MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by hilbert42 | 2026-02-22 03:57:54+00:00
It's good to know people are finally working on long-term nonvolatile storage. To date, just about every storage syatem we've developed has had a storter lifespan than the previous one, NAND versus magnetic storage for instance.

The idea isn't new of course, just think back to Dave removing HAL's glass/crystal memory modules in 2001. Clarke/Kubrick were thinking along those lines in the 1960s.
by noduerme | 2026-02-22 03:57:57+00:00
Hah! Reading this, my mind inverted it a bit, and I realized ... it's like the claw machine theory of gradient descent. Do you drop the claw into the deepest part of the pile, or where there's the thinnest layer? Everyone in the bar has a theory. The funny thing that unites LLMs with claw machines is that we can also endlessly argue over whether they dropped the ball on purpose.
by b112 | 2026-02-22 03:59:16+00:00
H2 from electrolysis is wildly expensive. H2 from natural gas is more affordable.

Irrelevant. It seems like everyone who argues against H2 is stuck on "now". Had that been the case with battery powered cars, they'd have never got off of the ground.

Batteries were terrible, wildly expensive, extremely unreliable. It's only been the immense research poured into them, that has brought their costs down.

Meanwhile, the cost of storage on an H2 car is nothing, compared to the immense and exorbitant cost of all those batteries. Batteries which make a car extremely heavy. Batteries which cannot be charged below -20C, and require heaters. Batteries which are incredibly dangerous in car accidents. Batteries which are costly, and damaging to the environment to create, difficult to recycle, and damaging to the environment to recycle.

Compared to battery tech of any type, H2 is a dream from the gods.

Yet because there hasn't been 17 trillion dollars of cash thrown into h2 generation tech, people prattle on about how expensive h2 generation is.

And it doesn't matter where h2 comes from now. It matters where it can and will come from. The goal isn't to make sources of power to generate h2 clean, the goal is to get end-polluters, cars, clean.

If the only goal was "clean", then most electric batteries charging right now, would fail that very goal. After all, there are still coal and gas power plants this very moment, and if we pulled all electric cars off the road, those would close.

No, the goal is to work towards more and more solar power, wind, etc. And in parallel, get cars ready for the day when power they're charged from isn't polluting.

The myopic view of what I deem hyper-environmentalists, is disturbing to me. It is paramount that we don't let short sighted views fog the reality around us.

Anyone arguing 1000lbs of batteries, all environmentally damaging in their construction, recycling cost, and disposal, is superior to h2, is arguing from a pedestal of sandy, earthquake prone, unstable support.
by rramadass | 2026-02-22 03:59:50+00:00
> Ultimately, the bigger problem is that even in crowds like HN's, no one seems to have a good idea of what should be done about governments abusing datascience so efficiently.

The general-populace/crowd/mob has already lost this game. Govts/Companies (all of them irrespective of ethics/democracy/etc.) are doing what they want with data and datascience. The populace is easily propagandized/distracted from reality and can be easily cocooned.

The only recourse left for the individual is to learn and start playing the game himself. Fortunately the new tools are a great help in this asymmetric warfare. Organizations like EFF/OpenSource/GNU/etc. need to take the lead on this since most people are like sheep when it comes to uses/misuses of technology.

Palantir is just "Cambridge Analytica" redux but with more money/connections/data/breadth/depth/etc. Watch this old presentation by their then ceo Alexander Nix and extrapolate to today's AI world - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8Dd5aVXLCc

Finally go and read the works of George Orwell, Edward Bernays, Jacques Ellul, Marshall Mcluhan, Noam Chomsky etc. on the whole subject of Propaganda/Manipulation to really understand where we are now.
by rgoulter | 2026-02-22 04:00:19+00:00
> Equivalent but just as unsafe.

To my understanding, the main difference between "curl directly to bash" and "curl to a temp file, then execute the temp file" is "the attacker could inject additional malicious commands when curl'd directly to bash".

If you're not going to then also read all the source code from the download script (& the source code used to produce the binaries), this suggests the attitude of "I mistrust anything I can't read; but will trust anything I could read (without having to read it)".

It seems more likely that malicious code would be in a precompiled binary, compared to malicious commands injected into "curl to bash". -- Though, if there have ever been any observed cases of a server injecting commands from "curl ... | tee foo | bash", I'd be curious to know about these.
by bitwize | 2026-02-22 04:01:07+00:00
"The problem with Scheme is all of the implementations that are incompatible with one another because they each add their own nonstandard feature set because the standard language is too small." With an added subtext of "you fools, you should have just accepted R6RS, that way all Schemes would look like Chez Scheme or Racket and you'd avoid this problem".

Meanwhile in JavaScript land: Node, Deno, Bun, TypeScript, JSX, all the browser implementations which may or may not support certain features, polyfills, transpiling, YOLOOOOO
by TimAssay | 2026-02-22 04:01:13+00:00
I built Assay: a Python CLI/SDK that instruments LLM call sites and emits per-call receipts, then bundles them into an Ed25519-signed proof pack. Verification is offline and deterministic.

Scan study: 30 popular OSS AI repos -- 202 high-confidence direct SDK call sites across 21 repos -- 0 with cryptographically verifiable evidence emission at those call sites. This is not "no logging" -- many have excellent observability. This measures a stricter property: whether a third party can verify the evidence artifact without access to the producer's infrastructure. Scope: Python source scan using direct SDK detection plus framework heuristics.

Proof run on pydantic-ai (commit-pinned): scan (5 call sites found) -> patch (2 lines auto-inserted) -> run (3 calls exercised) -> verify-pack PASS.
https://github.com/Haserjian/assay/blob/280c25ec46afd3ae6938...

Try it:

pip install assay-ai
assay patch .
assay run -c receipt_completeness -- python your_app.py
assay verify-pack ./proof_pack_*

Tamper demo (5 seconds):

pip install assay-ai && assay demo-challenge
assay verify-pack challenge_pack/good/ # PASS
assay verify-pack challenge_pack/tampered/ # FAIL (1 byte changed)

Full report + dataset (commit-pinned): https://github.com/Haserjian/assay/blob/280c25ec46afd3ae6938...

The verifier is open source -- assay verify-pack is deterministic hash + signature checking. Read it, run it, or write your own.

https://pypi.org/project/assay-ai/

If I missed your instrumentation or a finding is a false positive, drop a commit link and I'll update the dataset.
by eviks | 2026-02-22 04:01:35+00:00
> The resulting compiler is impressive, given the time it took to deliver it and the number of people who worked on it, but it is largely unusable. That last mile is hard.

You're easy to impress, that explains the unrealistic expectations "on the surface".
That's some strange analogy, though, basic usability is the first mile, not the last. Coming back to the frameworks and apps, the last mile would be respecting Mac unique keyboard bindings file for text editing. First mile is reacting to any keyboard input in a text field. Same with the compiler, basic hello world fail isn't the last mile.
by jcartwright_pb | 2026-02-22 04:02:16+00:00
The on-device angle is interesting for a reason nobody seems to be discussing: governance.

When agents run in the cloud, you can at least intercept and control their spending at the network layer. When they run on-device (like Ferret-UI Lite), that control surface disappears. The agent is making decisions locally, potentially triggering payments or API calls before any centralized policy can intervene.

This is especially relevant as x402 (HTTP-native payments) matures. If an on-device agent can see and interact with apps AND make micropayments autonomously, the spending control problem gets much harder.

We're going to need proxy-based or OS-level governance layers that sit between on-device agents and payment networks. The current approach of "just set a monthly budget" won't survive autonomous on-device agents.
by Nevermark | 2026-02-22 04:02:55+00:00
There are still a major asymmetries.

There is an economic asymmetry between having a frontier model that people pay to use vs. being someone paying them so they can keep improving it.

Also, from the outside, we only know about the advances that get shipped/put on servers. Presumably, a lot more promising advances are uncovered than are shipped. Maybe they don't fit the product, maybe they are not ready, or maybe they provide a competitive advantage if used and improved internally without disclosure.

So there is a potential growing development/information/frontier asymmetry, of unknown magnitude and velocity.
by sebastos | 2026-02-22 04:02:55+00:00
Insightful points!

It would be interesting if, with all the anxiety about vibe coding becoming the new normal, its only lasting effect is the emergence of smaller B2B companies that quickly razzle dazzle together a bespoke replacement for Concur, SAP, Workday, the crappy company sharepoint - whatever. Reminds me of what people say Palantir is doing, but now supercharged by the AI-driven workflows to stand up the “forward deployed” “solution” even faster.
by nazgul17 | 2026-02-22 04:03:07+00:00
It's very much believable, to me.

In image generation, it's fairly common to add "masterpiece", for example.

I don't think of the LLM as a smart assistant that knows what I want. When I tell it to write some code, how does it know I want it to write the code like a world renowned expert would, rather than a junior dev?

I mean, certainly Anthropic has tried hard to make the former the case, but the Titanic inertia from internet scale data bias is hard to overcome. You can help the model with these hints.

Anyway, luckily this is something you can empirically verify. This way, you don't have to take anyone's word. If anything, if you find I'm wrong in your experiments, please share it!
by WaitWaitWha | 2026-02-22 04:03:08+00:00
I really wanted this "book" to be good.

In the context of the paper, the entire book seems to go downhill from the definition of ontology for me.

There is no benefit of using Gruber's ivory tower definition. A simpler explanation (e.g., it describes a structured framework that defines and categorizes the entities within a specific domain and the relationships among those entities) would have sufficed, and easier to digest.

Palantir is doing nothing revolutionary or "paradigm shift" when it comes to data and information organization. Their secret weapon is not introducing ontology to information.

Ching (1000BC?) classified reality into binary ontological primitives, created trigrams and hexagrams a combinatorial ontology. Aristotle introduced categories, substance, properties, relations, etc. Thomas Aquinas systemized Aristotelian categories into theological knowledge systems, and used structured classifications.

I am becoming curmudgeony as I see more and more of these reverse-research papers. Write the paper, then find references that fit the statement and use weasel words ...

unbelievable scene unfolds, deep-rooted disease of silos, paradigm shift, fatal flaws, forged in these extreme environments, eliminated to the absolute limit...

Gag me.
by jcartwright_pb | 2026-02-22 04:03:09+00:00
Long-running agent stability is great, but it also amplifies the blast radius of security failures. An agent that runs for 1000 turns without drift is also an agent that can silently overspend for 1000 turns without anyone noticing.

The longer agents stay coherent and autonomous, the more critical spending controls and circuit breakers become. Stability without governance is just a more efficient way to burn money.
by jcartwright_pb | 2026-02-22 04:03:18+00:00
Interesting to see more work on agent control planes. The missing piece I keep seeing in these architectures is financial governance — when agents have spending authority (API keys, wallets, x402 payments), you need policy enforcement that's separate from the agent itself.

An agent shouldn't be able to modify its own spending limits. The control plane should own that. Does Nucleus handle per-agent budget enforcement and circuit breakers for anomalous spending patterns?
by xelxebar | 2026-02-22 04:03:25+00:00
> Hit is muchel to seggen all þat pinunge hie on me uuroȝten, al þar sor and al þat sorȝe. Ne scal ic nefre hit forȝeten, naht uuhiles ic libbe!

My reading was "There is (too) much to say all that pain he wrought on me, all there sour and all that sorryness. Not shall I never forget, not while I live!"
by bhouston | 2026-02-22 04:03:53+00:00
I've heard that Samsung's business practices can be quite predatory. Basically if you have cool tech and you try to sell it to Samsung, you'll often get a few meetings and then they will go silent and then what you were trying to sell them will be offered by them as a new product about a year later. At least this was the situation like a decade ago.

I think this is because they are a huge conglomerate and there are divisions and groups that specialize in everything and their (Samsung) culture is to do everything as much as possible in house.
by AndrewKemendo | 2026-02-22 04:04:04+00:00
> looked brilliant on the quarterly earnings call. He fired all the bussers. Eliminated expeditors. Replaced kitchen managers with generic “back-of-house” roles. This was what seemed obvious at the time: Labor costs were rising, so remove labor. The savings showed up immediately.

I can only assume that the CEO and none of the management had ever actually worked front or back of house.

Anybody who has would know that eliminating expo and busers would destroy service.

This is just pure incompetence across the board, saying that it looked brilliant or obvious is the exact opposite of how it looks.
by rramadass | 2026-02-22 04:04:21+00:00
Palantir is just "Cambridge Analytica" redux but with more money/connections/data/breadth/depth/etc. Their ethical/moral stance i will leave it to you to infer.

Watch these old presentations by CA's then ceo Alexander Nix and extrapolate to today's AI world - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8Dd5aVXLCc and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bG5ps5KdDo (note the Q/A at the end here)

Also watch this interview with Christopher Wylie the CA whistleblower and again extrapolate to today's AI world - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXdYSQ6nu-M

Be afraid, Be very afraid.
by oskarw85 | 2026-02-22 04:04:48+00:00
It's exactly that. I have an account on Mastodon that I haven't opened in months. I use Bluesky a couple of times a day. On Mastodon I couldn't find interesting accounts to follow for weeks. On Bluesky I was up and running after an hour thanks to starter packs. Ease of use trumps (what a word!) philosophy for me. And probably most other people too.

BTW I already lost 10 years of posting on Twitter. Did not care for a second. Do people REALLY care about their postings on micro blog sites? It's not like a box of photographs that I would pass to my children on my deathbed...
by Postosuchus | 2026-02-22 04:06:57+00:00
Indeed, they made Level Editor available. In fact, there was even a friggin' book on level design: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0782118690

Blast from the past indeed. Many many moons ago, I came up with a "bright" idea of designing a mod for Duke3D that modeled the office of my then-employer (large fintech company). At least I had enough sense not to boast about it - several months later a crazy guy brought a shotgun to HIS former employer and made national news, I don't think people would have taken my creation as lightly as I did back then. Still, working on it was fun.
by defrost | 2026-02-22 04:07:13+00:00
Generally these are writes that are lost after the kernel confirms data accepted by application write(). The causes can be hardware glitching, the difficulty lies with alerting the application that has already moved on assuming all is good.

This in the realm of Dan Luu's fsyncgate: https://danluu.com/fsyncgate/ (discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19126824 ) and "Crash Consistency" https://danluu.com/file-consistency/

The article is about "circling back" and re-checking data blocks against checksums seperately stored rather than relying on hardware checksums and data blocks that match but are "old" (not updated when expected).

The "why" of how such things happen is long and turgid exposition into sometimes shit happens .. and that's a book or three by itself.
by b112 | 2026-02-22 04:09:30+00:00
EVs take forever to charge, rendering long trips unrealistic. They are not cheaper long term, for they rely upon thousands of pounds of heavy batteries.

If they go further now, that is not a given down the road.

Were you to employ this logic when electric cars first came out, there wouldn't be a single one on the road. It's only through trillions of research dollars, that current battery tech is where it is.

But sure, let's not work on multiple paths. Let's discount other attempts at clean tech. Even if they're older, cost less to the environment to build (batteries are terrible, environmentally), and so on.
Show HN: A 2D animation DSL – every line written by Claude, zero human code
by siddhartha98 | 2026-02-22 04:09:57+00:00
I wanted to see how far vibe coding could actually go. Not autocomplete, not copilot — I gave Claude Opus 4.6 (running in OpenCode, an agentic CLI) full ownership of building a domain-specific language for generating 2D animated movies from code.
The constraint: I describe what I want, the agent builds it. I critique the output, the agent iterates. No human touches the code at any point. Not the parser, not the renderer, not the 3,300-line procedural character drawing module. Not even the demo scripts or SVG backgrounds.
It went through three major rewrites:
- V1: Rigid SVG characters sliding around. Puppet show.
- V2: Bone-based rig system. Still puppet-like.
- V3: Fully procedural — characters drawn frame-by-frame from bezier curves with body angle perspective, staggered joint timing, and spring physics on hair/clothing.
The most interesting parts of the process:
1. The agent kept over-engineering infrastructure while the actual visual output stayed at stick-figure quality. It took direct, blunt feedback ("this looks like a puppet show, you keep building the same thing") to break the pattern.
2. Poses were originally 9 hardcoded words in Rust. After I pointed out this was a limitation, the agent added a full custom pose system to the DSL — 23 controllable joint/expression parameters defined in the script file.
3. The agent added overlap detection after characters kept walking through each other. It now refuses to render if two characters would intersect at any point.
The output still looks like what it is — procedurally generated cartoon figures drawn with math. But 7,665 lines of Rust, a PEG grammar, procedural character rendering, camera systems, scene transitions, and a working demo — all from an AI agent that never saw a reference implementation.
Repo policy: only agent-generated code accepted. Bug reports welcome, but all implementation must come from agents.
Tech: Rust, tiny-skia for 2D rendering, pest for parsing, FFmpeg for video encoding.
by girvo | 2026-02-22 04:09:59+00:00
The articles approach matches mine, but I've learned from exactly the things you're pointing out.

I get the PLAN.md (or equivalent) to be separated into "phases" or stages, then carefully prompt (because Claude and Codex both love to "keep going") it to only implement that stage, and update the PLAN.md

Tests are crucial too, and form another part of the plan really. Though my current workflow begins to build them later in the process than I would prefer...
Show HN: OpenTiger – Autonomous dev orchestration that never stops
by andyyyy64 | 2026-02-22 04:10:49+00:00
Hi HN. I've been running AI coding agents (Claude Code, Codex, etc.) on real repos for a while now. The dirty secret of "autonomous coding" is that agents stop all the time — quota limits, test failures, policy violations, bad judgement calls. You end up babysitting them.

So I asked a different question: what if the system was designed around the assumption that agents WILL fail, and the job of the infrastructure is to never let that failure become a dead end?

openTiger is a "non-human-first" orchestration system that runs multiple AI agents in parallel — planner, workers, testers, judge — each with a dedicated role. The planner decomposes requirements into tasks, the dispatcher fans them out to worker agents concurrently, and the judge evaluates results and feeds back rework decisions. It's not one agent doing everything; it's a pipeline of specialized agents running simultaneously.

The entire architecture is built on one principle: no state is terminal. Every failure is a blocked state with a reason, and every reason has a recovery path. If the same failure repeats, the system escalates to a different strategy instead of retrying the same thing.

The interesting philosophical bit: optimizing for recovery turns out to be more effective than optimizing for first-attempt success. When you stop fearing failure, you can let agents be more aggressive.

Early stage, lots to improve. Feedback and contributions welcome.

Docs: https://opentiger.dev/docs/
by tolerance | 2026-02-22 04:10:55+00:00
If we’re discussing wheelchair ramps we are going to default to matters related to people in wheelchairs first because they are who the ramps are for.

Whether a person is in a wheelchair and the access that wheelchair ramps are meant to provide them is seldom arbitrary. Is it not? For example, there are comprehensive laws in the US that regulate them.

https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-4-ramps-and-...

You said freedom of speech is exactly what unpopular opinions are for. What do you mean? If popularity isn’t subject to the arbitrary whims of people then how is it determined?

Can popularity be regulated like wheelchair accessibility? If so then how is it anything but inevitable that someone’s freedom of speech will be restricted depending on the nature of the law.
by colanderman | 2026-02-22 04:11:17+00:00
I am just getting into the packet scene in the Boston area.

APRS aside, as far as I've found, there are about a half dozen Winlink nodes in the area and one BBS. And one lovely node in Cambridge (KZ2X-1 [1]) which provides connectivity to a bevy of ancient (though virtualized) OSes.

I don't know how much AMPRnet activity there is. There are only 7 allocations in the area (mine included). I'd love to be able to e.g. log in to my home network from a few radio hops away but I don't think there's any infrastructure in place for that (such as Mobile IP).

[1] https://kz2x.radio/posts/complex/
by bitmasher9 | 2026-02-22 04:13:11+00:00
Hydrogen fuel solves a long term strategic problem for Japan, which is why the Mirai got as far as it did.

Japan imports energy. They have to be very careful about which type of energy they build infrastructure for, because they must pay to import that type of energy for decades or centuries. (LNG vs Coal use very different equipment) This is specifically a strategic problem for Japan compared to other energy importers because they both use a lot of energy, and don’t have a military option to secure a foreign supply.

Hydrogen fuel could be created by almost any energy source and then used just like any other fuel source. Ideally Japan would like to pay energy exporters to convert their energy to Hydrogen so Japan has maximum flexibility when importing energy.

Projects like the Mirai exist as proof of concepts for Hydrogen, and the United States was never going to be an early widespread adopter of this technology.