MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ImageXav | 2026-02-09 10:58:03+00:00
This seems like such an easy way to create perverse incentives and profit off people who are already down on their luck. Imagine being told that the only way to get considered is to pay a fee. Then later on you get told to pay the gold fee for priority. Oh you're still not getting hired? Go for our platinum package that will definitely make the difference! Not enough money? No worries, we'll take 30% of your salary for the first few years. Or maybe we'll just give you some a fixed debt at a high interest rate. Aren't you glad you used us?
by londons_explore | 2026-02-09 10:58:08+00:00
So the whole reason for spending years redesigning new rocket engines that use methane instead of kerosene was that mars has CO2 which could be used to make more fuel. Methane has lots of other downsides which hurt the viability of the ship.

But if the moon is the target, that goes out of the window and they could have just scaled up the existing F9 rocket design and could have been there years ago.
by DrScientist | 2026-02-09 10:58:46+00:00
> but it seems almost inevitable as groups of any kind grow large enough and you actually can't assume good faith anymore.

I too have experienced this as a company grows, but I do wonder if it's inevitable. Sure you can't have a single person trust model anymore - but you can have a distributed trust model, or a scaled trust model.

One thing that worked really well at a big company I know was to raise the approval limit - things under a certain amount simple go through without the need for approval - this allows managers ( and managers of managers ) to focus on the bigger items, and reduces friction.
by lossyalgo | 2026-02-09 11:00:25+00:00
I miss catalogs! And I'm not sure that works for every kind of product. You forgot to mention door-to-door sales (not a thing outside of the US AFAIK) or cold-calling potential customers (only applicable for certain types of products), good old word-of-mouth (need to get lucky and reach "influencers"), or throw tupperware-type parties. There are surely other methods as well.

Re: being careful

Any system created by humans will be abused unless regulated. And even then, there will always be loopholes which will be abused until punished (and even punishment might not be a proper deterrent if it can be calculated as a cost of business. (Yes I'm arguing for and against you, just thinking out loud basically ;)

edit: grammar
by api | 2026-02-09 11:00:47+00:00
Going off on a huge nerdy tangent but... people think that about anarchism because the violent dystopian image is what you would actually get in most scenarios.

Anarchism is the politics of ignoring game theory. If you study game theory even a little one of the big lessons is that cooperation at scale is incredibly hard, and that most highly cooperative states are highly unstable. A small number of defectors can easily collapse the whole system back to a more stable tit-for-tat or all-defect state. All-defect states, meanwhile, are often stable.

This probably explains why it took billions of years to get multicellular complex life. It took billions of years for evolution to figure out how to make something that doesn't instantly defect.

It's related to the second law of thermodynamics. An all cooperate state is highly ordered, and thus higher energy and prone to collapsing into a lower energy less ordered state.

A living system that wants to be all-cooperate is going to have to expend huge amounts of energy to maintain that state, which leads me to the final problem with anarchism: most anarchists I've read or met are at least to some degree anti-growth / anti-industry / primitivist types. That math doesn't math. If you want a society where everyone cooperates and is taken care of, that society is going to have huge energy needs, much larger than totalitarian-slum or crime-ridden-hellhole.

I mean, poor people use less energy for starters. Dead people use even less.

The last part is why all the most socially realistic depictions of societies like this are post-scarcity where they've mastered some kind of sci-fi energy source (cheap easy fusion, antimatter, tapping the zero point, etc.). They can create an all-cooperate utopia by using embarrassing amounts of energy to not just police and stamp out defection but render it unnecessary to begin with.
by logicallee | 2026-02-09 11:01:41+00:00
The State of Utopia[1] is currently fine-tuning an older 1 GB model called Bitnet, so that we have something beginning to have the shape of a sovereign model that can run on the edge. We think having model sovereignty is important for our citizens, and we are working on tools for them to easily further fine-tune the model straight from their browser. We are currently running a 30-hour training run on some simple hardware and through webGPU, so that no trust or installation is required.

We made it possible to run the model in webGPU and it is pretty fast even in that environment. You can see the porting process in my last few submissions, because we livestreamed Claude Code porting the base model from the original C++ and Python.

In a separate initiative, we produced a new hash function with AI - however, although it is novel, it might not be novel enough for publication and it's unclear whether we can publish it. It has several innovations compared to other hash formats.

We are running some other developments and experiments, but don't want to promise more than we can deliver in a working state, so for more information you just have to keep checking stateofutopia.com (or stofut.com for short).

Our biggest challenge at the moment is managing Claude's use of context and versions, while working on live production installs.

Everything takes time and attention and Claude Code is far from being fully autonomous building new productive services on a server - it's not even close to being able to do that autonomously. We feel that we have to be in the loop for everything.

[1] eventual goal: technocratic utopia, will be available at stateofutopia.com
by virtualized | 2026-02-09 11:01:52+00:00
What I read between the lines: “I have such a fragile ego that I feel offended when a tool points out a mistake I made. I feel intellectually rewarded by doing the same busywork over and over again. I don’t want to change the way I do my work at all. I feel left behind when people other than me have great ideas about language design.”
by gus_massa | 2026-02-09 11:01:53+00:00
If I go near a building, like a solar panel and press E then I get the information status, press E and more information, press E and more information, press E and more information, press E and more information, press E and get a menu [Destroy]/Cancel, press E and the building get destroyed!

Important feature request: When I reach the menu, the default action must be cancel in case the user is pressing E without reading the messages.
by theredbeard | 2026-02-09 11:04:12+00:00
OSS was already brutal for new contributors before AI. You'd spend hours on a good-faith PR and get ignored for months, or get torn apart in review because you didn't know the unwritten conventions. The signal-to-noise ratio sucked but at least maintainers would eventually look at your stuff.

Now with AI-generated spam everywhere, maintainers have even more reason to be suspicious of unknown names. Vouch solves their problem, but think about what it means for someone trying to break in. You need someone to vouch for you before you can contribute, but how do you get someone to vouch for you if you can't contribute?

I get why maintainers need this. But we're formalizing a system that makes OSS even more of an insider's club. The cold start problem doesn't really get any warmer like this.
by akarkaung | 2026-02-09 11:04:13+00:00
http://tootterhalf.com/

I've been working on this project, which lets you create interactive Valentine’s Day invitations for your special someone. You can pick from a set of templates, add your own message or photo, and share it easily.

Currently, adding CMS feature so that user can edit their info right in the website and get the link instead of them hosting themself or editing the code.
by lynx97 | 2026-02-09 11:04:41+00:00
They're trying to imply that fresh accounts might be used to steer opinions, IOW, they're trying to imply that you are a politically motivated kind of bot...

I agree, its a rather shady approach. But here you go, we'll get more and more of this, its a conveneient method to discredit discussion partners with unwanted opinions.
by sigmoid10 | 2026-02-09 11:05:00+00:00
Maybe think of it this way: If your job is delivering mail and the only transport you have is a horse, your life would probably suck a lot. You'd barely be home and you still wouldn't cover that much distance. Now, if someone gave you a car for your job, you would not just cover a lot more distance and deliver a lot more mail (=happy employer), you would also get to sleep at home every day and not be exposed to the weather all the time (=happy employee).

This is how all industrialisation/automation works in general. A lot more stuff gets produced and people still get to have more quality of life. Code is just another product in the end. Your employer will get more product and you will get to worry about less when you're at home. Imagine you could be a 10x engineer as a normal guy without working 100 hour weeks. And the true 10x guys who still work 100 hours will be able to change the world.
by rishi_gogi | 2026-02-09 11:05:37+00:00
Hey HN, I'm an AI engineer in Berlin building enterprise LLM systems. Built this because I kept hitting the same problem: classification tools assess risk once, governance dashboards track inventory, but nothing enforces compliance at runtime on every LLM call.
It's a Python middleware that wraps OpenAI/Azure/Anthropic/LangChain calls with audit logging, content policy, disclosure, and human escalation.
GitHub: https://github.com/Sagar-Gogineni/agentguard
Honest limitations: built-in keyword matcher misses nuanced threats (I show this in the article). That's why there's a custom classifier hook for Azure Content Safety / OpenAI Moderation / LLM-as-judge.
Happy to answer questions.
by lstodd | 2026-02-09 11:06:07+00:00
I was rewriting a mod for Rimworld recently. As Rimworld is built on Unity, it's all some sort of C#. I heard people say it's a wrong kind of C#, but since a) I had no choice and b) I never wrote any C# before I cannot tell.

First, C# proudly declares itself strongly-typed. After writing some code in Zig (a project just before this one, also undertaken as a learning opportunity, and not yet finished), I was confused. This is what is called strong-typed? C# felt more like Python to me after Zig (and Rust). Yes there are types. No, they are not very useful in limiting expression of absurdity or helping expression of intent.

Second, test. How do you write tests for a mod that depends on an undocumented 12 year old codebase plus of half a dozen of other mods? Short answer - it's infeasible. You can maybe extract some kind of core code from your mod and test that, but that doesn't help the glue code which is easily 50-80% in any given mod.

So what's left? I have great temptation to extract that core part and rewrite it in Zig. If Unity's C#-flavor FFI would work between linux and windows, if marshalling data would not kill performance outright, if it won't scare off potential contributors (and it will of course), if, if...

I guess I wanted to say that the tests are frequently overrated and not always possible. If language itself lends a hand, even as small and wimpy as C#'s, don't reject it as some sort of abomination.
by everdrive | 2026-02-09 11:06:33+00:00
>Right now it will still shamelessly reveal some of the nature of its prompt, but not why? who decides? etc. it's only going to be increasingly opaque in the future.

This is one of the bigger LLM risks. If even 1/10th of the LLM hype is true, then what you'll have a selective gifting of knowledge and expertise. And who decides what topics are off limits? It's quite disturbing.
by sethammons | 2026-02-09 11:06:37+00:00
You can reduce the transactions with payment providers. Instead of money exchanging from contributor to maintainer, have a token exchange. Contributors fund tokens with real money, and pull requests cost and refund tokens. Like an escrow account. But the money never goes to the target system. There are no perverse incentives to steal tokens. If you get a reputation of not refunding tokens (which have no value to a maintainer), then contributors will dry up.

"TrustTokens" or "EscrowTokens"
by daoboy | 2026-02-09 11:06:43+00:00
"Excel's default behavior is to convert certain text entries into dates. It makes sense for general spreadsheet use, but not for geneticists. Genes, like Membrane Associated Ring-CH-Type Finger 1, are given alphanumeric symbols (MARCH1) as a shorthand for their full, complex names. When a scientist would input "MARCH1" into an Excel spreadsheet, the software would automatically interpret this as a date and convert it to "1-Mar"[...]For a long time, Microsoft's position was that this was a niche issue affecting a small number of users"

To be fair, this really is a niche issue. For all that I agree with the frustration for Microsoft's terrible behavior in so many other respects, it's hard to fault them for not being immediately responsive to something like this.
by armchairhacker | 2026-02-09 11:06:52+00:00
As opposed to an information bubble with a small group of humans? It has less personalized hallucinations but more extreme and negative ones, which I think is worse. Ideally people would look at reliable sources and use critical thinking for information, but ChatGPT seems like a better conversation partner than the average Redditor of today (who's probably also a bot...but one trained on drama and negativity).
by vanaur | 2026-02-09 11:07:08+00:00
One may also be interested in Egregoria (https://github.com/Uriopass/Egregoria). This is a 3D city builder written in Rust, with particular attention to roads. I have never used the project (because it would not be useful for what I usually do), but I have been following its development at the beginning and I think it is quite cool stuff.
by direwolf20 | 2026-02-09 11:07:13+00:00
And there are countries where everyone rides a bike, and they are not usually the ones with mandatory helmets. When you hit someone with a bike you are less likely to kill them than when you hit them with a car, so more bike riding means less deaths, without even considering the effects of air pollution.

Helmets are fine for sport riding, but inconvenient if you want to ride 5 minutes to the shops on a whim. And that kind of riding is usually less intense and safer, I presume, anyway. Football has helmets, walking doesn't.
by repelsteeltje | 2026-02-09 11:07:21+00:00
I suppose it's somewhat accurate to claim that Haskell and Ocaml historically preceded Java (or even Objective-C). But Java wasn't inspired by those academic languages, but C: a then widely used real-world language with only partial static types.

(Not saying Java's attempt to remedy C's problems wasn't half-assed — it was.) The trend to plug holes is primarily motivated by empirical evidence of bug classes. Not by elegance of academic research.

As Bjarne Stroustrup famously quipped:

> “There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses.”

Swift, Kotlin, Rust, C++ are attempt to become languages that everyone complains about, not Haskell or Ocaml.
by housecarpenter | 2026-02-09 11:08:04+00:00
The reason I don't spend the majority of my time in code review is that when I'm reviewing my teammates' code I trust that the code has already been substantially verified already by that teammate in the process of writing it and testing it. Like 90% verified already. I see code review as just one small stage in the verification process, not the whole of it.

The way I approach it, it's really more about checking for failures, rather than verifying success. Like a smoke test. I scan over the code and if anything stands out to me as wrong, I point it out. I don't expect to catch everything that's wrong, and indeed I don't (as demonstrated by the fact that other members of the team will review the code and find issues I didn't notice). When the code has failed review, that means there's definitely an issue, but when the code has passed review, my confidence that there are no issues is still basically the same as it was before, only a little bit higher. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, I don't know.

If I had to fully verify that the code was correct when reviewing, applying the same level of scrutiny that I apply to my own code when I'm writing, I feel like I'd spend much longer on it---a similar time to what I'd spend writing on it.

Now with LLM coding, I guess opinions will differ as to how far one needs to fully verify LLM-generated code. If you see LLMs as stochastic parrots without any "real" intelligence, you'll probably have no trust in them and you'll see the code generated by the LLM as being 0% verified, and so as the user of the LLM you then have to do a "review" which is really going from 0% to 100%, not 90% to 100% and so is a much more challenging task. On the other hand, if you see LLMs as genuine intelligences you'd expect that LLMs are verifying the code to some extent as they write it, since after all it's pretty dumb to write a bunch of code for somebody without checking that it works. So in that case, you might see the LLM-generated code as 90% verified already, just as if it was generated by a trusted teammate, and then you can just do your normal review process.
Show HN: I made Sundaysub to help small startup create invoice for free
by vinzdg | 2026-02-09 11:08:30+00:00
Hello HN, I'm Vinz.

Based on my experience running a small design agency based on recurring monthly, i found a little issues with invoicing and subscription tracking for my clients, i was counting and create booklog manually on my notes and started to get a little headache with those repetitive works.

So i made Sundaysub, a little platform for me to create my invoice and save it easily. I don't have to create the product or write what product to deliver for several times, i can save it there. Also, i tried to improve the UI inn a POS-style format. On the left you can get lists of your products services, and you can record it in the order summary and complete the transactions.

I thought this is a helpful app that i've used personally for my agency, now i tried to open this app for free on public. Hope this would be helpful.
by forrestthewoods | 2026-02-09 11:08:30+00:00
It depends on if you’re defining sleeper hit as “unhyped movie that blew up” or exclusively “movie that initially flopped but became popular down the road”.

Generally people include the former in the sleeper hit category.

For the latter I’m not sure about movies. But some shows have blown up after failing on one platform then moving to Netflix.
by everdrive | 2026-02-09 11:08:41+00:00
This is intentional. It's really not a good idea to browse any sort of content on your phone. In one way or another, it's always worse for the user:

- worse tracking / privacy

- tilted toward passive consumption / scrolling due to UI and low impulse control threshold

- more vendor dark patterns

- far worse UI experience

- etc ...

Using your phone to consume content is always a bad decision.
by jmalicki | 2026-02-09 11:09:09+00:00
It's been a hugely popular PE play - any time a brand has a reputation for being very well made buy it for life level of stuff, that people pay a high price for, you can buy it and start reducing the quality for a few years, selling cheaper lower quality goods for the same price, hoping no one notices.

For the first few years, there aren't enough product issues for most of the hardcore enthusiasts to notice - maybe your tent ripping was just bad luck, or it may take two years for even a mediocre tent to weaken and fail for all but the people taking their tent to Denali or something.

Eventually the people who know move on and stop paying for the poorly made crap, but it's still seen as an exclusive brand by people who care about showing off they can afford something expensive vs. those for whom the quality was worth paying more for.
Show HN: I built an invoicing SaaS with AI-generated invoice templates
by mathysth | 2026-02-09 11:09:27+00:00
Hey HN,

I'm a solo dev and I built Invocrea because I was tired of spending hours every month on invoicing. Most tools out there are bloated, expensive, or just ugly.

Invocrea lets you create and send professional invoices in under 30 seconds. The stack is Next.js + NestJS + MongoDB.

The feature I'm most excited about: AI-generated invoice templates. You describe the style you want, and it generates a custom template for you. No more generic-looking invoices.

What it does:
- Create invoices/quotes with smart auto-completion
- Track payments (paid, pending, overdue) in real-time
- Automatic reminders for unpaid invoices
- Professional PDF export with your branding
- AI-powered template generation
- Client management with full billing history

It's free to start. If you want to try a paid plan, use code AVSE78 for 30% off.

Would love your feedback on the product and the AI template generation. What would you improve?
by darjan_dev | 2026-02-09 11:10:40+00:00
Hi I'm Darjan!

Full-stack web developer (React/Next.js + Node.js) with 5+ years building and scaling modern web applications for USA and German Companies and startups — seeking remote roles on product-focused teams.

Location: Europe (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Remote: Yes — only globally remote positions
Willing to relocate: No
Technologies: React, Next.js, Vue.js, TypeScript, JavaScript, Node.js, SQL, Tailwind, UI/UX implementation, clean architecture
Résumé/CV: https://darjan.dev/
Email: darjan.developer@gmail.com
by gmuslera | 2026-02-09 11:11:11+00:00
It is not about having infinite width and depth of knowledge. Is about abstracting at the right level for the components are relevant enough and can assume correctness outside the focus of what you are solving.

Systems include people, that make their own decisions that affect how they work and we don’t go down to biology and chemistry to understand how they make choices. But that doesn’t mean that people decisions should be fully ignored in our analysis, just that there is a right abstraction level for that.

And sometimes a side or abstracted component deserves to be seen or understood with more detail because some of the sub components or its fine behavior makes a difference for what we are solving. Can we do that?
by Ndymium | 2026-02-09 11:11:47+00:00
Note that the API is split into XSS-safe and XSS-unsafe calls. The XSS-safe calls [0] have this noted for each of them (emphasis mine):

> Then drop any elements and attributes that are not allowed by the sanitizer configuration, and any that are considered XSS-unsafe (even if allowed by the configuration)

The XSS-unsafe functions are all named "unsafe". Although considering web programmers, maybe they should have been named "UnsafeDoNotUseOrYouWillBeFired".

[0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTML_Saniti...