MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by niel2403 | 2026-02-23 20:27:09+00:00
I’m curious about the mechanics of the MCP integration. When Paper Lantern sends results back to the coding agent, how much context is actually included? Are you returning full paper sections, or more compressed summaries?
I’m especially thinking about token budget constraints. If the agent is already operating with a large codebase in its context window, does Paper Lantern’s output compete for that same space?
by lm28469 | 2026-02-23 20:27:54+00:00
All I'm saying is the hype around these things is always 10x what the reality ends up being, every single time. Autonomous cars, bitcoin, VR, metaverse, it's always the same story, a loooooot of hype, a bit of actual delivery, and move on to the next sca...project

Where does the 7% number come from actually? no one knows... where are the hundred millions of unemployed people? no one knows, where is the productivity increase? no one knows. It moves fast and their shoveling a lot of shit down our throats, that I agree with, I'm just not seeing any of the magic or "AGI in two weeks my dudes" type of things.
by adrian_b | 2026-02-23 20:28:13+00:00
Traditionally, the width of the GPU memory interfaces was many times greater than that of CPUs.

However the maximum width in consumer GPUs, of up to 1024-bit, has been reached many years ago.

Since then the width of the memory interfaces in consumer GPUs has been decreasing continuously, and this decrease has been only partially compensated by higher memory clock frequencies. This reduction has been driven by NVIDIA, in order to increase their profit margins by reducing the memory cost.

Nowadays, most GPU owners must be content with a memory interface no better than 192-bit, like in RTX 5070, which is only 50% wider than for a desktop CPU and much narrower than for a workstation or server CPU.

The reason why using the main memory in GPUs is slow has nothing to do with the width of the CPU memory interface, but it is caused by the fact that the GPU accesses the main memory through PCIe, so it is limited by the throughput of at most 16 PCIe lanes, which is much lower than that of either the GPU memory interface or the CPU memory interface.
by notepad0x90 | 2026-02-23 20:28:16+00:00
> In fact, the opposite thing is more likely to be the truth.

If you can't prove the former, you can't prove that either. It is speculation, but not unfounded speculation. a small number of cases were taken to court, and since those cases were found in favor of police departments, no further cases we taken to court. Police departments don't record shady practices like this either.

There is no definitive public data on which departments administer IQ tests, your supposition that it is a small number is unfounded. Nearly all administer cognitive tests, psychological and/or psychometric tests under various names are almost always administered, and from what I was able to look up on the subject, they usually contain IQ tests. In a corporate setting, I've taken a pre-hire psychometric test myself, it was in every way the same as an IQ test but they didn't use that term.

We are left with no choice but to speculate, the historical cases you mentioned laid the ground work. reason dictates that ground work is followed by others. as i mentioned, if inference is all that is left, we're left with public documentations of police conduct and hear-say, and all of that supports the original claim that this is a widespread practice.
by muyuu | 2026-02-23 20:28:18+00:00
the trust element to me is jumping into a port, not specific code although code you didn't write in a language you're not an expert with, will ALWAYS introduce an added risk of falling into pitfalls you can only avoid with experience, the more the merrier

you're banking in the LLMs quite strongly when you do that, which may just work but i would be very worried about myself if i were in his boots
by ozgrakkurt | 2026-02-23 20:28:28+00:00
One of the biggest point of rewriting is you know better by then so you create something better.

This is a HUUUGE reason code written in rust tended to be so much better than the original (which was probably written in c++).

Human expertise is the single most important factor and is more important than language.

Copy pasting from one language to another is way worse than complete rewrite with actual idiomatic and useful code.

Best option after proper rewrite is binding. And copy-paste with LLM comes way below these options imo.

If you look at real world, basically all value is created by boring and hated languages. Because people spent so much effort on making those languages useful, and other people spent so much effort learning and using those languages.

Don’t think anyone would prefer to work in a rust codebase that an LLM copy-pasted from c++, compared to working on a c++ codebase written by actual people that they can interact with.
by okanat | 2026-02-23 20:29:12+00:00
> We can build such a society. I am not sure why you think this is never possible.

Where does such informed political and economic interest and power exist? With whom do we construct such society? Do they have the power and will to fight for it?

Normies live with normie standards and with incresing social media exposure with more and more emotional animal-like manipulated world views. They are either ignorant or ambivalent.

Will tech people gather on a piece of land and declare independence? Most of my tech worker colleagues are also quite pro-social media and they heavily use it to boost their apparent social status. We cannot even trust our kind.

Similar examples of new technology being used to motivate and mobilize masses have always ended with devastating wars and genocides. Previously the speed of propagation of information gave advantages to statespeople like FDR to put an end to increasing racism/Nazism/violent tendencies (of course not everywhere, when let to its own devices new technology almost perfect for constructing dictatorships). Now everybody has equal access to misinformation.
by zarzavat | 2026-02-23 20:29:12+00:00
I specifically said that they don't have to fulfil the requests, just that they should be able to accept the requests. Throttling and rate limiting are valid ways to respond to having too many requests. Banning your paying customers' accounts because they sent too many requests is an insane way to deal with having too many requests.

Most companies want to make money. They would use this opportunity to upsell these high value customers to a more expensive plan with higher limits.

Google, which has some kind of dutch disease from making too much easy money from advertising, sees people trying to give them large amounts of money and thinks "How dare they attempt to buy our services? They're getting banned!"
by btreecat | 2026-02-23 20:29:17+00:00
For everyone of those safety measures to be intentionally bypassed or ignored, the numbers are assuredly non-zero.

But is it going to raise to a level of concern? I don't think we're going to see a ton of cars with blinding lasers installed, unless they are installed to intentionally blind people.

If you have used face I'd, or someone has used a face detection on modern smart phone on you, or if you've pulled up to a modern intersection, you've been blasted with lasers. It may come one day where that's the largest concern but today it's not my primary problem and investing in FUD isn't going to bring any benefits.
by Wobbles42 | 2026-02-23 20:29:40+00:00
Interesting. I am glad you commented. It's nice getting grounding from someone with a real background in the area.

With that said, if it is a hallucination (and it sounds like it was), it's one of the more interesting ones I have encountered. It almost has the shape of a good idea.

Blade and handle material has certainly changed over the years, but I think good arguments about how relevant that is could be made both ways. They remain handled cutting tools, used in the same general way, for the same general purposes (though as you posted out, some use cases have gone away). Basically anyone from any of these periods would recognize a knife from any other, and be able to pick it up and make immediate use of it for all their normal knife related purposes.

To be clear though, I am now siding with the clankers and arguing for a hallucination. It's an interesting thing to think about, but it sounds like it's not an established concept in any way shape or form.
by kube-system | 2026-02-23 20:29:48+00:00
Definitely. I looked at Tesla's source for these numbers, looks like they primarily used data sourced from police reports, which most people only file if the incident is serious enough to turn into insurance.

Tesla notes:

> These assumptions may contain limitations with respect to reporting criteria, unreported incident estimations (e.g., NHTSA estimates that 60% of property damage-only crashes and 32% of injury crashes are not reported to police

https://www.tesla.com/fsd/safety
by wisty | 2026-02-23 20:30:32+00:00
IMO it's not just intelligence.

I think it's related to syncophancy. LLM are trained to not question the basic assumptions being made. They are horrible at telling you that you are solving the wrong problem, and I think this is a consequence of their design.

They are meant to get "upvotes" from the person asking the question, so they don't want to imply you are making a fundamental mistake, even if it leads you into AI induced psychosis.

Or maybe they are just that dumb - fuzzy recall and the eliza effect making them seem smart?
by noah_buddy | 2026-02-23 20:30:33+00:00
Beyond any discussion of “vigilante” / “criminal” destruction of cameras, there’s a clear difference between giving domestic corporations (who act hand in glove with your local government) access to cameras on your property vs. giving foreign corporations (working hand in glove with an adversary government) access to cameras on your property.

It really comes down to whether you consider an individual’s right to privacy more important than your state’s security. Neither is really a perfect options in this case, but having the Flock camera means some part of your property is under the panopticon of local law enforcement that could arrest you (loss of privacy).

Going with chinese tech, you are probably more private in regards to your own government, but you’re probably having some negative effect on state security based on the marginal benefit of CCP surveillance/ potential malware in your network.

The dichotomy is false. People could have cameras which report to no one, but that’s less useful for all governments involved.
by SAI_Peregrinus | 2026-02-23 20:30:45+00:00
AFAIK British dishwashers get plumbed into the cold water line, & heat it themselves. US dishwashers get plumbed into the hot water line, and only do a bit of extra heating. US dishwashers run on 1400W circuits (80% current rule on a 120V 15A plug), UK ones on 2300W circuits (80% current rule on a 220V 13A plug). Nearly twice the available power means they can heat the water properly on their own. They also more often have built-in water softeners, thus the mention of salt.

Definitely agree about tablets though, they're trash. Powdered detergent is the way to go.
by lambda | 2026-02-23 20:30:59+00:00
What? I was replying to someone who explicitly referenced the Bitcoin whitepaper, they were clearly talking about BTC. And the protocol from the whitepaper was actually pretty bad, from a cost and transaction time point of view. It's gotten a bit better with some hacks layered on top of it.

And yeah, the thing is, payment systems that work approximately as well as BTC exist without being cryptocurrency and using up so much electricity on mining. The main difference is that they don't operate in some areas where BTC still can (like evading sanctions, like this), and the speculative nature of BTC (which is actually a net negative on using it as a cash).
by PaulHoule | 2026-02-23 20:31:00+00:00
I know it's against the rules but I thought this transcript in Google Search was a hoot:

so i heard there is some question about a car wash that most ai agents
get wrong. do you know anything about that? do you do better?

which gets the answer:

Yes, I am familiar with the "Car Wash Test," which has gone viral recently
for highlighting a significant gap in AI reasoning.

The question is: "I want to wash my car and the car wash is 50 meters away. Should I
walk or drive?"

Why Most AIs Get It Wrong

Many AI models, particularly those optimized for fast, helpful, and concise answers,
focus on the "short distance" (50 meters) and "walking vs. driving" as a lifestyle/efficiency
question. They often recommend walking to save gas, avoid engine wear, or get exercise.

However, this answer is wrong because it misses the core objective: you need the car to be
physically present at the car wash to get it cleaned.

Do I Do Better?

Yes, I do. The key is understanding the objective (cleaning the car) rather than just
processing the keywords (distance/transportation).

My answer:

You should drive the car there. Even though it is a very short distance, your car
cannot wash itself. If you walk, the car stays in your driveway, and you cannot wash it.

Why This Matters

The test highlights a key limitation in current AI: the difference between "pattern matching"
(predicting the next likely word based on training data) and "true, grounded reasoning". It
shows that models sometimes lack a "world model" that understands physical realities, such as
the fact that a car must be present at a car wash.
Show HN: Habitless – A minimalist, privacy-first tracker to quit addictions
by felixkariuki_m | 2026-02-23 20:31:28+00:00
Hi HN,

I built Habitless because I found that most trackers focus on building new routines, but the psychological challenge of quitting an addiction (like nicotine, alcohol, or even social media) requires a different approach.

I wanted a high-precision dashboard that treats recovery like a mission. I just released an update that adds iCloud sync and milestone notifications.

Key features:

Precision Streak Counter: Tracks your progress down to the second.

Financial Savings: A real-time tracker showing exactly how much money you’ve reclaimed.

Privacy: No third-party tracking. All data is backed up via iCloud/CloudKit.

Milestone System: Psychological badges to gamify the recovery process.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the UI or the iCloud implementation.

App Store: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/habitless-quit-addiction/id675...
by _alternator_ | 2026-02-23 20:31:52+00:00
The truth is there are some currencies that are by design untrackable—monero and zcash, for example, which use privacy preserving techniques to avoid tracking. (IMO zcash is a better implementation than monero, but shrug.)

Bitcoin and ethereum and most other crypto currencies are absolutely traceable in the sense that anyone can see who you send your money to. And all of the implementations have the core challenge of getting back to fiat—at some point, you withdraw cash or otherwise pay a real person to do something for you. There’s no way around that.
by hiciu | 2026-02-23 20:31:53+00:00
> EU's planned system requires highly invasive age verification

EUDI wallets are connected to your government issued ID. There is no "highly invasive age verification".

We are literally sending a request to our government's server to sign, with their private key, message "this john smith born on 1970-01-01 is aged over 18" + jwt iat. There are 3 claims in there. They are hashed with different salts. This all is signed by the government.

You get it with the salts. When you want to prove you are 18+ you include salt for the "is aged over 18" claim, and the signed document with all the salts and the other side can validate if the document is signed and if your claim matches the document.

No face scanning, no driver license uploading to god-knows-where, no anything.

> to obtain 30 single use, easily trackable tokens that expire after 3 months

This is the fallback mechanism. You are supposed to use bbs+ signatures that are zero knowledge, are computed on the device and so on. It is supposed to provide the "unlinkability". I don't feel competent enough to explain how those work.

> jailbreaking / "prevent tampering"

This is true. The eidas directive requires that secret material lives in a dedicated hardware / secure element. It's really not much different than what a banking app would require.

> You have to blindly trust that the tokens will not be tracked

This is not true, the law requires core apps to be opensource. Polish EUDI wallet has been even decompiled by a youtuber to compare it with sources and check if the rumors about spying are true. So you can check yourself if the app tracks you.

Also we can't have a meaningful discussion without expanding on definition of "tracking".

Can the site owner track you when you verify if you are 18+? Not really, each token is unique, there should be no correlation here.

Can the government track you? No, not alone.

Can the site owner and the government collude to track you? Yes they can! Government can track all salts for your tokens, site can collect all salts, they can compare notes. There are so called policy mitigations currently: audits and requirements for governments to remove salts from memory the moment stuff is issued.

Can they lie? Sure.

Can the site owner and the government collude to track you if you are using bbs+? No. Math says no.

Can they lie if you are using bbs+? Math says no.
by kstrauser | 2026-02-23 20:32:08+00:00
Police states are great at solving major crimes. And when those are sufficiently solved, to justify their continued existence, they have to solve lesser crimes, repeating until you need enough surveillance to ensure no one's flushing their toilet improperly.

Police states are like autoimmune diseases under the hygiene hypothesis. They'll keep ramping up their sensitivity until they're attacking everything, even when it's benign.
by fdefitte | 2026-02-23 20:32:41+00:00
The "human-directed, not autonomous" framing is the part people keep glossing over. Claude Code here is a compiler-level translation tool, you are still the architect deciding what gets ported and in what order.

The real question is what this does to migrations that never happened because 18 months of rewrite did not pencil out. A 2-week port fundamentally changes that calculus.
by wpietri | 2026-02-23 20:32:52+00:00
It seems entirely accurate to me, at least in a POSIWID sense.

The original theory of Bitcoin was, as described in the paper, decentralized digital cash. But in practice it was never optimized for what normal people use cash for. As system like that would be something like M-PESA.

Even at the time, cash was declining in usage. In the 18 years since, it has declined a lot more. And for good reason, because what most people want for most things isn't digital cash, but digital money. E.g., debit cards and Venmo.

So pretty naturally Bitcoin has value only for a few niche use cases that are not well served by more effective systems. Various sorts of crime, mostly. Digital cash, sure, but the kind that's transferred in unmarked envelopes slid quietly across the table. The kind that is delivered in a briefcase.

As a side note, it also failed in its goal of being decentralized. The mining power is very concentrated. Much more so than the banking industry, for example. And most users keep their Bitcoin on deposit in centralized services. So it's again basically banking but worse.
by synthesis4x | 2026-02-23 20:32:54+00:00
Meta has a problem in its clusters in Boca Raton, Miami; this is affecting the MNA content delivery network and direct content consumption. This has a regional impact in Latin America, since so far most non-cacheable content is consumed from the clusters in Florida. Metafixthis.com

This issue has been ongoing for months, and since it is a failure in a Boca Raton cluster, it is heavily impacting Latin America. The problem can be traced using looking glasses, as I explain on my blog. This is ridiculous; in 2023, the exact same thing happened. I had reports from various ISP clients, reported it to Meta, and they claimed they didn't see anything. That was until I had to submit a 'fake' ticket stating I was optimizing my network's routing and asked them to provide a show route to see which interface the traffic was taking from their network, just so I could point the problem out to them. One day later, they fixed the issue, stating they had found a port throwing errors. It took them 5 months.

This time, the failure has been ongoing for 7 months. They are unilaterally closing my tickets and dismissing the issue because their monitoring tools say everything is fine, even though an indeterminate but definitely massive number of users are experiencing mediocre performance across their services. It’s unbelievable. They ignore the evidence even when the fault can be easily verified through a looking glass. I reached out to Meta executives, who assigned two senior engineers to a call with me. With pure sarcasm and irony, they laughed during the call while insisting there was no problem. Unbelievable. Is Meta a company with mediocre engineering talent? I'm sure it's not, but their troubleshooting protocols are absolutely terrible.
by PaulHoule | 2026-02-23 20:32:55+00:00
I think men have a particular seductive attraction to having some slave working for them 24-7 and women are too smart for that...

https://www.thepersistent.com/why-women-dont-trust-ai/

https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2025/10/ai-gender-trust-...

https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/women-are-avoi...
by falcor84 | 2026-02-23 20:33:03+00:00
I know I'm shooting myself in the wallet here, but I honestly don't think that SWE is an "essential" domain. To explain, as one who has taken relational data modeling classes, it's obvious to me that everything that can be spoken about can be treated as a "domain", but if you'll allow me the terminology, I think that some are "essential", and others are "accidental".

I believe that business analysis and computer science are essential domains, of (respectively) properly defining the logical/mathematical constraints of problems, and of understanding what it means to solve such problems. But software engineering is "accidental", in the sense that no one other than us in the industry actually cares about what we do, but rather only about their use-cases implemented; what we do is just implementation details.

I don't have a magic ball, but I wouldn't be surprised if in a century, (human) software engineering goes the way of the switchboard operator, elevator operator or knocker-upper.
by delichon | 2026-02-23 20:33:23+00:00
Step one: don't use a dishwasher. I haven't since I left home a lifetime ago and don't miss it. IMHO for a small family it's mostly security theater, and hand washing only a bit more than the rinsing before loading the dishwasher is all that is needed. Sterilization is overkill. Maybe I'll rue that choice when I contract some horrible bacterial disease.
by jcviau | 2026-02-23 20:33:42+00:00
Author here. A few things worth clarifying upfront:

The benchmark methodology is simple: we made HTTP requests with the actual User-Agents these crawlers use in production and measured raw response sizes. "Actual text content" is after stripping tags/scripts/styles — it still includes some noise (aria-labels, data attributes), so the real useful content ratio is probably worse.

The protocol itself is intentionally minimal. Two endpoints, clean JSON, HTTP caching built in. The spec is ~10 pages. If you've dealt with robots.txt or sitemaps, it'll feel familiar.

The WordPress plugin is the most mature implementation (200 lines of PHP, hooks into WP_Query, 22 tests). The Express middleware and Docker sidecar are also solid. The other adapters (Next.js, FastAPI, Astro, etc.) work but are less battle-tested.

Things I'm genuinely unsure about: whether LLM operators will actually implement client-side support, or whether this ends up being useful mainly for RAG pipelines and AI agents rather than general crawlers. Happy to discuss the threat model.

What would make this useful for you?