MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by squidbeak | 2026-02-16 18:25:52+00:00
It sounds very reasonable. But it's also directly contradicted by the government information about this case, which was very specific even about the number of breaches:

> Our understanding is that some 700 individual cases, at least, were shared with the AI company. We have sought to understand what more may have been shared and who else may have been put at risk, but the mere fact that the agreement was breached in that way is incredibly serious.

> ... the original agreement that was reached between Courtsdesk and the previous Government made it clear that there should not be further sharing of the data with additional parties. It is one thing to share the data with accredited journalists who are subject to their own codes and who are expected to adhere to reporting restrictions, but Courtsdesk breached that agreement by sharing the information with an AI company.

(from https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-02-10/debates/037...)
by pajtai | 2026-02-16 18:26:37+00:00
I'd be interested to see results with Opus 4.6 or 4.5

Also, I bet the quality of these docs vary widely across both human and AI generated ones. Good Agents.md files should have progressive disclosure so only the items required by the task are pulled in (e.g. for DB schema related topics, see such and such a file).

Then there's the choice of pulling things into Agents.md vs skills which the article doesn't explore.

I do feel for the authors, since the article already feels old. The models and tooling around them are changing very quickly.
by codingdave | 2026-02-16 18:26:37+00:00
I've worked in governance for the last 15 years. Based on that experience, nobody truly cares about the UX to signify a decision. They care about the communication of the information to make the decision in the first place. So you might be right, but you are focusing on something that is fairly irrelevant. If you want to innovate in the boardroom, innovate on information flow.
by diongeorge | 2026-02-16 18:26:51+00:00
I've always found the sidebar on YC's YouTube videos super helpful; it gives you a clear sense of what's covered.

When I was putting together my YC application video, I wanted the same thing. Figured it was faster to build an app than learn editing. So I Claude-coded one.

You drop in a video, title your sections with timestamps, and it generates a video with a sidebar that highlights each section as it plays.

It did the job for my application, so figured I'd share it in case anyone finds it useful.
by anonymid | 2026-02-16 18:26:53+00:00
Hey, thanks for responding. You're a very evocative writer!

I do want to push back on some things:

> We treat "cognitive primitives" like object constancy and causality as if they are mystical, hardwired biological modules, but they are essentially just

I don't feel like I treated them as mystical - I cite several studies that define what they are and correlate them to certain structures in the brain that have developed millennia ago. I agree that ultimately they are "just" fitting to patterns in data, but the patterns they fit are really useful, and were fundamental to human intelligence.

My point is that these cognitive primitives are very much useful for reasoning, and especially the sort of reasoning that would allow us to call an intelligence general in any meaningful way.

> This "all-at-once" calculation of relationships is fundamentally more powerful than the biological need to loop signals until they stabilize into a "thought."

The argument I cite is from complexity theory. It's proof that feed-forward networks are mathematically incapable of representing certain kinds of algorithms.

> Furthermore, the obsession with "fragility"—where a model solves quantum mechanics but fails a child’s riddle—is a red herring.

AGI can solve quantum mechanics problems, but verifying that those solutions are correct still (currently) falls to humans. For the time being, we are the only ones who possess the robustness of reasoning we can rely on, and it is exactly because of this that fragility matters!
by yosamino | 2026-02-16 18:27:08+00:00
> Which one is giving trouble there?

Probably all of them.

Section 5.4.3.1

> The receiving entity SHOULD choose which certificate to present
> based on the domainpart contained in the 'to' attribute of the
> initial stream header (in essence, this domainpart is
> functionally equivalent to the Server Name Indication defined for
> TLS in [TLS-EXT]).

and 13.7.2 says

> Once the identity of the stream peer has been validated, the
> validating entity SHOULD also correlate the validated identity with
> the 'from' address (if any) of the stream header it received from the
> peer. If the two identities do not match, the validating entity
> SHOULD terminate the connection attempt (however, there might be good
> reasons why the identities do not match, as described under
> Section 4.7.1).

You can manually set a server in most clients, and I don't know how that is generally implemented. I guess that should work then.

But if you serve a certificate for jabber.example.com for a user trying to connect to an account user@example.com using SRV records then that mismatch will give you at least a certificate warning popup. And for good reason too: How would a user verify that a certificate

abcde.1234.jabber.freshhosting.donut

is valid for the account joe.doe@example.com ?
by mjr00 | 2026-02-16 18:27:23+00:00
Maybe. I'm actually a big fan of Claude/Codex and use them extensively. The author of the article says the same.

> To be clear: I like and use AI when it comes to coding, and even for other tasks. I think it’s been very effective at increasing my productivity—not as effective as the influencers claim it should be, but effective nonetheless.

It's hard to get measured opinions. The most vocal opinions online are either "I used 15 AI agents to vibe code my startup, developers are obsolete" or "AI is completely useless."

My guess is that most developers (who have tried AI) have an opinion somewhere between these two extremes, you just don't hear them because that's not how the social media world works.
by laweijfmvo | 2026-02-16 18:27:26+00:00
Yes, in theory that’s what an LLM is / how an LLM works, but I think we’re a little bit past the “expensive auto-complete” analogy given all the layers of wrappers we’ve built on top of LLMs to package them into the applications being interacted with here, no?

Fundamentally though there is missing but implied information here that the LLM can’t seem to surface, no matter how many times it’s asked to check itself. I wonder what other questions like this could be asked with similar results.
by yes_really | 2026-02-16 18:27:44+00:00
That's an imbecile comment. Israel was attacked by 7 countries just after British forces left in 1948, and just after the Holocaust and pogroms in multiple islamic countries. How the hell are these "enemies of their own creation"?

And even after that, Israel has consistently sought peace. There were multiple hostile Islamic countries that already made peace with Israel by simply agreeing that Israel has the right not to continue existing. But Iran, Hamas, Houthis, etc continue to want a genocidal war against Israel. How the hell are these "enemies of their own creation"? Is it Israel fault for refusing to be genocided?
by ctoth | 2026-02-16 18:27:49+00:00
> And Matt Shumer is saying that AI is currently like Covid in January 2020—as in, "kind of under the radar, but about to kill millions of people"

This is where the misrepresentation... no, the lie comes in. It always does in these "sensible middle" posts! the genre requires flattening both sides into dumber versions of themselves to keep the author positioned between two caricatures. Supremely done, OP.

If you read Matt's original article[0] you see he was saying something very different. Not "AI is going to kill lots of people" but that we're at the point on an exponential curve where correct modeling looks indistinguishable from paranoia to anyone reasoning from base rates of normal experience. The analogy is about the epistemic position of observers, not about body counts.

[0]: https://shumer.dev/something-big-is-happening
by rich_sasha | 2026-02-16 18:28:18+00:00
Has the quality of the ultra ultra rich decayed over time? It's hard to say, and of course common perception of the past is very skewed.

There were always monstrous leaders, and overall, cruelty and suffering in much of the developed world has decreased over time. But I can't think, through my biased filter, of historical ultra rich people who were less scheming for power and more for, well, evil.

I'm not picking specifically at Karp, or indeed calling him evil - I don't like Palantir but don't know enough about them to have an opinion. But I think most people wouldn't struggle to name a few very evil, very rich contemporary people.

It's easy to think of some ultra rich people from the past doing grand philanthropy - Carnegie, JP Morgan, Rockefeller. Recent era? All I can think of is Soros and Bill Gates (whatever the Epstein files say, and I admit I didn't look at the details, he is a bona fide philanthropist) and they're both getting old.
by FartyMcFarter | 2026-02-16 18:28:32+00:00
In my experience dealing with e.g. Amazon Prime Video customer service, the actual people working on customer service can't do those jobs well either. As an example, I've complained multiple times to them about live sports streams getting interrupted and showing an "event over" notice while the event is still happening. It's a struggle to get them to understand the issue let alone to get it fixed. They haven't been helpful a single time.

So if AI improves a bit, it might be better than the current customer service workers in some ways...
by cmiles8 | 2026-02-16 18:30:20+00:00
The cracks are showing, and all the “AI is going to eliminate 50% of white collar jobs” fear mongering is simply signaling we’re in the final stages before the bubble implosion.

The AI bros desperately need everyone to believe this is the future. But the data just isn’t there to support it. More and more companies are coming out saying AI was good to have, but the mass productivity gains just aren’t there.

A bunch of companies used AI as an excuse to do mass layoffs only to then have to admit this was basically just standard restructuring and house cleaning (eg Amazon).

Theres so much focus on white collar jobs in the US but these have already been automated and offshored to death. What’s there now is truly a survival of the fittest. Anything that’s highly predicable, routine, and fits recurring patterns (ie what AI is actually good at) was long since offshored to places like India. To the extent that AI does cause mass disruption to jobs, the India tech and BPO sectors would be ground zero… not white collar jobs in the US.

The AI bros are in a fight for their careers and the signal is increasingly pointing to the most vulnerable roles out there at the moment being all those tangentially tacked onto the AI hype cycle. If real measurable value doesn’t show up very soon (likely before year end) the whole party will come crashing down hard.
by drewnick | 2026-02-16 18:30:35+00:00
Somehow I was recommended the /r/longlines subreddit, so I subscribed. I now get pretty much a daily picture of a Long Lines abandoned tower somewhere in the country with upvotes and discussion. It is fascinating the hobbies people have.

This was a great article and put some context around it. It's interesting that many of these stations are basically apocalypse bunkers to keep equipment shielded for military use. There are many sites with the equipment still just sitting there untouched, slowly aging away.
by chipotle_coyote | 2026-02-16 18:30:44+00:00
As someone who uses Git for technical writing and Word's revision system for fiction that goes back and forth with an editor, I mean, sure, it's sort of a merge request, but you need to place a higher value on the "goes back and forth with an editor" part of the requirement than I think you are. :) An editor suggests changes, sometimes by editing directly and sometimes by leaving comments, that the author can accept, delete, or modify, right? If we're talking about technical writing that's already in a Git repo, then using a PR review system like GitHub's is an acceptable substitute. If we're talking about somebody sending a story to the New Yorker, we're not.
by AbstractGeo | 2026-02-16 18:30:51+00:00
IMO, they're worth trying - they don't become completely braindead at Q2 or Q3, if it's a large enough model, apparently. (I've had surprisingly decent experience with Q2 quants of large-enough models. Is it as good as a Q4? No. But, hey - if you've got the bandwidth, download one and try it!)

Also, don't forget that Mixture of Experts (MoE) models perform better than you'd expect, because only a small part of the model is actually "active" - so e.g. a Qwen3-whatever-80B-A3B would be 80 billion total, but 3 billion active- worth trying if you've got enough system ram for the 80 billion, and enoguh vram for the 3.
by pythonaut_16 | 2026-02-16 18:31:51+00:00
Initially named Revolt then renamed to Stoat due to a cease-and-desist. Both awful names. (Granted Discord is not a great name either). In their docs and website you'll still find a mix of the new and old names.

The project is ~4 years old. Screen sharing is still a work in progress. It's been a while since I tested it myself but you can still see plenty of reports of it being buggy and slow.

Basically it gives of major bike shedding impressions.
by anoya | 2026-02-16 18:32:24+00:00
I built EarlyTrap because tools like OptinMonster charge $29-99/mo for features most people never use.

What it does:
- Customizable email capture widgets (1 line of code)
- Built-in broadcasting
- Bot detection and spam protection
- Works with React, WordPress, Webflow, Next.js, etc.

Pricing: $12.99/mo, all features included
3-day trial

Built solo over 2 months. The stack is Nextjs + PostgreSQL. Spam protection is implemented with arcjet.

Happy to answer technical questions or take feedback on the approach.
by avidiax | 2026-02-16 18:32:32+00:00
> Bluetooth desperately needs mac randomization.

Bluetooth already has a well developed MAC randomization scheme.

Lookup "resolvable private address". The short of it is, your phone can find your headphones or vice-versa, despite one or both having random addresses. The addresses can be regenerated or rotate at an interval (say 15 minutes). The first part of the address is a nonce (pRand), and the rest of the address is a 24-bit hash of pRand with an identity resolving key (IRK). So the other party just listens passively for addresses, and sees if any of them happen to have the right hash.

I don't think this is as airtight as people think it is. Certainly, if you are following somebody and one address disappears right as another appears (rotation), it's quite easy to infer the new/old addresses belong to one device. I tried briefly to convince the Android developers to synchronize that rotation globally.

You can also probably infer that if you see a pair of random MACs arrive, and they have a certain pattern of timing and payload size, you can say with some certainty that they are particular devices, say an iPhone and an Apple Watch. But that requires sophisticated equipment since most Bluetooth LE communication is over a cryptographic frequency hopping arrangement.

Lastly, radio fingerprinting is widely known in academia, but requires special equipment.
by lelanthran | 2026-02-16 18:33:15+00:00
> I'd go look at the start date for all these languages. Except for C#, which was a direct response to the Sun lawsuit, all these languages spawned in the early 90s.

I don't understand your point here - I did not say those languages came only after 2000, I said they would have been relegated to history if they didn't become usable due to hardware increases.

Remember that Java was not designed as a enterprise/server language. Sun pivoted when it failed at its original task (set top boxes). It was only able to pivot due to hardware performance increases.
by jonah | 2026-02-16 18:34:12+00:00
This is art though. Whether you like the results or not, I'd say that the OP is using tools to make visual art but also that the process is part of the art as well. The process of art making doesn't have to be optimized - especially for the latest technology. We still paint when we have photography, we still make darkroom prints when we have color screens, etc.
by saghm | 2026-02-16 18:34:42+00:00
At one of my previous jobs some of my coworkers and I had an in-joke about how it was possible to tell which of the emails from the CEO were written directly by him or not based on whether it used the spelling "pls" for "please" because of how often he liked to use it. It hadn't occurred to me to view this phenomenon in the way that the article does, but at least in my experience it certainly seems to be accurate.
by StevenWaterman | 2026-02-16 18:34:52+00:00
This is almost textbook countersignalling. The same as:

- Signalling: I dress more formally than everyone else to make up for the fact I'm less professional in other ways

- No signalling: I dress like everyone else because I am like everyone else

- Countersignalling: I wear ratty old clothes with holes in them, and nobody will dare to question it because I'm the important one here
Tadpole the Language for Scraping 0.2.0 – Complex Control Flow, Stealth and More
by zachperkitny | 2026-02-16 18:35:10+00:00
Hello,

I posted a few weeks ago about my custom scraping language. It definitely got some traction, which was very exciting to see.

Github Repo: https://github.com/tadpolehq/tadpole
Docs: https://tadpolehq.com/

The past 2 weeks, I've been focusing my efforts in introducing specific stealth actions, more complicated control flow actions and a lot of various evaluators for cleaning data.

Here is an example for scraping from `books.toscrape.com`

main {
new_page {
goto "https://books.toscrape.com/"
loop {
do {
$$ article.product_pod {
extract "books[]" {
title { $ "h3 a"; attr title }
rating {
$ ".star-rating";
attr "class";
extract "star-rating (One|Two|Three|Four|Five)" caseInsensitive=#true;
func "(v) => ({'one': 1, 'two': 2, 'three': 3, 'four': 4, 'five': 5}[v.toLowerCase()] || null)"
}
price { $ "p.price_color"; text; as_float }
in_stock { $ "p.availability"; text; matches "In stock" caseInsensitive=#true }
}
}
}
while { $ "li.next" }
next {
$ "li.next a" { click }
wait_until
}
}
}
}

I've introduced actions like `apply_identity` to override User Agent Headers and User Agent Metadata. Here is an example module to selectively create different identities:

module stealth {
// Apple M2 Pro
action apply_apple_m2 {
apply_identity mac
set_webgl_vendor "Apple Inc." "Apple M2"
set_device_memory 16
set_hardware_concurrency 8
set_viewport 1440 900 deviceScaleFactor=2
}

// Windows Desktop
action apply_windows_16_8 {
apply_identity windows
set_webgl_vendor "Google Inc. (Intel)" "ANGLE (Intel, Intel(R) UHD Graphics 620 Direct3D11 vs_5_0 ps_5_0)"
set_device_memory 16
set_hardware_concurrency 8
set_viewport 1920 1080
}

// Windows Budget Laptop
action apply_windows_8_4 {
apply_identity windows
set_webgl_vendor "Google Inc. (Intel)" "ANGLE (Intel, Intel(R) UHD Graphics 620 Direct3D11 vs_5_0 ps_5_0)"
set_device_memory 8
set_hardware_concurrency 4
set_viewport 1366 768
}
}

The full release changelog is available here:
https://github.com/tadpolehq/tadpole/releases/

My goals for the next 0.3.0 release is to heavily focus on Plugins, Distributed Execution through Message Queues, Redis Support for Crawling, Static Parsing as opposed to exclusively over CDP/Chrome.

I will keep trying to keep my release cadence at every 2 weeks!
by apaosjns | 2026-02-16 18:35:17+00:00
Sam Altman is a known sociopath who has no problem achieving his goals by any means necessary. His prior business dealings (and repeated patterns with OpenAI) are evidence of this.

Shumer is of a similar stock but less capable, so he gets caught in his lies.

I’m still shocked people work with Altman knowing his history, but given the Epstein files etc it’s not surprise. Our elite class is entirely rotten.

Best advice is trust what you see in front of your face (as much as you can) and be very skeptical of anything else. Everyone involved has agendas and no morals.
by sebazzz | 2026-02-16 18:35:20+00:00
> > so you need to tell them the specifics
> That is the entire point, right?

Honestly it is a problem with using GPT as a coding agent. It would literally rewrite the language runtime to make a bad formula or specification work.

That's what I like with Factory.ai droid: making the spec with one agent and implementing it with another agent.
by user_7832 | 2026-02-16 18:35:23+00:00
Well, the privacy darling Flock was from the YC 2017 summer batch, so I think it's already known what VCs think about ethics if it can make good money.

Hint, it's optional.

(And while I'm not saying for eg PG is personally an anti privacy guy, it's impossible not to hold YC leadership accountable for aiding these cos, or at least looking away.)
by ergocoder | 2026-02-16 18:35:45+00:00
> I have a friend who is a new TA at a university in California. They’ve had to report several students, every semester, for basically pasting their assignments into ChatGPT.

We've solved this problem before.

You have 2 separate segments:

1. Lessons that forbid AI
2. Lessons that embrace AI

This doesn't seem that difficult to solve. You handle it like how you handle calculators and digital dictionaries in universities.

Moving forward, people who know fundamentals and AI will be more productive. The universities should just teach both.
by monkpit | 2026-02-16 18:35:53+00:00
Yeah, if you consider a military-grade AI/LLM with access to all military info sources, able to analyze them all much quicker than a human… there’s no way this isn’t already either in progress or in use today.

Probably only a matter of time until there’s a Snowden-esque leak saying AI is responsible for drone assassinations against targets selected by AI itself.
by atemerev | 2026-02-16 18:36:01+00:00
Well, the process cannot be stopped or paused, whether we like it or not, for a few relatively obvious reasons.

And relying on your government do do the right thing as of 2026 is, frankly, not a great idea.

We need to think hard ourselves how to adapt. Perhaps "jobs" will be the thing of the past, and governments will probably not manage to rule over it. What will be the new power structures? How do we gain a place there? What will replace the governments as the organizing force?

I am thinking about this every day.
by noosphr | 2026-02-16 18:36:33+00:00
After spending nearly 5 years building software which uses AI agents on the back end I've come to the conclusion it's the PC revolution part 2.

Productivity gains won't show up on economic data and companies trying to automate everything will fail.

But the average office worker will end up with a much more pleasant job and will need to know how to use the models, just like who they needed to learn to use a PC.
by robmusial | 2026-02-16 18:36:55+00:00
> It's almost as if, once you get to a certain level of power, you no longer need to try.

Correct. I think it's also a bit of a shibboleth now, like not wearing a suit. In former days the lower ranked employees wore jeans, t-shirts, hoodies, etc. and the bosses all wore suits and ties. Now it's the opposite at least in tech. If you see someone in "business" attire, you know they're middle management or sales and have no power, where if someone is in a tshirt and jeans they're probably a founder or executive. It's a flex to dress casual.