MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by adebayoj | 2026-02-24 09:29:04+00:00
Thanks for pointing this out. LLama 3 8B was trained on ~15T tokens. The Qwen models on 15-18T tokens as well. We trained on 1.35T tokens, and are within shot of these models on benchmarks. We expect to, at the very minimum, match these models' performance when we scale our token budget.

One side effect that we are excited about is that interpretable model training might make for a data efficient training process.
by Vegenoid | 2026-02-24 09:30:42+00:00
> Let's say I look (as a human) at some GPL source code. And then I close the browser tab and roughly re-implement from memory what I saw. Am I now required to release my own code as GPL? More extrtsembles what I saw back then, then I can, in your universe, be sued because only "libre programmers" may read "libre source code".

It's entirely dependent on how similar the code you write is to the licensed code that you saw, and what could be proved about what you saw, but potentially yes: if you study GPL code, and then write code that is very uniquely similar to it, you may have infringed on the author's copyright. US courts have made some rulings which say that the substantial similarity standard does apply to software, although pretty much every ruling for these cases ends up in the defendant's favor (the one who allegedly "copied" some software).

> So, for LLMs, even if the input is GPL, proprietary, whatever: if the output is unrecognizable from the input, it does not matter.

Sure, but that doesn't apply to this instance. This is implementing a BSD driver based on a Linux driver for that hardware. I'm not making the general case that LLMs are committing copyright infringement on a grand scale. I'm saying that giving GPL code to an LLM (in this case the GPL code was input to the model, which seems much more egregious than it being in the training data) and having the LLM generate that code ported to a new platform feels slimy. If we can do this, then copyleft licenses will become pretty much meaningless. I gather some people would consider that a win.
by davide_rebase | 2026-02-24 09:30:56+00:00
An open-source, opinionated time-series database built on top of PostgreSQL and TimescaleDB, designed to handle overlapping forecasts and “time-of-knowledge” history.

When forecasts are revised or values are corrected, the previous versions still matter for evaluations, backtesting and auditability .
TimeDB facilitates retaining and querying that full history.

3D time model: valid time, knowledge time, change time
Improved developer experience through Python SDK
Designed to handle overlapping forecast revisions
Units with automatic validation and conversion

If you want to see us develop this further, give the repo a and follow the project.
by andsko | 2026-02-24 09:31:06+00:00
It's your lucky day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXJfK1wR_w0

Buddhism, Out-of-Africa, Talking Dogs | Robert Sapolsky Father-Offspring Interviews #96

Research implies that - no, pets don't have complex understanding of word combinations, beyond the usual commands. But, in terms of recognizing words individually - some of the gifted ones show abilities on par with 18-month-old humans.
by tpm | 2026-02-24 09:31:17+00:00
> Does it just mean your company has to offer you your job back when you want to return?

The legal situation is that you are still employed there while on the maternity leave and your employment is protected. They don't pay you anything of course, any money you receive comes from the state/social security pocket.

So when you return you just returned to your position. If the position was eliminated, the company has to offer you another position.

> This sounds like the old-fashioned way of running companies that would result in a married woman being laid off instead of a married man, on the theory that he's the breadwinner and his family relies on him.

That reasoning would be illegal of course, but also in our work law system it's pretty hard to lay off someone if they didn't commit a grave fault. As above, even if you eliminate positions, you still have to offer them another one first.
by mort96 | 2026-02-24 09:31:45+00:00
Okay, and? Is anyone complaining about being able to search your favorite search engine from within Firefox?

Do you genuinely think this is comparable to Facebook integration? Do you believe that it Mozilla announced Facebook account integration and a Facebook side bar tomorrow, people's reaction to that would be, "oh this is just like what they did with search, this is fine"?

If not, isn't your comment a tiny bit disingenuous?
by rmunn | 2026-02-24 09:31:46+00:00
"Getting it right" for this particular trick question means saying "Hey, roosters can't lay eggs". If someone tries to figure out which way the egg will roll then they've missed the trick. In most cases the person's response will tell you whether they caught the trick or not, though in the case of someone who just looks at you like you're dumb and doesn't say anything I will grant that you wouldn't be able to tell until they said something. But their first verbal response would probably reveal whether they saw through the trick question or not.
by freakynit | 2026-02-24 09:31:50+00:00
I generally consider myself below average in intelligence, but even then I'm not this dumb, or naive, to accept this "security" excuse as a justification for expanding control over free speech.

If security is truly the issue, then it's the government's responsibility to address it without infringing on fundamental freedoms. If it can't manage that, it reflects incompetence on the government's part, not a flaw in free speech itself.
by godelski | 2026-02-24 09:32:21+00:00
> I don't know what Mozilla means by "AI browser",

Well it's not like they're being quiet about it. They've openly discussed what features they're working on and planning. So maybe start there.

> "regular browser with an optional chat bot sidebar". I don't wanna figure out what it means

It's not a hard thing you figure out. Optional means you don't have to use it. In fact, if you never open it you'll never know it exists and you'll never have to interact with it. It is an opt in system. No one is making you do anything so stop acting like it.

Fwiw, I don't use the AI sidebar. I'd have forgotten it existed if HN didn't bring it up as if it's shoved in your face like some chatbot in an IDE. But I guess if it was the latter people wouldn't be angry
by hsbauauvhabzb | 2026-02-24 09:33:14+00:00
I don’t want nor need on device translation enabled by default. I’ve gone without it for the three decades in which browsers have been around. I’m sure it’s brilliantly useful for some people. A one time ‘would you like to enable AI on startup’ for at least years with user profiles that are significantly old would at least be a show of good faith.
by mike_hearn | 2026-02-24 09:33:36+00:00
One reason Oracle uses it is because this mode scales horizontally whilst allowing very large transactions. You can just keep adding write masters.

The best implementation of serializable transactions I've seen is in FoundationDB but it comes with serious costs. Transactions are limited in size and duration to a point where many normal database operations are disallowed by the system and require app-layer workarounds (at which point, of course, you lose serializability). And in many cases you do need cluster locks for other purposes anyway.
by antitoxic | 2026-02-24 09:34:33+00:00
Yes it does actually. You load your ID into your phone with the MRZ and NFC. The cryptographic proof inside your ID is used to verify that it was issued by an official government. So your ID is not being sent to a central server.

The reusing another ID is an issue. In some countries they will have a in person check to verify only you can load your ID into your phone. But then you still have the problem of sending a verification QR code to someone else and have them verify it. This might be solved by rolling time-gated QR codes and by making it illegal to verify someone else's verifications. But this is a valid concern and a problem that still needs solving.
by oferchen | 2026-02-24 09:34:44+00:00
I understand the apprehension. It’s completely fair to be wary of tossing out decades of battle-tested reliability, and "Rewrite It In X" syndrome is definitely a real anti-pattern in our industry. However, calling this project "dangerous and insane" ignores some very real, systemic limitations of the current rsync implementation that simply cannot be fixed without a ground-up rewrite.

Here is why creating a modern alternative is a necessary step forward, rather than just reinventing the wheel:

- Memory Safety and Security: rsync is written in C. While the maintainers do an incredible job, a memory-unsafe language will inevitably suffer from security vulnerabilities. We have seen periodic, significant CVEs related to buffer overflows and out-of-bounds memory accesses. Moving to a modern, memory-safe language structurally eliminates entire classes of these vulnerabilities.

- Architectural Bottlenecks: rsync was designed for 1990s hardware. While it uses a multi-process pipeline (generator, sender, receiver), its core file-processing loop is fundamentally serial. It was optimized for an era of low RAM and spinning disks. Today, we have NVMe drives and processors with dozens of cores. Modernizing the architecture with true multithreading and asynchronous I/O allows for massive performance gains that rsync's legacy architecture simply cannot accommodate.

- Technical Debt and Spaghetti Code: The original codebase is turning 30 years old this year (first released in 1996). Over three decades, it has accumulated a massive amount of technical debt. It is poorly documented internally, heavily patched, and relies on capturing thousands of obscure edge cases directly in the code logic rather than through clean abstractions. It has become a black box that is incredibly hostile to new contributors.

- Protocol Documentation: Because so much of the tool's behavior is implicitly defined by the code itself, the actual modern network protocol lacks comprehensive, standalone documentation. A major goal of this rewrite is to hunt down those undocumented edge cases and finally establish a clear, documented standard for the protocol.

- The Reality of Bugs: Yes, writing new code introduces new bugs. But if the fear of new bugs prevented us from writing new software, we would all still be using FTP and Telnet. Bugs are an inherent part of the development and iteration process. We write tests, we run betas, and we fix them.

The goal isn't to force everyone to switch tomorrow. It’s to build a modern, fast, and safe foundation so that when people are ready for an alternative, a robust one exists.
by deaux | 2026-02-24 09:35:05+00:00
> This is true. The eidas directive requires that secret material lives in a dedicated hardware / secure element. It's really not much different than what a banking app would require.

Most banking apps run on GrapheneOS, will this? Nearly all EU banking websites run on Firefox on Linux, will this?

Why did you not quote the App Store/Google Play Services part, which is much worse?

> There are so called policy mitigations currently: audits and requirements for governments to remove salts from memory the moment stuff is issued.

I'm sure this will be as diligently carried out as GDPR enforcement. [0].

[0] https://noyb.eu/en/project/dpa/dpc-ireland
by disgruntledphd2 | 2026-02-24 09:35:21+00:00
> Binance is not an American company and sending money to Iran or Palestine or Hamas is something should not be up to Americans to decide, i personally will not accept Americans be the police of the world they did so much horrible things and terrorising Muslims for so many years.

Doesn't matter, tbh. Regardless of the philosophical viewpoint here (which I do agree with), AML and Bank Secrecy type laws exist basically everywhere, and are no joke. They're one of the few things that bank executives go to prison for.

And like, Binance were just convicted of this a few years back. I wouldn't be surprised if the US government tried to shut them down at this point. And if Binance are persona non grata to the US government then they're out of the dollar system which basically cuts them off from almost the entire banking system.
by b112 | 2026-02-24 09:36:05+00:00
Ubuntu oozes over debian like a parasitic malaise of vile chicanery. Their entire goal is to, essentially, use the work of untold millions, provided for free, to build their own cathedral.

People complain about AWS and others taking OSS projects and profiting wildly off them, but they're all children compared to the machinations of Ubuntu.

It's been this way from the start. The constant conflict of interest, where Ubuntu devs manipulate debian democratic processes, and the inclusion of systemd and its ridiculous swiss-army-knife implementation of an init system and surrounding tools.

You ever see those knives, the huge ones, with a screwdriver, plyers, and 100 other tools on them? Thing is, they're all crap. They work for an odd case, but you always need to reach for a real tool.

That's systemd. Whether systemd-timesync, its dns services, or anything else it does, it's kiddie time. Barely functional, broken in inane ways, and leaving any professional in a situation of endless masking of a myriad of barely cogent and horribly malign services.

We didn't gain anything with systemd, except for an init system 1000 times larger, codebase wise, and a collection of tools you have to replace anyhow.

And now these guys want to do Amutable. I hope they fail, for if they succeed, they will sink us further into this absurd system. Systemd for death. For despair. For dislike. For dumb. For disregard, devilment, debased, disturbed, systemd is all these things, and more, all packaged for you, all presented to you, all given to you, to all of us, dragging us down, destroying us.

If there is an apocalypse, it'll be somehow some bug in systemd that causes it. Nukes will fly due to its broken code, viral containment systems will fail due to buffer overruns in its code, systemd is the end-of-world waiting to happen, its over-complicated, poorly written code a guillotine waiting to fall upon us all.

I run thousands of sysvinit, and thousands of systemd systems.

Which ones, do you think, have the worse record of "something stupid" bringing down a service, a machine, preventing a boot up, you name it, it's systemd.

I swear to God that Trump exists because of systemd somehow. I place all the ills, perils, at the feet of systemd. It represents everything wrong in the tech ecosystem, its tendrils spreading dark, deep disturbing dreams of madness through all it touches.

Just learning how to use systemd, destroys the logic centres of the mind, rendering advocates incapable of productive work.

All wrong and ill that befalls this world, is at its feet.

I suspect through some incomprehensible twist of fate, the entire fabric of the universe may unravel, undoing all that is, and ever was. All lost, all gone, all because of systemd.

I am beginning to suspect I dislike systemd.

(Send $19.95 to my address, if you wish to subscribe to my newsletter, and hear my REAL, UNFILTERED opinions about systemd)
by JuniperMesos | 2026-02-24 09:36:12+00:00
Concision is one of several virtues in documentation, and it trades off against thoroughness. I don't actually want to get to know the developer when I read a comment in some piece of code I am reading or editing, I want to as quickly and accurately as possible understand what I need to know about that code to make the changes I care about at that time.

Anyway I personally have asked LLMs to create more detailed TODO items for myself, on personal projects where I am the only human programmer who had laid eyes on the code. In fact, I do this frequently, including multiple times earlier today. So I don't take the idea seriously that using an LLM to generate a TODO comment is an inherently disrespectful thing to do.
by throwaway77385 | 2026-02-24 09:37:11+00:00
To report back on this, I contacted the various email addresses given in OP's article.

For people with GDPR rights, this link helps make a DSAR (though interestingly the US and many other countries are also available from the country dropdown, maybe they follow these rules everywhere): https://withpersona.com/dsar

This of course brings up the problem of having to verify the ID of the person who's requesting their ID to be deleted from their DB. So I am probably going to stop here.

I also received a separate email stating that my data was already scheduled for deletion if I used Persona through LinkedIn.
Show HN: Kuta – Treadmill Interval Training for iOS
by eriknielsen | 2026-02-24 09:38:04+00:00
Show HN: Kuta – Treadmill interval training for iOS

https://getkuta.com

I kept losing count of reps during treadmill intervals. Tried paper notes, tried the big running apps – none of them are really built for treadmill use.

Kuta guides you through workouts with large visual cues (designed for sweaty hands on a bouncing treadmill), calculates distance from pace × time instead of the treadmill sensor, and syncs to Strava via Apple Health.

SwiftUI, iOS 17+. 22 free preset workouts. Custom workouts are a one-time $2.90 unlock. No subscription.

This is my first app. Got rejected by Apple twice before approval. Happy to talk about the build or the process.
by cwillu | 2026-02-24 09:38:06+00:00
> There is always the chance that the "Most powerful" is just not good enough for the task at hand.

And that chance is not 100%, and so any given strength of telescope is in fact excluding some of the hypothesis space. That is the definition of evidence.

Every time I point a telescope that would be able to detect a star of a given brightness and distance somewhere, and it fails to see a star, that limits the remaining space for people who believe in stars to make claims about what stars can be, until they're finally at the point where they can only make the most esoteric claims about “stars” that have no observable effects on the world, at which there's no point even including “stars” in your physics model.

I'm at that point with respect to god: every concrete claim has either been disproven, or isn't actually a claim about the observable world, at which point I shrug and say that this thing you insist on defining has no impact on anything.
by mmsc | 2026-02-24 09:38:07+00:00
In addition to completely disabling AI, I found the following setting extremely convinent to disable in about:config. They clutter up my right-click on a link or on text selection.

browser.translations.select.enable
dom.text_fragments.enabled
privacy.query_stripping.strip_on_share.enabled
devtools.accessibility.enabled

Now if only I could get rid of "Print selection" and "Services" when right-clicking, too (on MacOS)
by koalacongregate | 2026-02-24 09:38:09+00:00
Can you explain more about the routing issues? Because I've also been thinking about how practically everyone has an old smartphone with a broken screen in a drawer somewhere, and whether we could encourage people to use that for self-hosting. If you leave it at home, always plugged in and on your own network, I don't know how it would be different than any other device running a server?
by tetris11 | 2026-02-24 09:38:22+00:00
A cursory look through someone's post history.

If a 6-day old account making highly voted posts and no comments? Bot, part of a botnet (check who upvoted, and purge as neccesary).

6 month old account, combination of high and low effort comments? Does not emit hatred with every fibre of their being? Appears to understand debate? Rational human, trust.

You do it on case-by-case basis and slowly increase your trust network
by raincole | 2026-02-24 09:38:44+00:00
The only needed culture shift is everyone should realize that it's ultimately the parents/teachers' duty to educate the kids.

If parents think it's okay for their kids to use Facebook/X/whatever somehow responsibly, they should not be punished or prosecuted for that. Yes, I do believe it applies to alcohol too.

It's how it works in physical world. We let the parents to decide whether hiking/swimming/football/walking to the school are too dangerous for their kids. We let the parents to decide which books are suitable for their kids. But somehow when it comes to the internet it's the government's job. I can't help but think there is an astroturf movement manufacturing the consent rn.
by godelski | 2026-02-24 09:39:19+00:00
But that's not what happened. That's not the context of the thread. The battle was won. So celebrate. The war may not be over but it's not like we lost.

> someone more serious picks up the mantle.

Let's cross that bridge when/IF we get there. But until then, maybe don't set the stage for them to take up that mantle. If all we do is complain then obviously they'll just learn to ignore us.

So don't sour the victory, it'll cost you the war
by gkbrk | 2026-02-24 09:39:25+00:00
The way users use Facebook and LLMs are so massively different, it almost seems like a bad faith argument to equate them.

Facebook is mostly scrolling the timeline and passive consumption. It doesn't benefit from being on the side because the content you interact with on Facebook is completely separate from the content on your other tabs.

In contrast, LLMs have ongoing conversations that the user can come back to, and each conversation might relate to multiple tabs that the user is working on. On top of that, it's a very common occurrence that the user has questions about, or a task to be done using the content of the current page. This makes LLM and chatbot integration much more useful than a Facebook integration.

Also if you have the Facebook Messenger installed, Firefox already gives you an integration to share things with your Facebook contacts.
by pjmlp | 2026-02-24 09:39:41+00:00
> And I said I disagree because language directly impacts things like performance. And it does, massively. Like, order of magnitude differences are not hard to achieve simply by changing language.

Only because you focus too much into the frontend, instead of the whole compiler infrastructure, with multiple frontends for the same compilation pipeline.

> I still am not understanding the offshoaring conversation.

Because you never had to review human written code by cheap offshoring teams, zero difference with LLM generated code quality, even today.
by samrus | 2026-02-24 09:41:03+00:00
Whatsapp api integration + cronjob

Thats it. Its just pets.com

Edit: although as a counterpoint to my cynicism, just the intgreations and deamon-ness can be a game changer if the user experience is good. Thats the critical thing. If you can actually delegate tasks to it and not worry about them then it'd be great. But if your gonna have to worry if its done properly, or that it would delete your emails, then it doesnt work yet. But the dream of a robot assistant is inviting. I just dont think the underlying AI is there yet
by input_sh | 2026-02-24 09:41:35+00:00
> The AI boosting from the likes of you

Again, look at my comment history. I'm not discussing AI-as-a-whole because as you've pointed out it's not the topic of this discussion. I'm discussing how trivial it is to turn off as opposed to literally anywhere else, and that's not even discussing the provider choice you don't get anywhere else.

There's a whole section in macOS/iOS settings titled "Apple Intelligence and Siri" with ChatGPT being the only option, and you're seemingly happy with that compromise. Yet here you are complaining about an integration that's even easier to turn off and allows you to pick between 5 providers. There is literally no way of triggering it that doesn't immediately show you the "turn it off" button as it is right now (as in before this update reaches me).

I also invite you to go to firefox.com right now and find me a single mention of AI, since you for some reason are imagining that it is being advertised as an "AI browser".