MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Peritract | 2026-02-27 14:22:30+00:00
> most invocations of the statement are either blindingly obvious or probably false

So straightaway, you've walked significantly back from the claim in the headline; now half of the time it's 'blindingly obvious' that the statement is correct. That already feels like a strong counterexample to me, and it's the article's own first point.

Secondly, look at this one specifically:

> The purpose of the Ukrainian military is to get stuck in a years-long stalemate with Russia.

Firstly, this isn't obviously false. It's an unfair framing, but I think the Ukrainian military would agree that forcing a stalemate when attacked by a hostile power is absolutely part of their purpose.

Secondly, it is an unfair framing that deliberately ignores that all systems are contextual. A car's purpose is transport, but that doesn't mean it can phase through any obstacle.

The article makes an entirely specious argument, almost an archetypal example of a strawman. It can't sustain its own points over a few hundred words without steadily retreating, and that is far more pointless than the maxim it criticises.

I'm reminded of an XKCD comic [1] about smug miscommunication. Of course any principle is ridiculous when you pretend not to understand it.

[1] https://xkcd.com/169/
by egorfine | 2026-02-27 14:22:38+00:00
> Submitting contributions fully or in part created by generative AI tools to postmarketOS.

So, autocomplete done by deterministic algorithms in IDEs are okay but autocomplete done by LLM algorithms - no, that's banned? Ok, surely everybody agrees with that, it's policy after all.

How it is possible to distinguish between the two in the vast majority of cases where the hand written code and autocompleted code is byte-by-byte identical?

Are we supposed to record video of us coding to show that we did type letters one by one?

> 2. Recommending generative AI tools to other community members for solving problems in the postmarketOS space.

Is searching for pieces of code considered parts of solving problems?

Then how do we distinguish between finding a a required function by grepping code or by asking LLM to search for it?

Can we ask LLM questions about postmarketOS? Like, "what is the proper way to query kernel for X given Z"?

If a community members asks this question and I already know the answer via LLM, then am I now banned from giving the correct answer?

--

Don't get me wrong. I am sick and tired of the vomit-inducing AI bullshit (as opposed to the tremendous help that LLMs provide to experienced devs).

I fail to see how a policy like this is even enforceable let alone productive and sane.

On the other hand, I absolutely see where is this policy coming from. It seems that projects are having a hard time navigating the issue and looking for ways to eliminate the insurmountable amount of incoming slop.

I think we still haven't found a right way to do it.
Show HN: Open-source agentic video editor for dev tools and side projects
by ohstep23 | 2026-02-27 14:22:41+00:00
Describe your product, drop a repo link, and the agent reads your actual code and builds multi-scene videos with animations, ElevenLabs voiceover, and branded scenes. Live editor lets you chat with the agent to tweak scenes in real time.
Stack: Next.js, Remotion (in-browser rendering), Convex (real-time state).
GitHub: https://github.com/ostepan8/subconscious-remotion-demo
Demo: https://subconscious-remotion-demo.vercel.app/
by state_less | 2026-02-27 14:22:48+00:00
> Can you imagine human potential if it was somehow applied to crop harvesting efficiency, new medicines, etc?

We already have very efficient crop harvesting and Eli Lilly is nearly a $1 Trillion dollar company. Interestingly, the new medicine is designed to keep us from eating so many cheap calories (new weight loss drugs).

> Not everything has to be perfectly efficient but it just saddens me to see all these great minds doing what, adversarially harvesting margin from the works of others?

The traders and investors who work in this space also go to where they are need, aka where the big money is. So few of these folks are trading corn and soybeans, though some do, rather most are trading drug stocks, tech stocks, and recently sovereign debt related trading (e.g. things like gold and bonds). The focus is around the big questions of our time, like "Are AI investments going to pay off?", or "Is the US going to default/soft default?", and so on.

Deciding how a society allocates its resources, or places its bets, is an important function. Otherwise, you end up with planned economies by disconnected leaders, which often leads to massive failures and large social consequences. Unfortunately, the US is trending in that direction to some degree with it's giant fiscal deficits, tariffs, and tribal politics creeping into economic policy. Nevertheless, traders will weigh these outcomes in their trades, and you'll see a quick reflection from any major change in policy almost immediately, which is a helpful feedback mechanism. For example, the tariff tantrums caused by trump proposing 100%+ china tariffs where he crashed the markets last spring, leading to a moderation in policy.
by direwolf20 | 2026-02-27 14:23:05+00:00
China has surpassed the USA in almost every metric except freedom (so far). They already do, or are close to doing, the most and best research in every field, producing the best and cheapest of every product category, and providing the best living standards for their Han Chinese citizens. Europe has a huge amount of catching up to do, and the US is basically a lost cause.
by righthand | 2026-02-27 14:23:11+00:00
But talking with an Llm isn’t teddy bear/rubber duck debugging because your llm has some high odds of outputting good feedback. Teddy bear/rubber duck debugging involves the other party not knowing anything about your problem let a lone even capable of giving a response (hence why it’s not go-ask-a-coworker/teacher/professional debugging). It’s about getting yourself to refocus the problem and state what you already know and allowing your brain to organize the facts.

I’m not trying to be rude but it seems like you’re conflating collaborative problem solving with rubber duck debugging. You haven’t actually collaborated with a rubber duck when you’re finished rubber duck debugging.
by cassepipe | 2026-02-27 14:23:54+00:00
The comment above you made a much more apt analogy with being bone marrow donor.

In your logic, you should have never "fed the birds" to start with but the people giving birth to children in f** up places are not going. "Mmmm I may wait for having that child on whether humanitarian aid will come" or "The likelihood of civi war is big in my country, I will wait for a safer period". They just have the child. Also those people may want to live too since they are already alive.

So just like for birds, not feeding them because it would create a population that cannot sustain itself would mean having lots of birds dying.
Also I like to live in a world where some humans are not considered as birds.

> Nobody knows if the long-term impact will be positive or negative. It can push countries to take care of their population, to have new coalitions of countries (what if China double-down and offer more aid ?), etc.

Sure but that's besides the point the whole point of the parent was introducing the complexity of, once you have given some aid, you are responsible for the deaths you caused if you pull it out too quickly for the recipients to adapt. As others have said it's not like the US have coordinated themselves and given time to have other countries to share that load more evenly. Also it seems with administration, a lot of the time, cruelty is the point: Showing your base you are hurting their preferred target instead of actually being efficient. An example of that would be the handling of illegal immigration. A big spectacle but a needlessly cruel and inefficient one.
Show HN: Skills to share and reuse workflows with the community (open source)
by hirokiyn | 2026-02-27 14:24:07+00:00
Hi HN,

AI outputs keep getting better, yet I kept losing the process that produced a good result. A great session can yield a plan, a draft, a decision, even a prototype. A week later, I can’t reconstruct the exact steps, tools, checks, and judgment calls that made it work.

Most “workflow sharing” online still collapses into prompt sharing. Prompts copy well, but they rarely carry:
- human judgment calls and handoffs
- tool hookups and intermediate artifacts
- quality gates and constraints that prevent confident wrongness

I built Epismo Skills to make workflows the unit of reuse. A “skill” packages an explicit process (human vs agent steps, expected artifacts, checks), and stays runnable via MCP so it can plug into the agent environment you already use.

What this enables for the community:
- Share best practices as executable workflows: inspect, fork, adapt, and publish improved variants back
- Import and adapt a workflow to a new project instead of reinventing it from scratch
- Turn existing knowledge (project context or an external doc/link) into a reusable workflow, then publish it

Repo (MIT): https://github.com/epismoai/skills
Deeper write-up: https://hiroki.blog/posts/everything-your-agent-needs-to-run...

What workflow would you want in a community library that you could import and run today?
by Noaidi | 2026-02-27 14:24:13+00:00
Hey, iamnothere, look at this!

https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.16800

"We show that large language models can be used to perform at-scale deanonymization. With full Internet access, our agent can re-identify Hacker News users and Anthropic Interviewer participants at high precision, given pseudonymous online profiles and conversations alone, matching what would take hours for a dedicated human investigator. "
by mte90 | 2026-02-27 14:24:44+00:00
As long time volunteer contributor in Mozilla (I am in the firefox credits and in the monument) it is very sad to say that I agree with you.

I have my opinion on why this is happening and my explanation is that in Mozilla they lost their memory because they act as a company and not as a foundation (they have both the identities).
With the layoffs they removed a lot of people working there for years that knows a lot, they lost the historic memory and I remember a lot of discussion with employees that had no idea that there was a community or that they have no idea what is a GPL license.
I mean in 2018 I remember reviewing this as part of the Mozilla Reps council, https://github.com/OpenTechStrategies/open-source-archetypes that was created to help the employee to understand OSS but I think that after the managers that created moved away it was just left as it is.

Sorry for the flame but I think that when a foundation act like a corporation there are issues.
by robtherobber | 2026-02-27 14:25:04+00:00
Oh, it's even 'better' than that. To quote from an article in the Guardian:

It’s a short book but if you read it you’ll see that a decent editor could have got it down to one sentence. “When we seek to protect the vulnerable we limit the freedom of the rich and the privileged – and that is a disgrace.”

It’s a wretched read – a series of assertions and hunches freed from the chains of argument or evidence, with the intellectual rigour of a YouTube conspiracy rant. The prose occasionally soars to the level of clickbait, as in its most famous sentence: “The British are among the worst idlers in the world.” Most of its authors are now cabinet ministers in a government that no one would call exactly Stakhanovite.
by incomingpain | 2026-02-27 14:25:05+00:00
USA depression has been on the rise for a long time. ~20% in 2015. To 29% most recently. Blame on covid is appropriate im sure. The original causes sourcing from the 80s and 90s, that are still ongoing.

Whereas generative AI is a recent thing. ~27% in 2021.

The correlation therefore is very very low and certainly not causal.

The question 'can AI make it worse' and this study didnt really do that.

Then consider confounders and this study is even weaker. Depression leads into AI usage, not the other way around.
by eesmith | 2026-02-27 14:25:39+00:00
Yes. And? There's no claim that Amazon is part of a price-fixing cartel or other collusion.

A pure monopoly is one where there is a single seller or provider. The US grants limited-time monopoly power to a new patent holder, and USPS has a monopoly on traditional letter delivery within the United States, for examples. A pure monopoly is therefore not necessarily illegal.

In addition to that definition, quoting https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/monopoly :

"In a legal context, the term monopoly is also used to describe a variety of market conditions that are not monopolies in the truest sense. For instance, the term monopoly may be referring to instances where: ... There are many buyers or sellers, but one actor has enough market share to dictate prices (near monopolies)"

That use certainly seems appropriate in the context of Amazon's ability to dictate prices, as described in California's complaint, yes?
by tasuki | 2026-02-27 14:25:49+00:00
It seems like a bunch of nonsense to me:

> Bitcoin should be at least $150,000 right now and everyone knows it.

Based on what? I'm a fan of Bitcoin, but "should be" is utter nonsense. As is "everyone knows it". HN doesn't, for one.

> Every trading day at 10am Eastern, coinciding with the U.S. stock market open, Bitcoin experienced sudden and sharp sell-offs. The drops were precise, algorithmic, and wildly disproportionate to broader market conditions. They wiped out leveraged long positions, triggered cascading liquidations, and then reversed within hours.

> [...] This happened every day, day after day.

If these swings are so predictable, why isn't everyone else getting wildly rich off them at the expense of Jane Street?

> Selling into thin order books at the open would depress the price, trigger liquidation cascades among leveraged traders, and create buying opportunities at lower levels. The firm could then re-enter at the bottom of a move it had manufactured.

Yea well don't be overlevered on Bitcoin I guess?

> Simultaneously, the firm boosted its holdings of MicroStrategy stock by 473%, accumulating 951,187 shares worth roughly $121 million

> Basically, Jane Street has direct access to the pipe that connects the Bitcoin ETF to actual Bitcoin, and almost nobody else does.

You too can buy and sell MSTR and BTC.

> In either scenario, the firm has every incentive to use its privileged position as authorized participant to suppress the spot price, trigger liquidations, and harvest the spread.

Yea well don't be overlevered on Bitcoin I guess?

> In other words, the 21M cap only works if the market sitting on top of it is honest.

No. Hell no.

> It has been accused of running algorithmic sell programs that suppressed Bitcoin's price for months.

Cheap Bitcoin sponsored by Jane Street. Cry me a river.
by XorNot | 2026-02-27 14:25:51+00:00
That's about 142 detections per day and yeah the big question is are they tracking unique drones (probably not) or radar contacts which appear and disappear? In which case the same drone flying around for 20 minutes and then being recharged would appear multiple times.

That number breaks down to 6 detections per hour across the entire boarder.
by NekkoDroid | 2026-02-27 14:25:54+00:00
> • 2 means “the error output” • > means “send it to” • &1 means “wherever the normal output is currently going” (the & just means “I’m referring to a pipe, not a file named 1”)

If you want it with the correct terminology:

2 means "file descriptor 2", > means "assign the previous mentioned to the following", &2 means "file descriptor 1" (and not file named "1")
by yoavm | 2026-02-27 14:25:55+00:00
It is not identical, and it not even similar situation. You are sick in your head to compare the killing of 6 million people, unarmed, in gas chambers, with two nations that have a strong link to a place fighting over the land. The Jews never had anything against Germany - on the contrary, they wanted to integrate in it. Jews have real a historical connection to the land that even a Quran believer cannot deny, not to mention an archeologist.

Your failure to see things through the eyes of the other side is exactly the kind of thing that makes the Middle East a terrible place to live in.
by user3939382 | 2026-02-27 14:26:27+00:00
Jane Street skims money from our retirement accounts by building expensive clocks that the rest of us don’t have access to and adversarial queue modeling. We get WWVB and NIST NTP. They say they “add liquidity” as if subsecond trades are some fundamental need in the market. Normal legitimate business settles daily. The contemporary concept of time in banking is inhumane in the strictest sense. These firms are a blight on society.

I have strong math for the question they’re asking but f them.
by phailhaus | 2026-02-27 14:26:45+00:00
Uh, reading a bash script shouldn't be as hard as doing your taxes. Bash syntax has to be simple because bash code is going to be read and reasoned by humans. Reading just a simple if statement in bash syntax requires a TON of knowledge to avoid shooting yourself in the foot. That's a massive failure of usability just to save a couple of keystrokes.

This is like saying "what's wrong with brainfuck??? makes sense to me!" Every syntax can be understood, that does not automatically make them all good ideas.
by zozbot234 | 2026-02-27 14:27:38+00:00
OTOH, out of order/speculative execution only amounts to information disclosure. And general purpose OS's (without mandatory access control or multilevel security, which are of mere academic interest) were never designed to protect against that.

A far greater problem is that until very recently, practical memory safety required the use of inefficient GC. Even a largely memory-safe language like Rust actually requires runtime memory protection unless stack depth requirements can be fully determined at compile time (which they generally can't, especially if separately-provided program modules are involved).
Show HN: C9watch – macOS menu bar app to monitor all Claude Code sessions
by minchenlee | 2026-02-27 14:28:09+00:00
I was running Claude Code across 10+ terminal tabs and constantly switching between them to check which session needed permission, which was done, which was idle. Tried existing tools but they required launching sessions from within their app — I wanted to keep using my own terminals.

c9watch scans running processes at the OS level and reads from `~/.claude/` to detect every active Claude Code session automatically. Works with any terminal or IDE — VS Code, Zed, iTerm2, tmux, Ghostty — no plugins or workflow changes needed.

The tray popover gives you a quick overview. The full dashboard lets you:
- Group sessions by status or by project (with git branch info)
- Expand any session to read the full conversation — formatted markdown, code blocks, tool calls
- Stop sessions, rename them, or jump to the parent terminal/IDE
- Get native macOS notifications when sessions need attention
- Use a WebSocket-based web/mobile client via QR code

Built with Tauri (Rust + Svelte), not Electron. Rust handles process scanning and JSONL parsing. The binary is small and memory usage is minimal.

MIT license, no telemetry.

GitHub: https://github.com/minchenlee/c9watch
by kunai | 2026-02-27 14:28:37+00:00
I don't really believe that the strongman theory and hierarchy is inherent to human social structure, or at least not the way in which we do it. Some level of hierarchy is inevitable, but the longest-lasting and most stable hierarchies were somewhat bureaucratic and highly meritocratic (think China and their civil service exams) and our system is extremely bureaucratic and not meritocratic whatsoever.
by smalltorch | 2026-02-27 14:29:05+00:00
your right it's not a problem. This has been implemented since v1 and I haven't really been focused to much this. Trying to decide if I should remove this step for future versions. It's a clear optimization but Im thinking it should at least be backwards compatible with old versions.

It's not really a latency saver but it definitely reduces load on the network.
by Noaidi | 2026-02-27 14:29:09+00:00
I made. this comment three days before this study cam out and some one made fun of me:

> Anonymity is a myth. I am sure by now an LLM can figure out who you are and where you live by your HN posts alone."

>> iamnothere 3 days ago | parent [–]
>> Do it then

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47123383
by hu3 | 2026-02-27 14:29:10+00:00
I'm pointing out that their expectation of AI-free OS is pointless.

Because AI-assisted code is most probably already present in devices they use.

And I dare say that even for PostmarktOS:

1) There's no way they can prevent AI-assisted code to reach their codebase.

2) They will most probably change this policy in the future lest other forks/projects outpace them in terms of utility and they get reduced to a carriage in a car world.
by byproxy | 2026-02-27 14:29:54+00:00
Yep, this, so far, proven the most promising use of LLMs, to me. I've read about people's Rube Goldberg machine-eqsue setups for getting agentic LLMs to work for them, but I find simply having a dialectic with an LLM to be more fruitful. Rubber-ducking with a duck that quacks back.
by ToucanLoucan | 2026-02-27 14:30:26+00:00
Being a tech forum centered around VC funding means we have a TON of tech bros (derogatory) here, who believe in nothing beyond getting their own piles of money for doing literally anything they can be paid to do. If you offered these guys $20 to murder a grandmother they'd ask if they have to cover the cost of the murder weapon or if that's provided.

I get it to a degree, people gotta eat, and especially right now the market is awful and, not to mention, most hyperscaler businesses have been psychologically obliterating people for a decade or more at this point. Why not graduate to doing it with weapons of war too? But, personally, I sleep better at night knowing nothing I've made is helping guide missiles into school busses but that's just me.
by antitopquark16 | 2026-02-27 14:30:40+00:00
Happy to answer questions. The core idea: generate a golden QA dataset from your docs, then use LLM-as-judge to score your RAG's answers. Works fully offline with Ollama — confirmed end-to-end on Colab free tier yesterday. The 1.5b model is just for the demo pipeline; use llama3.1:8b (or larger) locally for production-quality results.
by tyre | 2026-02-27 14:30:51+00:00
This is patently silly. The US does not have a democratically elected dictatorship.

People and companies are free to do whatever the fuck they want that’s not illegal. They can resist any government priorities for any reason, including finding them destructive or anti-democratic or corrupt.

The government is able to change the laws within the current system to back its will—regardless of whether it’s in the interest of the people who voted for them, let alone the entire population.

(No the em dash isn’t AI.)
by ImPostingOnHN | 2026-02-27 14:30:57+00:00
> It's not the Corporate leaders to decide to against democratically elected leaders even if they are bad.

Refusing to join forces and contribute your efforts towards actively support fascism is not "deciding against democratically elected leaders". This sort of rhetorical sophism is unhelpful and, indeed, damaging.

It is ABSOLUTELY everyone's place, ("corporate leaders" included) to have principles and stick to them.

Personally, I agree with the principles of not using fallible AI for mass domestic surveillance analysis purposes, or for fully autonomous weapon purposes.
by Foxboron | 2026-02-27 14:30:58+00:00
> Maintainers: You’re a primary maintainer or core team member of a public repo with 5,000+ GitHub stars or 1M+ monthly NPM downloads. You've made commits, releases, or PR reviews within the last 3 months.

Laughable.

This is a tiny, if even unimportant, fraction of the FOSS community that runs the modern tech stack.