MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by parpfish | 2026-02-28 19:26:33+00:00
It doesn’t need to be as high stakes as assassination. Any public figure could have a free-money loophole with all the stupid bets on things like whether a certain word would appear in a speech.

If I were famous I could start a pool betting on whether I would post a picture of a my lunch this week. I could stake whichever side has the biggest payout and then just make it happen
by alcazar | 2026-02-28 19:26:34+00:00
Paper and full wordlist: https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Research/blob/master/pa...

Each word's first three letters must be a unique sequence (XXX-).
Each word's last three letters must be a unique sequence (-XXX).
Each word's first and last letters must be a unique sequence (X--X).
The Damerau-Levenshtein distance between any two words is at least 2.

Hex: c7098580125e2ab0981253468b2dbc52
Bytewords: slot axis limp lava brag holy door puff monk brag guru frog luau drop roof grim
minimal: staslplabghydrpfmkbggufgludprfgm
by nevynweb | 2026-02-28 19:26:49+00:00
Thank you. Intruiging - I did write the "hello world/log time lurker" and the "sharing in good faith" parts myself but they could have come across very robotic, and made it look like the chatbot did all of the work!

A fair point, well made though. I posted hastily to catch the news cycle and admit I leaned too heavily on AI, in hindsight. Hopefully you can find my own voice and humour in the README.md but I will take care to 'humanise' any future posts here
by edmundsauto | 2026-02-28 19:27:03+00:00
I’m not sure, but I think you’re right. I was thinking about the logical implications of the. If they are a supply chain risk without a contract, how does the existence of a contract suddenly make them not a risk? Especially if the DoD strong arms them into a deal.

Because the act that the SCR designation would “protect” against is treason, so I don’t think people would care too much whether there’s a contract.
by guywithahat | 2026-02-28 19:28:00+00:00
> Assembly Bill No. 1043 was approved by California governor Gavin Newsom in October of last year, and becomes active on January 1, 2027

It was already approved? This seems wildly invasive, and CA can't even pretend they're doing it to stop porn. CA is just monitoring citizens for the love of the game
by threethirtytwo | 2026-02-28 19:29:40+00:00
"I already told you what I actually do, you're free to read it and learn. Or not, I ain't the boss of you"

Nobody listens to someone who talks like this. Nobody learns from someone who talks like this. You're not a leader and you're not a very good software engineer and likely if you boss anyone around, they think you're a clown.
by ifh-hn | 2026-02-28 19:30:15+00:00
I'm not really qualified for useful feedback, but a while back when I was trying to decide on a truly cross platform development framework, I went with dart/flutter. The reason was, as a noob, I couldn't make any sense of the ridiculous, and ever growing, amount of web focused cross platform frameworks.

With all that said, since you mention flutter, which despite continuing rumours about it's demise, is established and extremely popular; what would make me drop flutter for this?

I'm not being flippant, it's a genuine question.

For me if it's smaller, faster, easily to learn (darts and excellent language, flutter is a lot more complicated), and quicker to write and deploy I'd use it.
by jopsen | 2026-02-28 19:30:22+00:00
> North Korea is in such poor shape that they probably can't maintain much of the equipment

Sadly we know from events in Ukraine that NK artillery works and that they have plenty of it. Yes, it's poor quality, but far from harmless.

Also to be clear: artillery is not exactly rocket science. They idea that NK doesn't have huge stockpiles is ludicrous.
by analog31 | 2026-02-28 19:30:30+00:00
I have a feeling that the cost of bad / inefficient / late software runs into at least the billions. The biggest risks are unavoidably attached to the most costly software projects, that are probably the most likely to be conducted in the most sophisticated and professional fashion with the latest silver bullet methodologies.

The Mythical Man Month is just over half a century old, yet still reads like it was written yesterday.
by shykes | 2026-02-28 19:31:08+00:00
100%. In another comment [1] I drew a parallel with the Al-Ahli hospital incident in Gaza. Once you understand basic information warfare tactics, they're easy to spot. Why newsrooms still fall for it so easily is the real mystery...

I bet this story is a fabrication as well.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47199047
Show HN: Didacu – The fastest way to learn something new
by datadiego | 2026-02-28 19:31:12+00:00
Hi HN,

I built didacu because I kept bookmarking articles and tutorials I never read. The friction of learning something new hasn't kept up with the speed of everything else.

You type what you want to learn. You get an interactive course in seconds with slides, quizzes, images, and cited sources. You can also drop in a PDF or image and it turns it into a course.

The courses are designed around short-form slides you swipe through, one concept at a time. No walls of text. Quizzes are woven in so you're testing yourself as you go, not just passively reading.

There's a Claude Code skill (`/didacu-create-course`) that generates courses from your terminal. Onboarding onto a new repo? Generate a course from the codebase. Need to understand unfamiliar documentation? Drop it in and get a structured walkthrough. The best moment to learn something is when you need it.

Credit-based, not subscription. A full course costs about $2 at the best tier. Free tier gives 1 credit/week (free courses are shared publicly). Credits only deduct on successful generation.

What's different from just reading docs or asking a chatbot:
The output is a structured, navigable course. Not a wall of text you have to parse. Every source is cited and clickable. Quizzes test retention. And you can tap any concept and a focused deep-dive course generates instantly.

Available on web, mobile app (closed beta), and the CLI skill. Multi-language (English, Spanish, Portuguese).

Solo founder, bootstrapped, launched on Product Hunt today.

Would love feedback from HN on the course quality. Try a technical topic you actually want to learn.

https://didacu.com
by epolanski | 2026-02-28 19:31:16+00:00
There was literally a puppet regime in the 70s backed and promoted by the US.

And since then Iran has always been in US and Israeli crossfire.

You also need to try to understand their point of view.

There's no doubt Iran has promoted armed resistance and terrorism, don't get me wrong, but ask yourself how much of this is about their own safety and defence. It's not 0%, far from it.
by otterley | 2026-02-28 19:31:31+00:00
> Amodei refused to budge on relinquishing final say over Claude usage.

So did Altman. The terms of each company’s agreement with the DoW are roughly the same when they come out of the wash.

“ Mr. Altman negotiated with the Department of Defense in a different way from Anthropic, agreeing to the use of OpenAI’s technology for all lawful purposes. Along the way, he also negotiated the right to put safeguards into OpenAI’s technologies that would prevent its systems from being used in ways that it did not want them to be.” https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/technology/openai-agreeme...
by dragonwriter | 2026-02-28 19:31:56+00:00
No, fighting a war requires only engaging in international armed conflict.

Declaring a war requires Congress, and fighting a war other than in response to an invasion may be illegal under US law if Congress has not exercised its power to declare war, but that doesn't prevent wars from happening it just makes it illegal (though the only actual remedy is impeachment) for the President to wage war without authorization. And, in any case, that’s largely moot because Congress has exercised that power in an open ended (in terms of when and against whom) but limited (in authorized duration of any particular action without subsequent authorization) manner via the War Powers Act, giving every President since Nixon a blank check to start wars with full legal authority and then allow Congress an opportunity to vote to pull support from forces already in combat and hope the enemy already engaged is willing to treat the war as over as the only after-the-fact constraint.
by nikita2206 | 2026-02-28 19:32:00+00:00
That’s not the state of LLMs today, nobody trains them for a specific use case, almost nobody fine tunes them either. You just have to give them some context and the means to gather more context (access to code in order to see the logs at source, access to logs themselves, etc.) - whatever you would have access to as a human debugging this.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2026-02-28 19:32:28+00:00
Adding more to this, IIRC US Govt threatened to invoke laws which have never been used against an American company in the entire history of US over two conditions that were:

1. No global surveillance on citizens

2. No autonomous killing machines (essentially)

That was it, Anthropic was fine with everything else but they couldn't (in their conscience?) agree to these two things and just these two very reasonable demands caused the govt. to spiral so bad.
by nonethewiser | 2026-02-28 19:32:45+00:00
Youd have to do a lot of work to make sure it's only a few short sentences, non-specific, and ultra-quippy though.

I mean I'm sure it can be done but if you ask an LLM to produce comment reply without more instruction it's going to write something a lot more thoughtful, respectful, and substantive than a forum user would.
by dsf2g | 2026-02-28 19:32:51+00:00
Disagree somewhat.

A human with no exposure to information and taught techniques on how to produce outputs to achieve desirable outcomes? Yes stupid.

A human who once had this exposure, but no longer engages with the brain due to a machine providing access said output? Yes, that person becomes stupid.

The problem is much of how one protects oneself in the modern world is not phyiscal-prowess, it is intellectual-prowess.

The smart ones have already realised the negative impacts of LLMs et al and are going back to the old-fashioned way of learning/retaining knowledge: books and raw discipline.
by thisislife2 | 2026-02-28 19:34:33+00:00
> And I hear nobody in Israel or America talking that way.

The American ambassador to Israel recently publicly said that Israel has a "biblical right" to the whole of the middle-east! (Watch these two interviews to understand how cleverly, and strongly, Israeli politics is tied up with American evangelical Christianity to keep American polity tied to Israel's existence - https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-fares-abraham-021826 and https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-mike-huckabee-022026 . Both these interviews give you a very insightful picture of how religious fundamentalist Israelis in power are total nutcases, supported by the American Christian fundamentalist fruitcakes).
by mpyne | 2026-02-28 19:34:41+00:00
> The Department of War was responsible for naval affairs until The Department of the Navy was spun off from it in 1798.

After the Continental Navy was disbanded, there wasn't much of an American Navy to have a department around until... mid to late 1797, when the first three of the Original Six frigates was commissioned into active service.

If you look at the U.S. Constitution you'll find that the 'land' and 'naval' forces were separated quite early on in Art. I Sect. 8. Even the appropriations permitted were treated distinctly.

Obviously new domains of warfare will require new schemes of organization, but the "Department of War" that people think about that conducted military operations against America's enemies up through WWII was the Army's department. The operational Navy was always under the Department of the Navy.

> The Department of "Defense" has never fought on home soil. Ever.

What does this have to do with anything? Who argued otherwise?
by jjfoooo4 | 2026-02-28 19:35:02+00:00
> The unix commandline tools being the most efficient way to use an LLM has been a surprise.
> I wonder the reason.

Because they are really, really well designed for humans.

Everyone is trying to reinvent the wheel and create "agent interfaces", but there is fundamentally no difference between what makes a text based interface easy for a human to use and what makes it easy for an agent to use.
by Skunkleton | 2026-02-28 19:35:12+00:00
I don't think it's odd. Sacrificing deep understanding, and delegating that responsibility to others is risky. In more concrete terms, if your livelihood depends on application development, you have concrete dependencies on platforms, frameworks, compilers, operating systems, and other abstractions that without which you might not be able to perform your job.

Fewer abstractions, deeper understanding, fewer dependencies on others. These concepts show up over and over and not just in software. It's about safety.
by mattmanser | 2026-02-28 19:35:22+00:00
And when the clanker can't understand its own code?

This all sounds like the classic path I've seen low quality coders take, coding themselves into a corner until changes effectively become impossible.

For real people, that's when the coder finds a new job, often a promotion off the back of their dreadful architectural decisions, or if it's an agency, abandons the client.

I wonder if it will follow the same failure states, has anyone caught it making multiple versions of the same function yet? With slightly different bugs in them?
by hearsathought | 2026-02-28 19:35:46+00:00
> > Suddenly, the monstrosity of infinity, long feared by mathematicians, could no longer be relegated to some unreachable part of the number line. It hid within its every crevice.

Think of the number line stretching from negative infinity to positive infinity and let C represent the cardinality/size/count of numbers on that number line. Now just take portion of the number line from 0 to 1. Let C1 represent the cardinality/size/count numbers from the truncated line from 0 to 1. You would assume that C > C1. But in fact they are equal. There are just as many infinite real numbers from 0 to 1 as there are on the entire number line. Even worse, this hold true for any portion of the number line, how small or big you make the line. Rather than infinity being in a far distance place at the edge of the line in either direction, there is infinity everywhere along the number line.

> I don't get what "suddenly" became apparent.

It appeared suddenly because prior to cantor/dedekind, mathematics only understood the countably infinite ( natural numbers, integers, rationals, etc ) . By constructing a complete number line, cantor/dedekind showed there is a cardinality greater than infinity ( countable ). The continuum.

Cantor also showed that there is an infinite number of cardinalities.
by CamperBob2 | 2026-02-28 19:35:59+00:00
Truth is just a tool that helps you make good predictions. It's increasingly clear that this is all intelligence amounts to: a constant cycle of prediction and error correction with the goal of maximizing reproductive fitness in humans or minimizing a loss function in machines.

One serious problem we're facing lately is that truth is not always predictive of how systems controlled by bad-faith actors will behave and evolve. We live in a post-truth era, made possible by social networking and information technologies in general. It's not enough to "lie according to a fixed convention," as there are now multiple competing conventions.

This was always the case to some extent, but these days the impedance mismatch between truth and consequences is a target for zero-sum arbitrage. The truth won't set you free if you join the wrong cult; it's more likely to bankrupt you or worse.
by vaylian | 2026-02-28 19:36:27+00:00
This. I think differently about code that I write compared to code that I only read. Every character, every symbol, every expression that I write is guaranteed to have my full attention for at least a short moment and I know why it is supposed to be there. There is meaning to everything that I write. A LLM just tries to come up with a plausibly-looking piece of code. There is no meaning in that.
by tempest_ | 2026-02-28 19:36:39+00:00
I have a Code Assist Standard license to evaluate gemini-cli (and the new models)

To this day I cannot coax the gemini-cli to allow me to use the models they claim you have access to. Enabled all the preview stuff in cloud etc etc.

Still I mostly get 2.5 and rarely get 3 or 3.1 offered.

The gemini-cli repo is a shit show.

I can seem to access the new models using opencode, but am 429 rate limited almost immediately such that its like 5 minutes between calls.
by manofmanysmiles | 2026-02-28 19:36:40+00:00
There are some people who still know these things, and are able to use LLMs far more effectively than those who do not.

I've seen the following prediction by a few people and am starting to agree with it: software development (and possibly most knowledge work) will become like farming. A relatively smaller number of people will do with large machines what previously took armies of people. There will always be some people exploring the cutting edge of thought, and feeding their insights into the machine, just how I image there are biochemists and soil biology experts who produce knowledge to inform decisions made by the people running large farming operations.

I imagine this will lead to profound shifts in the world that we can hardly predict. If we don't blow ourselves up, perhaps space exploration and colonization will become possible.
by wackget | 2026-02-28 19:36:51+00:00
> Me, and 99% of HN readers, will gladly pull the trigger to release a missile from a drone if we are paid even just US$1,000,000/year.

I sincerely doubt that's true. I hope it's not. $1m is a lot of money, but I find it hard to believe most people would be willing to indiscriminately kill a large number of people for it.
by internet2000 | 2026-02-28 19:37:38+00:00
The moving tiny rectangles framing is interesting, it gets to the heart of why I find all the anti-AI takes so difficult to comprehend. If you never made any effort to connect what you do with what value is added in real life, then it's no wonder better tooling is leaving you lost. Programming (other than code golf) has always been an implementation detail for solving problems IRL.
by Belphemur | 2026-02-28 19:37:50+00:00
Cheaper and faster retrieval to be added to the context and discoverable by the agent.

You need more git commands to find the right commit that contains the context you want (either you the human or the LLM burning too many token and time) than just include the right MD file or use grep with proper keywords.

Moreover you could need multiple commits to get the full context, while if you ask the LLM to keep the MD file up to date, you have everything together.
by AndrewKemendo | 2026-02-28 19:38:13+00:00
“There was a time when nobody trusted either aircraft nor elevators. Today people have pure unquestioned faith in both. Existential faith in fact, they test their faith with their lives. You may chuckle and laugh but that's simply because you are ignorant of the systems that keep you alive and safe”

https://kemendo.com/Faith.html
by FEELmyAGI | 2026-02-28 19:38:56+00:00
Thank you for the time commitment based on an internet forum comment. I appreciate greatly the succinct human written README.

Did you investigate prior art before setting out on this endeavor?
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Agithub.com+password+m...

I ask because engineers need to be clever and wise.

Clever means being capable of turning an idea into code, either by writing it or recently by having the vocabulary and eloquence to prompt an LLM.

Wisdom means knowing when and where to apply cleverness, and where not to. like being able to recognize existing sub-components.
by alwa | 2026-02-28 19:39:08+00:00
I’m glad, then, that Anthropic seem to have chosen the path outside the state.

Though who knows what, if any, resemblance the theatrics bear to either the meat of the dispute or its eventual substantive outcome…

I’m kind of surprised TFA made it through without a nod to Karp’s book [0]. The boy’s not shy about how hard he wants to make the power.

[0] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/760945/the-technolo...
Show HN: Nett – See what you can spend (not your bank balance)
by Clutchone2 | 2026-02-28 19:39:27+00:00
Hi HN,

I'm an accountant and bootstrapped SaaS founder, and I built Nett (https://nett.fyi) because I kept watching the same mistake — including my own.

Founders check their bank balance, see $84K, and feel fine. As an accountant, I can tell you that number is fiction:

- $18K was deferred revenue from annual customers (money I'd already been paid but hadn't earned yet)
- $21K should have been set aside for taxes
- $8K in commitments I'd said yes to but hadn't hit the books
- $6K in recurring costs coming due in 30 days

My real number was $31K. The gap between what my bank said and what was actually mine to spend was $53K. I didn't know that until I built this.

Nett connects to Stripe (read-only), you enter your bank balance and recurring costs, and it calculates a single number: Safe-to-Spend. It's your bank balance minus everything that's already spoken for.

It also gives you a conservative runway clock (assumes zero revenue growth — the honest version), hidden commitment tracking for the verbal yeses that don't show up anywhere, and what-if scenarios for the 2am anxiety questions ("what if I lose my biggest customer?").

The whole thing is built with Next.js, Supabase, and Stripe Connect. Dark theme, opinionated UI, no complex configuration. Setup takes under 5 minutes.

Free calculator at https://nett.fyi/calculator if you want to see the gap without signing up.

I'd love feedback on the approach. Is the "one honest number" framing useful, or do founders actually want more flexibility in how they model their finances?
by cls59 | 2026-02-28 19:39:29+00:00
If I understand the article correctly, that second proof was published as a rider on a first proof that was entirely Dedekind's. So, there was definitely a credit owed at time of publishing.

I came away with the impression that the biggest villain in this story was Kronecker. Without the need to tiptoe around his ego and gatekeeping, these results may have been published as a paper with joint authorship.
by epolanski | 2026-02-28 19:39:50+00:00
One thing that I do that increases both my productivity and the output quality is to have few hours of planning, first business logic, then a separate one session for implementation and then have AI tell me what code I need to write.

I don't let it edit code, but I do have it guide me. Writing the code myself forces me to think about it, question it in isolation and tie it to the overall design.

I don't always do so, sometimes I do let it do the edits for simpler smaller changes, but I do at any new feature.
by littlefly365 | 2026-02-28 19:40:11+00:00
Which commit are you referring to?
The large commit you mentioned is actually the third one.
It looks big because that's when I imported the NetBSD userland code (cp, ksh, etc.) along with the Makefiles.
Before that, the repository only contained README.md and LICENSE files.
That’s probably why it shows such a massive change.
by jopsen | 2026-02-28 19:40:24+00:00
Given that we now that to deploy troops to prevent the US from invading Greenland.

I'd agree, it's not a given that the US can count on Europe in a conflict with China.

But probably Europe wouldn't be trading with China or anything.

It's just given the treatment of the US administration, the US probably can't build a volunteer coalition like I Iraq - unless there is an attack on US mainland.