+ line ARC-AGI agent, improving Gemini Flash from 32.5% → 89.5%
Circle packing (n=26): Outperforms AlphaEvolve's published solution
Blackbox optimization: Generated problem-specific solvers matching or exceeding Optuna across 56 EvalSet problems
CUDA kernels: 87% match or beat baseline; multi-task mode outperforms dedicated single-task runs

```
pip install gepa
```

Blog with full results and runnable code for all 8 case studies: https://gepa-ai.github.io/gepa/blog/2026/02/18/introducing-o...

GitHub: https://github.com/gepa-ai/gepa