MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by komali2 | 2026-02-12 16:46:46+00:00
State funding is socialism, I thought we weren't about that here? Anyway that's basically what this Ireland thing is about.

SBA loans are given at the whim of a bank, who is looking for a very strong guarantee of return on investment. It can also come with terms that restrict business behaviors - this is HN, just imagine Bain capital gave you ten million dollars, do you then get to run your business in a way that targets a healthy, sustainable profit margin with albeit flat growth line?

Anyway that's boring and been done before. Surely after ~300 years of plain Jane capitalism we can start playing with more exotic modes of organization? Why do only the banks get to invent new financial instruments to destroy markets with?
by gadders | 2026-02-12 16:47:38+00:00
Maybe? I don't know if it's near, or if it will be in "the next ten years" indefinitely like quantum computing. Or we'll have semi-smart bots like we're starting to see now that won't be "people" but that are close enough and we might project sentience and personality on to them.

People don't think it will be positive though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_Anyone_Builds_It,_Everyone_...
by sheikhnbake | 2026-02-12 16:47:44+00:00
I would say that the constitution not enshrining a method of enforcement outside the auspices of the executive branch is an inherent failing of the document. Which would then indict its inability to be amended as originally intended over time.

The fact that it was intended to be a living document and has not remained so, I would argue, is partially responsible for our current predicament.
by goatlover | 2026-02-12 16:47:58+00:00
It's better to say we live in a reality where physics provides our best understanding of how that fundamental reality behaves consistently. Saying it's "physical" or follows laws (causation) is making an ontological statement about how reality is, instead of how we currently understand it.

Which is important when people make claims that brains are just computers and LLMs are doing what humans do when we think and feel, because reality is computational or things to that effect.
by nullocator | 2026-02-12 16:48:12+00:00
Ya historically this doesn't traditionally work out for the rich instigators/accelerationist. idk maybe their bunkers are immune from having dirt shoved in the air intakes, either way it's not clear to me that they understand that the people they are trying to fuck over the hardest are the ones who know how to work all the industrial equipment and built the bunkers.
by mischief6 | 2026-02-12 16:48:12+00:00
08:46:37.125 [err] [fps] 4.0 (12 frames in 3.0s)
08:46:40.225 [err] [fps] 1.0 (3 frames in 3.1s)
08:46:41.224 FIRM | * ASSERTION FAILED: ASSERTN
08:46:41.443 [err] DEBUG post-reset: halted=0 stopped=1 R13=0x20002170 R15=0x080001b4 thumb=1
08:46:42.123 [err] clktree_recalc_output_freq: Clock PCLK1 output frequency (32000000 Hz) exceeds max frequency (30000000 Hz).

found an assertion just by clicking up/down. doesn't seem too stable.
by parineum | 2026-02-12 16:48:14+00:00
That's because, in the places where housing is expensive, it's expensive because a _LOT_ of people want to live there. It's a pipe dream that you can out build demand in these places. Reducing prices of housing in nice places to live (by any means, including building) will only result in more demand up until that insatiable demand is satisfied.

Nice places to live can't support all the people that want to live there.

Because demand is, for all intents and purposes, insatiable, the dollar value of housing/property isn't based on supply and demand because supply can't practically be increased to affect demand. Instead, the price is related to what a prospective buyer can afford to pay _every month_ and, thus, is related to interest rates. Interest rates go down, prices go up to the point where a prospective buyer's mortgage payment would be the same.

People who bring up the (un)affordability of housing are never talking about Oklahoma, they're talking about the Bay Area, Southern California, New York City, Seattle, Portland, etc. All places that are so desirable, they can't practically support everyone that wants to live there.
by charles_azam | 2026-02-12 16:48:16+00:00
TL;DR: I read the codebases of Codex, Gemini CLI, Mistral Vibe, and OpenCode, then forked three of them to run GLM-4.7 on the same benchmark. Mistral Vibe scored 0.35, Codex scored 0.15 — same model, 2x gap. The difference comes down to five architectural decisions: how they edit files, sandbox commands, manage context, handle errors, and remember across sessions. Forgiving edit tools and clean adapter patterns win; custom protocols and tight vendor coupling lose.
by mrighele | 2026-02-12 16:48:23+00:00
The first thing that comes to my mind is: how come viva.com is unable to send emails to google workspaces and nobody at viva.com noticed before ? For how long has this going on ?

The second thing is, what email software are they using ? If it was any relatively used software I would not expect this problem to arise (maybe it is some commond software but misconfigured).

Third, while the header is not mandatory, I usually read SHOULD as a "if you don't implement it prepare for possible problems". SHOULD is not MAY.

Fourth, they should be thankful that Google bounced the messages with some appropriate error explaining how to solve it. I have plenty of issues in the past with both Google and Microsoft where they accept the message for then sending to /dev/null
by wan23 | 2026-02-12 16:48:50+00:00
From your link:

Causes for denaturalization under the 1906 Act included fraud, racial ineligibility and lack of “good moral character.” In 1907, Congress expanded the laws on loss of citizenship by marking for expatriation all U.S.-born citizens who had naturalized in foreign nations and women who had married foreigners.

I'm not sure we should want to go back and dredge up the shadiest old laws for application today.
by joshuaissac | 2026-02-12 16:48:54+00:00
Following Postel's law results in the normalisation and proliferation of defective implementations. The actual standard becomes irrelevant, and new implementations have to be coded against the defective ones.

My opinion is that Postel's law should be approached in the same way that Linus Torvalds did CVS when designing Git. If in doubt about an implementation decision, consider what Postel's law would recommend, and then do the exact opposite.
by gf000 | 2026-02-12 16:48:56+00:00
But depending on the discussion, 'it' is not materially the same as the previous instance.

There was another response made with a now extended context. But that other response could have been done by another agent, another model, different system prompt. Or even the same, but with different randomness, providing a different reply.

I think this is a more important point than "talking about them as a person".
by kittikitti | 2026-02-12 16:49:08+00:00
This response fuels the fire on AI doomerism and regurgitates Luddite talking points. It sensationalizes the AI agent and instead of analyzing the code contribution, it started to make wild claims of blackmail.

I opened it hoping to find a balanced take but found it to follow the same gatekeeping behavior. The gatekeepers are allowed to use their own AI as long as they keep it secret and hidden. You have to understand that these "stochastic parrots" will start to gatekeep in the same flawed manners.

There were bots on my repositories that opened up security PR's. I openly accepted them, and really appreciated it. It was only after these bots had a voice, we decided to try and censor them.
by psychoslave | 2026-02-12 16:50:07+00:00
In my experience, email is an unreliable way to communicate any time-bounded critical information. When I want to be sure an email was transmitted on either side, the only reliable way to ensure this is to use a distinct channel to validate reception and confirm content.

That is, when some hotline tell me that they just sent and email with the information, I ensure they hold the line until I got the actual email and checked it delivers the relevant information to fulfill the intended process. And when I want to make sure an email was received, I call the person and ask to check, waiting until confirmation.

It’s not that much SMTP/IMAP per se as the whole ecosystem. People can legitimately get fatigue of "is it in my junk directory", "it might be relayed but only after the overloaded spam/junk analyzer accept it", or whatever can go wrong in the MUA, MSA, MTA, MX, MDA chain. And of course people can simply lie, and pretend the email was sent/received when they couldn’t bother less with the actual delivery status.

There are of course many cases where emails is fantastic.
by ThinkBeat | 2026-02-12 16:50:10+00:00
Those are exactly the groups that are meant to pay for the tariffs.

A factor in this that is not mentioned is that companies selling
goods to the US may have made an effort to lower prices,
altering production to lessen tariffs or in other way tried to
offset the extra amount US consumers have to pay.

An estimate of that would be quite interesting.
by SunshineTheCat | 2026-02-12 16:50:14+00:00
Everyone has been getting sold that these tariffs are on "China" or fill-in-the-blank on what country we're "getting" with them.

The reality is that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a tariff is.

There is a reason you will find tariffs drop off after the great depression. They make everything more expensive for businesses and in turn, the end consumer.

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

"Fighting" China with tariffs is like fighting your neighbor who's dog keeps peeing in your yard by lighting your own couch on fire.
by closewith | 2026-02-12 16:50:16+00:00
> In this comment society seems to mean "the government, and its tax revenue profit/loss statement"

No, that's not correct. I specifically separated the pure economic impact from the society impact, but the only societal impact used to quantify the success of the pilot scheme is that the people paid a basic income by the scheme had higher life satisfaction as measured by a single survey question.

That is the basis used by Government to claim that it's a social benefit.

Personally, I support the arts and I think that culture, health, housing accessibility, safety, fitness, happiness, and companionship are all better measures of a society than GDP or other fiscal metrics.

Right now, we have a health, housing, and social crises desperate for resources - resources that are allocated exclusively through Euro budgets. This pilot scheme has not demonstrated any cultural or social impact at all. Only the aforementioned increase in recipient satisfaction.

Meanwhile people in dire situations face multi-year waits for operations, or dying of a treatable stroke/MI due to a lack of ambulances, or death by suicide as the mental health services are overwhelmed.

Is the WELLBY score of these artists more important the WELLBY score of parents awaiting their kid's operation for the second or third spring? Or burying their children? Or raising them in hotel rooms?

Ireland is only economically successful. We are failing our citizenry abysmally outside of fiscal terms and basic income for artists should be allocated while hundreds of more pressing needs are left unmet.
by duckmysick | 2026-02-12 16:50:25+00:00
We already have a "user agent" as a term for software (browsers, curl, etc.) that fetches web content on behalf of a user. It predates current AI agents by a few decades. I don't think it has much agency either, but here we are (were?).

As for anthropomorphizing software - we've been doing it for a long time. We have software that reads and writes data. Originally those were things that only humans did. But over time these words gained another meaning.
by levkk | 2026-02-12 16:50:31+00:00
I think the right way to handle this as a repository owner is to close the PR and block the "contributor". Engaging with an AI bot in conversation is pointless: it's not sentient, it just takes tokens in, prints tokens out, and comparatively, you spend way more of your own energy.

This is a strictly a lose-win situation. Whoever deployed the bot gets engagement, the model host gets $, and you get your time wasted. The hit piece is childish behavior and the best way to handle a tamper tantrum is to ignore it.
by Brian_K_White | 2026-02-12 16:50:45+00:00
A dog form is highly useful for a robot.

Even purely artistic uses need parametric models of organic things though. Games, other non-game modelling, 3d printing.

Both games and general modelling needs parametric versions of basically everything in the model. If you're trying to design and evaluate some cattle processing facility, you'll want a lot of randomly varied cow models.

But I bet the biggest use is games and movies. You don't model every dog from scratch, you take the parametric dog model and move the sliders to get all the different dogs in your commercial or show or game.
by vlovich123 | 2026-02-12 16:50:48+00:00
For what it’s worth CISA built upon previous work in the DHS (basically rebranded NPPD as CISA) which evolved from NCSD which itself merged NCS and other cybersecurity teams in the wake of 9/11. America has been doing cybersecurity longer than any other country I think but presenting a rebranding as somehow something Trump is leading the charge on is a weird take.
by miohtama | 2026-02-12 16:50:53+00:00
The point is that 1) someone can claim there is a verification so we protect kids 2) but more importantly, there is a lot of money to be made selling verification solutions and usually these SaaS companies are owned by regulators and their buddies who make the rules about verifications.

Compliance industry has grown from zero to $90B after we cracked the nut everything needs compliance.

Here is a good book about the topic https://www.amazon.com/Compliance-Industrial-Complex-Operati...
by hedora | 2026-02-12 16:51:07+00:00
Why would agents use this?

HTML -> Markdown software is readily available, and some percentage of the internet is hostile towards agents.

Also, isn't the conversion lossy? I imagine an agent would rather have access to the HTML, and iteratively try strategies until it got good extraction quality? If it happens automatically inside the network, you're stuck with second-class content extraction some percentage of the time.

Has anyone built libraries to do that?
by XCSme | 2026-02-12 16:51:33+00:00
This looks really cool! One thing that can help a lot early on is seeing how people actually use the landing page, not just if they click. Stuff like session replays or heatmaps can show where people get stuck[0], what grabs attention, and what’s actually getting across your message. It’s surprisingly useful for figuring out product-market fit before building too much.

[0] https://uxwizz.com
by layer8 | 2026-02-12 16:51:36+00:00
The reason it’s recommended is that it’s useful for detecting when an email you receive is already in your mailbox, so that you don’t accumulate duplicates. Otherwise one would have to compare the complete email, which probably no MUA does. Another reason is that replies can include a reference to the original message, so that it can be properly threaded by MUAs.

So these are mostly quality-of-life reasons, it’s not a reason to reject an email.
by the_harpia_io | 2026-02-12 16:51:37+00:00
the harness bottleneck is real - I've been working on ai code security stuff and the biggest issue isn't model capability, it's that most tools treat the output as gospel. they'll take a suggested fix and apply it without checking if it even compiles, let alone if it introduces new vulns. I've seen fixes that patch one CVE but break auth logic entirely.

the edit tool point hits though. when you give the model a better interface to express changes (structured diffs vs free-form patches), error rates drop. but nobody talks about this because benchmarks measure "did it solve the problem" not "how many attempts" or "what's the blast radius when it fails". idk maybe I'm just jaded from debugging too many of these.
by tux1968 | 2026-02-12 16:51:48+00:00
You can play that game with any argument. "Consciousness" is just an abstraction, not the reality, which makes people who desperately want humans to be special, attribute it to something beyond reach of any other part of reality. It's an emotional need, placated by a philosophical outlook. Consciousness is just a model or map for a particular part of reality, and ironically focusing on it as somehow being the most important thing, makes you miss reality.

The reality is, we have devices in the real world that have demonstrable, factual capabilities. They're on the spectrum of what we'd call "intelligence". And therefore, it's natural that we compare them to other things that are also on that spectrum. That's every bit as much factual, as anything you've said.

It's just stupid to get so lost in philosophical terminology, that we have to dismiss them as mistaken maps or models. The only people doing that, are hyper focused on how important humans are, and what makes them identifiably different than other parts of reality. It's a mistake that the best philosophers of every age keep making.
Show HN: A simple, high performance, offline whiteboard app
by kid_jenius | 2026-02-12 16:52:01+00:00
When I started looking for whiteboard apps for my new tablet pc, I was a little shocked that the main ones needed you to be online and they were pretty slow. Like, when you draw on the pen, you can see a noticeable lag between your pen tip and the pixels being drawn. So I made this little app primarily for me, but I thought others might find it useful as well. It's simple, fast, and offline. It's still early days, so please give it a try and let me know what you think.
Show HN: Find good party/happy hour games quick
by niceguy1827 | 2026-02-12 16:52:03+00:00
I have been constantly frustrated trying to find good games for remote happy hours and team events. We'd find a promising game, click the link, then hit a paywall or signup form. Nobody has time for that.

So I built partygames.party - a collection of online party games, focusing on free ones that don't require signup.

This project is still WIP and I'm happy to take any feedback. Thank you.
by SmokeyHamster | 2026-02-12 16:52:10+00:00
"join waitlist"

Translation, no, AI agents can not create their own bank accounts, but someone's spamming Hacker News to see if there's interest in creating a company to allow that.

With modern banking regulations and security procedures. I'm not even sure how that would be possible. Every bank account I've opened requires me to give them my photo ID and social security number, which AI agents don't have.

Meaning, YOU would have to give them YOUR ID to vouch for your agent, so this just means a human would be opening a bank account...which isn't new.
by dekhn | 2026-02-12 16:52:22+00:00
I think all the TinyMUDs I used (CMU and whatever the one in OK was), listened on nonstandard ports.

I had to use a VMS system which had different telnet behavior (staircasing due to CR/LF mismatch) and originally used a locally developed client (TINT mentioned here https://www.linnaean.org/~lpb/muddex/clients.html) then learned C to write a subsequent client (DINK) which supported macros and "portals"- an early way to transit across different MUDs. A few years ago I learned that DINK was forked and improved- my early C code was awfully bad. It's still bad, but it was awfully bad then.

The one funny bit is that I copied TINT's exit command (Control-Y) instead of using /quit which led to several years of email complaints form folks who couldn't exit the mud (in those days, you usually just had one terminal connection, and if you couldn't exit a program, you had to forcibly disconnect the modem).
by dkuntz2 | 2026-02-12 16:52:26+00:00
That's somewhat ahistorical, the 17th amendment happened because state legislatures were frequently deadlocked and could not appoint senators, meaning states went without senate representation entirely.

In a fifteen year period 46 senate elections were deadlocked in 20 states, at one point Delaware had an open senate seat for four years due to this.

That said the proper reform to this would've been the abolition of the senate, as it has always been and will always be an anti-democratic force, not moving for senators to be elected by the people.
by namero999 | 2026-02-12 16:52:40+00:00
That's a very superficial take. "Physical" and "reality" are two terms that must be put in the same sentence with _great_ care. The physical is a description of what appears on our screen of perception. Jumping all the way to "reality" is the same as inferring that your colleague is made of luminous RGB pixels because you just had a Zoom call with them.
by staticman2 | 2026-02-12 16:52:56+00:00
Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me.

Any human contributor can also plagiarize closed source code they have access to. And they cannot "transfer" said code to an open source project as they do not own it. So it's not clear what "elephant in the room" you are highlighting that is unique to A.I. The copyrightability isn't the issue as an open source project can never obtain copyright of plagiarized code regardless if the person who contributed it is human or an A.I.
by forcepushed | 2026-02-12 16:53:08+00:00
Yes, exactly how most of experience here goes. Each test ends up becoming sort of a custom implementation to handle specific use cases around interactivity and availability.

Do you feel yourself wanting to extract this logic (wait for a selector, load state, or function evaluating etc) to some shared utility and then just pushing all of your interactions through this as a sort of feedback engine for future problems?
by crazygringo | 2026-02-12 16:53:32+00:00
> then remove features from the UX that they were using

Yeah but like I said, people make mistakes. The thing about text output is that it's impossible to track if people are using it at first. You can measure button clicks and key presses. You can't measure eye gaze (at least not usually!).

The good news is, if you remove it and get complaints, you can measure complaints. If you put in a toggle to re-enable it, you can measure how many people activate the toggle. Then you actually have the data, so you can decide whether to just bring it back entirely, or keep it as a toggle, or what.

PM's and designers aren't omniscient. If a feature is view-only, you literally can't tell how much it's used, and it might be minor enough that you never ask about it in user interviews.
by j45 | 2026-02-12 16:53:51+00:00
It's pretty unbeliveable that a zero-day can sit here this long. If one can exist, the likeliehood of more existing at all times is non-trivial.

Whether it's a walled garden of iOS, or relative openneds of Android, I don't think either can police everythign on anyone's behalf.

I'm not sure how organizations can secure any device ios or android if they can't track and control the network layer, period out of it, and there are zero carveouts for the OS itself around network traffic visibility.