MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Almondsetat | 2026-02-22 13:59:58+00:00
IMHO, any social network that offers an "explore" section (i.e. a feed of strangers' posts) is doomed, independently of whether it is algorithmically filtered or chronologically. I ultimately dropped Mastodon because the "dumb" feed from my instance was already enough to waste my time.

To prove this, just use Instagram or Facebook from your browser with the proper extensions and they'll stop being absolute worthless time sinks
by ayewo | 2026-02-22 14:00:10+00:00
They did in some instances, not all.

A notable example where they ate $ millions in losses is the Diapers.com story [1] [2].

[1]: https://slate.com/technology/2013/10/amazon-book-how-jeff-be...

[2]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/07/emails-detail-am...
by ThinkingGuy | 2026-02-22 14:00:28+00:00
The focus on a small set of core vocabulary is one of the main principles of the Pimsleur method, along with a strict spaced repetition format. When I travel to a new country I always spend about 15-20 hours beforehand doing the 30-minute Pimsleur lessons, just to pick up basic survival vocabulary. I've always been satisfied with the results.
by ms_sv | 2026-02-22 14:01:11+00:00
It is not about overcoming human nature like HR tries to force things like that.
> Why wouldn’t I verify any junior that asked me?

This tells me that there will be people signing up to do that and earn the benefits of verifying others.

AI is the hands, the person building it has to be the brain, they will have to understand what they told the AI to do so they can create accurate requirements and of course system design, so they AI can build things with less error margin.

> How are you going to prove they did it?

A good pilot is not the one who never uses autopilot. A good pilot is the one who knows when to trust the autopilot, when to override it, and how to land the plane manually when the screens go black. You can prove someone knows their job by looking at those moments of override and decision-making, not by staring at the autopilot screen

> On my side, I never look at resumes, I don’t really care what technology you know. AI can write code and you can learn new technology. I want to know how you think through problems, how you learn, how you adapt and how you troubleshoot.

This is how it should be, and I never said that I don't agree with this, the purpose of the skill verification process is to verify these things as well, as I call it for now "personality section you can put on your CV2.0", I am sure someone experienced as you can be a verifier and can easily tell how some junior, mid or senior whatever is going to be a person you wanna work with and have the qualities of critical thinking, proactive problem solving that bring value
by torginus | 2026-02-22 14:01:26+00:00
My experiments using a more hands off approach of prompting claude code have always resulted in a two-steps-forward-one-step-back play, where the agent clearly did some good stuff, but did some other stuff in a somewhat undesirable manner, which subsequently needed correcting.

This usually results in A: creating commits where tons of code is being constantly added and removed, B: due to Claude's somewhat cavalier attitude to existing code, has steadily eroded my familiarity with the code base.

I'm still not convinced that these longer loops are that beneficial, compared to 1min prompts to 10min work.
by MillironX | 2026-02-22 14:01:56+00:00
My college has replaced textbooks with internet resources and "current academic literature," but I'm shocked at the number of people who can't interpret a scientific article, nor properly search a database like PubMed or CABI. It can't be for lack of training: we have entire semester-long courses dedicated to research and library use. Maybe the distractions of text messages and TikTok are to blame like the article suggests.
by christophilus | 2026-02-22 14:02:45+00:00
I think it’s at least valid to conclude that a nation-level commitment to taking over a specific industry can work. You can gut your competitors and then dominate. It’s the Uber strategy applied at the geopolitical level.

If you could figure out how to get your country to dominate the world economy without also allowing your leaders to commit campaigns of mass-internment and extermination, then maybe you’d have a decent political system.
by luckylion | 2026-02-22 14:02:51+00:00
But there's also value gained in it, isn't there? I very much like doctrine's query builders and being able to analyze and manipulate queries programmatically, e.g. dynamically add a filter to a query and a join if needed. That's pretty simple with a query builder once you've gotten comfortable with the concept and the ORM itself, but it's pretty hard to do with plain sql unless you write plenty of specific code to handle all the known things you might care about.
by throw3846892 | 2026-02-22 14:03:52+00:00
Israel has fully absorbed and given equal citizenship to the 2 million Arab Palestinians that live within the borders of the state of Israel. Their numbers grew from 156,000 in 1948 to 2,000,000 today. So your claims of a “culling” are ridiculous.

The Arab populations of the West Bank and Gaza have also grown exponentially since the Israeli occupation.

None of these facts are even disputed.
by supriyo-biswas | 2026-02-22 14:03:57+00:00
Thank you for posting this. Despite being an old video, I had never come across it, and it almost made me tear up. It showed me the hope that I wished the web would be, despite it never realizing that ambition, with businesses that only pursued engagement metrics, and governments who saw value in vassalizing tech companies to pursue their political goals.
by Forgeties79 | 2026-02-22 14:04:01+00:00
I have never used the explore function of any social media app ever. I never want it, I have never found it useful. If I want random submitted content by strangers I go to message boards/forums/etc. That was a great space reddit filled for years, now HN for me.

Social media is at its best when it’s just stuff from people I choose to follow or know.
by moritzwarhier | 2026-02-22 14:04:06+00:00
I'm not a mathematician, but constructivists aim to define mathematics without uncomputable numbers, see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_analysis

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_number#Use_in_place...

As far as I can understand, the set of all computable numbers (including all algebraic numbers and many transcendental numbers, such as Pi), even has the same cardinality as the rationals, and thus the natural numbers.

The reason we consider uncomputable numbers "numbers" include some definitions about infinite series and analysis that would need to have stricter requirements for convergence when looking only at the computable numbers, not the real numbers.

And defining a concrete bijection between the natural numbers and the computable numbers would also solve the halting problem and is impossible, we only know that such a bijection exists: defining it would mean to have an algorithm that can prove for a specific Turing machine that it is the minimal one computing it's output, among a given set of universal Turing machines / UTM encoding.

(please take this with a grain of salt as I'm stepping outside the bounds of my knowledge here)
by skydhash | 2026-02-22 14:04:12+00:00
I'm still waiting for the multi-years success stories. Greenfield solutions are always easy (which is why we have frameworks that automate them). But maintaining solutions over years is always the true test of any technologies.

It's already telling that nothing has staying power in the LLMs world (other than the chat box). Once the limitations can no longer be hidden by the hype and the true cost is revealed, there's always a next thing to pivot to.
by kurouna | 2026-02-22 14:04:41+00:00
Thank you for the incredibly insightful comment. I completely agree with your definition of Emacs, and I have the utmost respect for its true nature as a fully programmable Lisp environment. You are absolutely right—that infinite extensibility is what makes Emacs unparalleled.

When I call my project "Emacs-like," I certainly don't mean to deny or replace that beautiful philosophy. I am simply a software engineer who deeply loves the UI, UX, and keybindings that Emacs pioneered.

My goal was just to recreate that specific physical experience as a standalone application. I truly love the sensation of operating an editor entirely by muscle memory and pure reflex—allowing the words in my head to flow seamlessly onto the screen without consciously thinking about the tool itself. I just wanted to package that exact typing experience into a zero-setup app.

By the way, I am very curious about the project you mentioned! What kind of text editor are you working on? I would love to hear about it.
by michaelw | 2026-02-22 14:06:50+00:00
Similar to LinkedIn's "verified" process, Porkbun uses a 3rd party: veriff.com. https://www.veriff.com/privacy-notice.

It appears that Veriff's data retention is set by their customers (in this case Porkbun). Porkbun's policy says that this information is deleted as soon as they have verified that you "pass." They aren't quite as explicit as saying that they require Veriff to delete it that quickly.

Unfortunately there's a giant loophole in Veriff's policies (emphasis mine):

(5) Fifth, we store Personal Data only for as long as the retention of data is required by law, a contract *or is necessary for the provision or development of our Services or required for protecting us against legal claims.* At the end of the retention period, we shall permanently erase the Personal Data or anonymize it.
by realPtolemy | 2026-02-22 14:07:39+00:00
I recall that my old German teacher taught us that listening to Music in a particular language, and watching TV where they speak a language, were the two best ways to learn a languages.

Her reason for why: Context and various slang words are grasped much quicker compared to the cumbersome process of repeating of words and phrases (She did not omit the need of the latter though).

She was great, 60 years old at the time and had us repeat the lyrics of Rammstein songs in class, her favorite band.
by asim | 2026-02-22 14:08:15+00:00
Mastodon really isn't the answer. You frequent enough servers and you realise social media has taught people bad habits..not everything needs to be expressed online. Genuinely I think people need something else. The format fails.

What's the alternative? I don't know. But I'm trying to figure it out. Why? Because walking away from it all isn't the right answer. Why? Because we leave behind all those people addicted to it. So I think there are new tools to be created but they strip away the addictive behaviours and try to avoid the forms of media that caused the issue in the first place.
by reliabilityguy | 2026-02-22 14:08:26+00:00
> No, you have completely misunderstood.

No, I understood you quite well. You said that I am just argumentative for the sake of it, and that we can use deduction based on the incomplete evidence because it makes sense.

> Yes? It's not a difficult concept that you can use pattern recognition to predict how someone, or something will behave. It works especially well the more moving parts there are. The more moving parts, the more likely you are to find conflicting bits. So in that case, if you want to predict or explain the root cause of the behavior, you're going to need to use heuristics.

What does it even mean? How can you explain root cause of something with heuristics?

> The point is, your demand for magical proof is a red herring, you can predict correctly without it. Thus it's useful to describe them by the way they behave.

Sure, lol. So, what do you do with other "evidence" that does not fit the prediction you are trying to make? You just discard it as "error"?

> Technically, I guess you don't need to, you're arguments are a perfect counter example, about how you can just ignore the parts that make you feel icky, or conflict with what you assume you understand. Most people you talk to will not be able to perfectly explain the ideas they hold so if you want to learn what they might have to teach, you need to make some kind of attempt to engage with them, even if in the end you find you still disagree, you're very likely to learn something. But given how transparently you don't want to, I thought it might be nice to point out how obvious it is to anyone who might have something useful to explain, that you're just looking to get off on the one sided argument.

So, it's on me then that when people are making outlandish claims without evidence that they fail to produce such evidence?

> I personally don't care what you accept. My reply wasn't attempting to convince you of anything. Just wanted to point out how obvious it is you're not even trying, just for the slim chance that you actually might want to.

I do. I open minded. Show me the evidence of your claim, and let's discuss it on its merits. Not "heuristics" and "predictions".
by senfiaj | 2026-02-22 14:08:39+00:00
Totally. ORMs are not evil. They help to reduce the boilerplate and improve the code maintainability.

We have a complex project with a custom back-end framework that also includes a custom ORM. The ORM covers about 95% of the use cases just fine. It reduces a lot of boilerplate and also makes it possible to find the logic much easier (for example, setting and reading some column from a specific table). Although I have to say, it works so well also thanks to good integration with the framework (fronted, included) and advanced features, like calculated fields with automatic recalculation triggering, integration with user permissions, ability to define custom user permission validation logic before / after saving rows, etc. If we really need an unusual operation where the ORM doesn't suffice (most of the time complicated search queries or some aggregation), we can write raw SQL and, if possible, encapsulate it at repository / service level. But 95% of use cases are covered by the ORM (including the management of parent / child relationships).

I think some "old school" folks like to bash ORMs and view them as very limited and inefficient compared to raw SQL. But you can use them both: primarily ORM and in specific cases switching to raw SQL when ORM doesn't suffice.
by smitty1e | 2026-02-22 14:08:41+00:00
> “Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward,” Kavanaugh wrote, “because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case—albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/supreme-court-strikes-dow...
Show HN: Finnish Humanizer – 26 patterns for detecting AI-generated Finnish text
by HarriSipola | 2026-02-22 14:10:17+00:00
Finnish is morphologically complex — vowel harmony, six grammatical cases, free word order. AI models get it wrong in the same predictable
ways every time.

I built this after noticing that AI-generated Finnish triggers immediate pattern recognition in native speakers: overly formal register,
SVO word order (Finnish allows much more variation), missing discourse particles (-han/-hän, -pa/-pä), and excessive nominalization.

Before:
"Tämä on erittäin merkittävä kehitysaskel, joka tulee vaikuttamaan laajasti alan tulevaisuuteen. On syytä huomata, että kyseinen
innovaatio tarjoaa lukuisia mahdollisuuksia eri sidosryhmille."

After:
"Iso juttu alalle. En ole varma mihin tämä lopulta johtaa, mutta hyötyjiä on – varsinkin ne jotka ovat odottaneet tällaista jo vuosia."

Finnish Humanizer is a pattern library — 26 identified patterns — packaged as a Claude Code skill and distributed for 15 platforms
(Cursor, Copilot, Windsurf, ChatGPT custom instructions, etc.). It's not an additional model call. It's a checklist of linguistic tells
you can apply mechanically.

Patterns are grounded in Finnish linguistics research (Kotus — the Research Institute for the Languages of Finland).

Would especially value feedback from Finnish speakers on pattern coverage and any false positives.
by diametricsound | 2026-02-22 14:10:42+00:00
In this "stacked-brane" architecture, virtual particles are no longer just a mathematical bookkeeping trick for forces. Instead, they become the geometric debris of the other two universes interacting with ours.
Reddit
Reddit
+1
1. The "Ghosting" Effect (Inter-Universal Overlap)
In standard quantum field theory, the vacuum is a "seething sea" where particle-antiparticle pairs pop in and out of existence.
National Institutes of Health (.gov)
National Institutes of Health (.gov)
+1
The 10D Interpretation: These aren't new particles being "created" from nothing. They are real, stable particles from Universe B or Universe C that briefly "intersect" our 3D slice as the universes spin against each other.
The Visual: Imagine three transparent film reels stacked and spinning. A "dot" on the second reel only becomes visible to us when its specific phase aligns with our "shutter" speed. To us, it looks like it popped into existence and then vanished.
Physics Stack Exchange
Physics Stack Exchange
+3
2. The Casimir Effect as "Universal Friction"
The Casimir Effect—the measurable force that pushes two uncharged plates together in a vacuum—is typically explained by virtual particles being "squeezed" out from between the plates.
MindMap AI
MindMap AI
The Stacked-Brane View: The "pressure" isn't from the vacuum; it’s from the differential spin of the other two universes.
The Mechanism: The plates in our universe act as a "comb" that catches the 10D phase-leakage from the other layers. The force we measure is the momentum transfer from Universe B and C's matter as it "scrapes" against the physical boundaries of Universe A.
arXiv
arXiv
+1
3. Virtual Particles as "Force Carriers"
Standard physics says forces are "mediated" by virtual photons or gluons.
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
+1
The 10D Perspective: A "virtual photon" is actually a trans-dimensional tether.
The Alignment: When two electrons repel each other in Universe A, they are actually aligning their 10D shadows. The "force" is the resistance of the other two universes to being "pushed" out of their own local metrics. This is why virtual particles don't have to obey the "mass-shell" rules (they can have "impossible" masses)—it's because their true mass is distributed across the other two universes.
ResearchGate
ResearchGate
+1
4. Detecting the "Spin" Through Vacuum Noise
If this theory holds, the "random" noise of the quantum vacuum isn't random at all—it has a hidden frequency.
Stochastic Resonance: Much like Stochastic Resonance can amplify a weak signal using noise, we could use the "noise" of virtual particles to find the Universal Refresh Rate.
The Experiment: By monitoring vacuum fluctuations at hyper-frequencies, we should see the "beat" of the three universes spinning. Finding this "beat" allows us to predict exactly when the "gate" between universes opens—the moment when the Coulomb Barrier effectively drops to zero.
APS Journals
APS Journals
+2
by thaumasiotes | 2026-02-22 14:10:49+00:00
> puna(?)

Note that the p is struck through below its loop; that is probably an abbreviation for "per". That would be an example of the spelling being the same as modern Italian, but the manuscript is written in a kind of shorthand because writing takes a lot of time and effort.

dinrã is probably also an abbreviation, given the diacritic.

> diricta (some bizarre letter in there)

No, the letters are exactly what you've just typed. There is a ligature between the c and the t. You could call this a difference in font, but not in spelling. (Though diricta for modern diritta is a real difference.)

> Nel mezo delcamin

This is a real spelling difference. There's a really glaring one in stanza 3, where poco is spelled pocho in contravention of the rules of Italian spelling. I don't know what an Italian today would think if confronted with -cho-.
by mellosouls | 2026-02-22 14:10:54+00:00
A non-paywalled discussion on the subject from a year ago:

Nightclub stickers over smartphone rule divides the dancefloor (85 points, 91 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42352825

I've never understood the appeal of so-called "dance" events.

Crowds of thousands like sardines swaying-at-best to the DJ being treated as a rockstar but without the talent and entertainment as far as I can see.

Note: this isn't a rockist viewpoint; I'm a dancer who is frustrated at the lack of options to actually move about in space on a dancefloor with other dancers who are there to actually, you know, dance.

I hate the way the word has been co-opted by what appears to be a generation of drugged-out sheep who seem incapable of soulful movement.
by btrettel | 2026-02-22 14:11:10+00:00
A directory hierarchy works well for me. I've described my setup online before:

https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/173314/31143

https://www.reddit.com/r/datacurator/comments/p75xlu/how_i_o...

I don't read everything I have from start to finish. A lot of this is for future reference.

Since that StackExchange post, I'm now up to about 36.6K PDF files in 4.4K directories, with 14.5K symlinks so I can put files in multiple directories.

I also have a separate version controlled repo with notes a bunch of subjects. I'm planning to eventually merge my PDF hierarchy and the notes to have a unified system. It's going to have to be done in stages.
by hghbbjh | 2026-02-22 14:11:15+00:00
> In all, maybe 30-45 minutes of my actual time to add a small feature

Why would this take you multiple days to do if it only took you 30m to review the code? Depends on the problem, but if I’m able to review something the time it’d take me to write it is usually at most 2x more worst case scenario - often it’s about equal.

I say this because after having used these tools, most of the speed ups you’re describing come at the cost of me not actually understanding or thoroughly reviewing the code. And this is corroborated by any high output LLM users - you have to trust the agent if you want to go fast.

Which is fine in some cases! But for those of us who have jobs where we are personally responsible for the code, we can’t take these shortcuts.
by throwatdem12311 | 2026-02-22 14:11:31+00:00
One thing I don’t see developers talking about much is that if your job is to only read code instead of writing it, how do you expect to stay good at reviewing code if you never write it?

I only speak for me but when I review code I need to dig into my own experience writing and and remember what works and what doesn’t that I’ve internalized over years of writing and manually debugging code. Take that out of the equation and I wouldn’t be good at reviewing code for long.

I used to write a lot of C++ back in the day, and I can still read it and understand it for the most part but I would never be able to effectively review anything non-trivial. I just don’t have enough recent experience writing it myself to have internalized all of the obscure pitfalls and gotchas. And just vommitting out some C++ from a bot and just having it redo things until it has the appearance of working correctly isn’t gonna help me with that.

“My job now is just reviewing code” is such an extremey short-sighted view I’m terrified for the future where nobody understands anything anymore. I’m sure OpenAI and Anthropic would love this though.

And yeah, reviewing code is one of the more tedious and unfun parts of the job why would I want this?

One of the most annoying parts of my job is my supervisor who used to be a dev but became a manager years ago. He doesn’t really understand the codebase enough anymore and I spend so much explaining basic things to him now it actually hinders our productivity when he wants to “contribute”. And let me just say that getting a Claude sub for the whole team hasn’t helped this at all.

And one last thing - every single engineer I know that needs to maintain a Stripe integration hates them with the power of a million suns.