MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by kube-system | 2026-02-12 01:37:21+00:00
Major appliance repair is very much still a thing, and manufacturers share repair info under their partner programs. But this makes sense because shipping them back for warranty is prohibitively expensive and people are willing to pay a few hundred bucks to fix a couple thousand dollar appliance. They’re still not doing component level repair, because module replacement is still cheaper and more reliable.

Small appliances and electronics are not repaired as any more much because:

1. their real price has cratered over the past 50 years

2. they have more integrated and specialized parts that simply aren’t repairable or available

3. They have fewer mechanical parts prone to regular failure or which pay the bills for repair shops (belts, timers, etc)

4. They are far more complicated than their predecessors, and therefore more complicated to diagnose even if you have a schematic

But yeah, when everyone’s washing machine has a belt transmission and a clunky mechanical timer, they failed all the time and there were repair shops on every corner. But these places weren’t doing the type of work akin to SMD rework on a digital circuits.
by minimaxir | 2026-02-12 01:38:12+00:00
I never claimed Opus 4.5 can one-shot things? Even human-written software takes a few iterations to add/polish new features as they come to mind.

> And you clearly “broke” the model a few times based on your prompt log where the model was unable to solve the problem given with the spec.

That's less due to the model being wrong and more due to myself not knowing what I wanted because I am definitely not a UI/UX person. See my reply in the sibling thread.
Show HN: Tork – Open-source AI governance layer, 11 SDKs& 116 framework adapters
by yusufjacobs | 2026-02-12 01:38:32+00:00
Been working on this solo for a while. Tork is a governance middleware that sits between AI agents and the tools they call — intercepting every interaction to apply PII redaction, policy enforcement, and compliance audit trails.
It handles PII redaction, policy enforcement, and compliance audit trails. Works with 116 adapters across 11 programming languages. ~20ms latency overhead. Free tier available.
https://tork.network
Would love to hear thoughts from anyone dealing with AI governance challenges in production.
by RupertSalt | 2026-02-12 01:40:11+00:00
In 2008, I visited Manresa in Catalonia.

An uncited passage in Wikipedia explains how the French Troops, defeated during their Napoleonic Invasion (1808), burned and demolished Manresa on retreat, and the villagers simply rebuilt the buildings from the same rubble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manresa

I can attest that many buildings downtown are definitely rubble-y.
by BobaFloutist | 2026-02-12 01:41:24+00:00
Ok, at which point an adult has taken responsibility for giving them access.

The older brother could also rent an R (or x) rated movie, buy cigarettes, lighters, dry ice, and give them to the kids. The point of the age check is to prevent kids from getting access without an adult in the loop, not to prevent an adult from providing kids access
by slg | 2026-02-12 01:41:39+00:00
>We see the asteroid fired at Earth.

No, we don't. The bugs have no technology. How could they send an asteroid from light-years away with enough speed and accuracy to hit Earth on any reasonable timeframe? It's not even a good lie. It's a story that strains credulity the second you actually think about its logistics. The only reason you believe it is that characters in the movie say it.

>We see Buenos Aires destroyed.

Sure, but asteroids also have natural origins. The government coopts the disaster for their own ends in an obvious mirroring of the Reichstag fire. The true cause of the destruction is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what the crisis can be used to justify.

>We see the bugs killing the humans.

Sure, after the humans invade the bugs home. If you go on a hike, find a beehive, and then start poking it with a stick, no rational person would blame the bees for stinging you.

>Calling the characters "fascists" because they use fascist aesthetics is basically acting like an LLM. It's only engaging with the surface detail without having a solid world-model to back up your thoughts.

The government portrayed in the movie is fascistic because it shows a society that is entirely governed by military might and structure. The classroom scenes at the beginning of the movie discuss the failure of democracy and how that led to veterans taking control through force. We are also repeatedly told that basic rights of citizenship are only awarded to veterans. When they're at boot camp and all going around explaining their reasons for joining the military, one person says she wants to start a family and military service is the best path to getting a license for it. This is a highly structured and totalitarian society ruled by a military class. How would you describe that if it isn't "fascism"?

Once again, you seem to be guilty of the same thing you're accusing me of doing. The only evidence that this isn't a fascist society is the surface-level details of things like a bunch of happy high school students. Any discussion of the actual society they live in paints a clear picture of fascism.
by appreciatorBus | 2026-02-12 01:43:00+00:00
I posed my comment poorly and trollishly.

I don't think you should make any change you don't want to, I'm not arguing for collective agreement on anything, and I'm not convinced there's a big ethical case for or against AI, even in Notepad.exe. If you can make $1M, go nuts, I just think it's not a great example of dealing with ethics & tradeoffs.

I was more just reacting to your the contrast between ideas early in this thread, and your implication of a $1M comp. Early in the thread there was implication that poor/exploited/low-level workers with few other options were either being blamed for AI in notepad, or should not be blamed. Then you casually drop the $1M comp line. Maybe that's real, maybe it's not but regardless, it felt silly to compare the earlier population with people who can or have made $1M. Of course we all face challenges, and the hedonic treadmill calls for us equally at $1K/year and $1M/year, I just think people in the latter have objectively more options, even if the wife complains, than people in the former, and it's tough to take the latter seriously when they talk about lifestyle adjustments.
by brynnbee | 2026-02-12 01:43:00+00:00
Considering that current energy usage of AI is very likely to plummet in the coming years due to efficiency gains (which we've seem massive improvements on in the last couple years) and most of these large companies building datacenters are looking for and investing in specifically clean energy sources (nuclear) I don't think AI is a meaningful contributor compared to all the other high causes of global emissions.
by theturtletalks | 2026-02-12 01:43:28+00:00
I'm kind of hoping this kills traditional marketplaces since they're filled to the brim with ads and purposefully knee-cap search and filtering so you can't properly find anything.

Conversational commerce will let you shop on any website, with any UI you like, and without paying marketplaces a cut of every sale.

Outside of discovery and trust, what are they really bringing to the table anymore? Most sellers have their own websites with cart, product catalog, and payments already so AI that can tap into that API directly will render these marketplaces and middle-men obsolete given enough time.
by johnnyanmac | 2026-02-12 01:44:10+00:00
Taking via

- government lobbying for tax codes and loopholes, made specifically to benefit them

- abuse of various systems like H1B's and even SNAP (e.g. Wal-Mart) to subsidize their lack of payment to american taxpayers

- extracting value from public research (funded by taxpayers) and creating private products for sale. Sometimes they may even try to patent such breakthroughs for themelves despite public invention

- engaging in dark patterns and anti-competitive, anti-union behavior to extract wealth in ways that would potentially be proven illegal... had they not paid off the judges

- Performing untold of, actually illegal grifts (cases like SBF are only the tip of the iceberg)

And at this rate we may have to throw in "abusing funds to protect against the most heinous criminals imaginable".

Need I go on? There's pratically no such thing as a billionaire who earned their net worth.
by scottLobster | 2026-02-12 01:45:14+00:00
Sure, but I'm not sure how AI would solve any of that.

Any claims of objectivity would be challenged based on how it was trained. Public opinion would confirm its priors as it already does (see accusations of corruption or activism with any judicial decision the mob disagrees with, regardless of any veracity). If there's a human appeals process above it, you've just added an extra layer that doesn't remove the human corruption factor at all.

As for corruption, in my opinion we're reading some right now. Human-in-the-loop AI doesn't have the exponential, world-altering gains that companies like OpenAI need to justify their existence. You only get that if you replace humans completely, which is why they're all shilling science fiction nonsense narratives about nobody having to work. The abstract of this paper leans heavily into that narrative
by TheDong | 2026-02-12 01:45:51+00:00
In functioning states, the ID contains a chip with a private key that can be used to sign a message, and ID verification would not be an image of the ID card, but rather holding your phone's NFC reader to the card and signing a message from the site.

In Japan, there are already multiple apps which use something like this to verify user's age via the "my number card" + the smartphone's NFC reader.

It's more or less impossible to forge without stealing the government's private keys, or infiltrating the government and issuing a fraudulent card.

Of course, the US isn't a functioning state, the people don't trust it with their identity and security and would rather simply give all their information to private companies instead.
by OutOfHere | 2026-02-12 01:46:31+00:00
I don't know if this will help, but you could try drinking a WHO ORS electrolyte powder packet in room-temperature water just before donating blood. Or you could drink half before, and half after. Drink it slowly, and practice first at home.

Or if the fainting is psychological, then work your way up to psychological dominance via multiple blood tests rather than donations.
by viraptor | 2026-02-12 01:46:37+00:00
Then you'd need to provide them with access to the law, previous cases, to the news, to various data sources. And you'd have to decide how much each of those sources of information matter. And at that point, you've got people making the decision again instead of the ai in practice.

And then there's the question of the model used. Turns out I've got preferences for which model I'd rather be judged by, and it's not Grok for example...
by anotherCodder | 2026-02-12 01:47:04+00:00
Hey HN - I built agnix because I kept losing time to the same class of bug: AI tool configs that are almost right but silently wrong.

The trigger: I had a Claude Code skill named `Review-Code`. It never auto-triggered. No error message. I spent 20 minutes debugging prompt engineering before realizing the Agent Skills spec requires kebab-case names (`review-code`). The spec is clear about this, but Claude Code doesn't validate it - it just silently ignores the skill.

This happens across the entire AI tool ecosystem. Cursor has .mdc rule files with YAML frontmatter - invalid YAML means your rule metadata is silently dropped. MCP server configs can use deprecated transport types with no warning. Claude Code hooks support `type: "prompt"` only on Stop and SubagentStop events - use it on PreToolUse and nothing happens. GitHub Copilot instruction files need valid glob patterns in their `applyTo` field - a malformed glob matches nothing.

None of these tools validate their own configuration files. It's the same gap that ESLint filled for JavaScript or clippy fills for Rust: catching things that are syntactically valid but semantically wrong.

agnix currently has 156 validation rules across 28 categories, covering 11 tools (Claude Code, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Codex CLI, Cline, MCP, OpenCode, Gemini CLI, and more). Every rule is traced to an authoritative source - official specs, vendor documentation, or research papers.

Technical choices:

- Written in Rust, parallel validation via rayon
- LSP server for real-time IDE diagnostics (VS Code, JetBrains, Neovim, Zed)
- 57 auto-fixable rules (`agnix --fix .`)
- SARIF 2.1.0 output for CI/security workflows
- GitHub Action for CI integration
- Deterministic benchmarks via iai-callgrind in CI (blocks merge on perf regression)
- Single file: <10ms. 100 files: ~200ms.

Try it: `npx agnix .` (zero install, zero config)

I'd like feedback on two things: (1) whether the rule coverage feels right - are there config mistakes I'm not catching? and (2) whether anyone has thoughts on the cross-platform validation approach (detecting conflicts between CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, and .cursorrules in the same project).

I also wrote a longer post about the problem space: https://dev.to/avifenesh/your-ai-agent-configs-are-probably-...

MIT/Apache-2.0.
by D-Machine | 2026-02-12 01:47:22+00:00
Sorry, but using "LLM" when you mean "AI" is a basic failure to understand simple definitions, and also is ignoring the meat of the blog post and much of the discussion here (which is that LLMs are limited by virtue of being only / mostly trained on language).

Everything you are saying is either incoherent because you actually mean "AI" or "transformer", or is just plain wrong, since e.g. not all problems can be solved using e.g. single-channel, recursively-applied transformers, as I mention elsewhere here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46948612.

You literally have no idea what you are talking about and clearly do not read or understand any actual papers where these models are developed, and are just repeating simplistic metaphors from blog posts.
by NoahZuniga | 2026-02-12 01:48:50+00:00
Another example is that in the Netherlands, there's a crime called "valsheid in geschriften" which exists to make it easy to prosecute fraud. It states that if you create a document with false information with the intent to use that document to deceive, you can get up to 5 years of jail time or some really big fine. Is lying on a paper insurance form to get a cheaper premium breaking this law? This doesn't seem clear cut to me.
by Aurornis | 2026-02-12 01:48:55+00:00
> Why not instead swallow the pride and do Bad Thing but with some level of moderation? That would surely be a better outcome overall.

This is a common debate, especially given current events in US politics. The theory goes that you can do more to effect change by staying inside the system than by resigning.

For powerful positions, it doesn’t really work if there is significant disagreement about what’s being done. If you do the requested actions that you disagree with, you become part of the problem and lose credibility in the process. You also lose some of your ability to blow the whistle because you have some culpability in what happened.

If you resist or try to interfere, it becomes noticeable very rapidly. Sooner than a lot of people in this position expect, from what I gather. Then you find yourself fired for performance problems or insubordination, which makes any future whistle blowing look like cheap attempts at retaliation for being fired. If you did carry out some of the orders then you’ve also lost some standing to blame others.

So resigning, publicly, is the only surefire way to retain your credibility and send a message without becoming involved with the thing you’re trying to prevent.
by johnnyanmac | 2026-02-12 01:49:06+00:00
I hate that their politic's explicit goal is to make my, yours, and everyone else's lives actively worse. Government is not a business.

We're not getting better healthcare, more and better jobs, more efficient transportation, better city infrastructure, nor more houses. We aren't even getting the cool things shown in cyberpunk dystopias. Hell, we can't even ask for them to follow the law these days.

Why would I want to support them getting into politics? There's a difference betweeen them having different thoughts on how fund, say, self drving cars (which I'm not a fan of) and then all of that above.
by rramadass | 2026-02-12 01:49:13+00:00
Your account was created in the last 24 hours and your moniker itself is proof that you are not interested in discussing Physics/Science but to steer the conversation in a completely opinionated and negative direction. This is not a soapbox for your negative agendas.

This thread was created to know more about a famous work in Physics, understand its pros and cons, elicit comparisons with the works of other authors etc. The focus should be solely on the Science and nothing else.

You and others like you in this thread needed to be called out on your actions viz. mucking and vitiating a discussion on Physics into a discussion on personalities/opinions/behaviours/etc. completely irrelevant to the topic on hand.
by Aeglaecia | 2026-02-12 01:49:23+00:00
what about when a veteran returns from war with ptsd that can be triggered at any point and potentially result in violence to those around them ? thats about the same net effect as walking around with a loaded gun to everyones head , the only difference is the comparability in numbers. as well the covid death rates for young people are a fraction of the death rates of the elderly, who do deserve to be taken care of but ultimately are a net drain to society. so your comment is better stated as holding a gun to the head of the elderly ... which is horrible but not quite the same argument.
by raven12345 | 2026-02-12 01:49:43+00:00
So here's the problem. Assuming what you said is correct, the US, UK, and France want NATO to be more than just a defensive organization. But what about other NATO members? They don't have as many interests to protect in Africa and the Middle East, but they need NATO to defend against Russia. So why should they care about competition between China and the US elsewhere?

and you said China actively supplies war material to Russia. but in early 2025, China’s top UAV export destinations were Hong Kong, the Netherlands, and the United States,
https://www.airmobi.com/from-billion-dollar-orders-to-global...
why Netherlands need so many UAV? That's why polls showed that China has higher approval than the US in Europe.
by Aedelon | 2026-02-12 01:50:06+00:00
Both angles are real but they play out differently.
On the deliberate side: Nightshade showed you can poison image models with a few hundred modified samples. Backdoor attacks on LLMs (sleeper agents, trojan triggers) are an active research area, and the attack surface is huge because most training pipelines just scrape the open web. So yes, someone generating garbage on purpose can cause targeted damage, especially if they understand how the data gets collected.

But the scarier part is that nobody needs to try. The accidental contamination is already happening. Models train on web data, produce outputs that end up on the web, next generation trains on that. Dohmatob et al. showed 0.1% synthetic contamination is enough to cause measurable degradation. Right now no major dataset (FineWeb, RedPajama, C4) filters for AI-generated content.

What makes this harder to think about: data quality and model performance don't always follow "garbage in, garbage out." I wrote about a related paradox where Qwen2.5-Math trained with deliberately wrong reward signals still improved almost as much as with correct ones: https://ai.gopubby.com/false-rewards-make-ai-smarter-paradox...

Models are simultaneously fragile to recursive contamination and weirdly resilient to corrupted training signals. The picture is messier than either side suggests.
by epistasis | 2026-02-12 01:50:32+00:00
Look, I know we're supposed to "believe women" and all, but in my personal experience every time I have followed up on the "They're censoring me for my views" thread it has not resulted in a conservative person being censored for tax policy and advocating for limited government, but instead, "you know the views" that amount to harassment. I admit I could be wrong, but my Bayesian prior from past data is pretty strong. So I'm hesitant to believe without evidence. I understand if others have a very different prior, but I can't deny my past experience.

In the past I've hesitated to even get involved with these discussions because they all seemed far too low signal to noise, and in fact lead to huge amounts of dangerous toxicity, but in these dangerous times I think it's important to interact more even if it's very unpleasant. I already got my first-ever "kill yourself" response to what was an extremely restrained comment response. We all see what goes on these discussions, we all see the common mischaracterizations, so if you want to overturn what people have seen in the past it's going to take documented evidence, I think.
by unltdpower | 2026-02-12 01:50:54+00:00
"Committing to buying the glass to replace the window I broke in your shop to rob the place, you're welcome."

> Training a single frontier AI model will soon require gigawatts of power, and the US AI sector will need at least 50 gigawatts of capacity over the next several years.

These things are so hideously inefficient. All of you building these things for these people should be embarrassed and ashamed.
by johnnyanmac | 2026-02-12 01:51:50+00:00
>what has democracy done for us lately? Besides re-electing Donald Trump?

You have the order backwards. This is their exact strategy; spend decades breaking government then have the breakers say "see? government is broken!". Lack of functioning democracy got us Donald Trump.

Why do you think this year they are so gung ho on trying to disenfranchise voters for a midterm? Because they know they are cooked if democracy starts to work again. If nothing else, Mamdami's 6 weeks show exactly how a "government that works for its people" can work. Let's keep pushing for that.
by ticulatedspline | 2026-02-12 01:51:55+00:00
> The proposed class covers all U.S. consumers who purchased Pepsi soft drinks from non-Walmart retailers since January 2015.

lol, not sure what the requirements are for notification in a class action but I'm pretty sure this one covers like 95% of the entire US population. I don't even like most of their stuff and rarely buy sodas but can't say I haven't bought anything from the brand in the last decade.
by Aurornis | 2026-02-12 01:52:48+00:00
> Cover grid infrastructure costs. We will pay for 100% of the grid upgrades needed to interconnect our data centers, paid through increases to our monthly electricity charges. This includes the shares of these costs that would otherwise be passed onto consumers.

This is great, but do they have an actual example of something that would have been passed on to consumers? Or is it just a hypothetical?

In the location I’m familiar with, large infrastructure projects have to pay their own interconnection costs. Utilities are diverse across the country so I wouldn’t be surprised if there are differences, but in general I doubt there are many situations where utilities were going to raise consumer’s monthly rates specifically to connect some large commercial infrastructure.

Maybe someone more familiar with these locations can provide more details, but I think this public promise is rather easy to make.