MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by nfabredev | 2026-02-15 07:13:15+00:00
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: Ruby, Rails, React ( Tailwind, Redux, react-query... ), Node.js, Postgres, Docker, Kubernetes, Terraform, Azure, AWS, CI/CD (Gitlab and Github), observability (Datadog, Sentry, Honeycomb, Grafana / Prometheus..).

Résumé/CV: With 7 years of experience in small startups to large companies I've worked across the stack doing front-end, backend and infra / devops or developer tooling. I'm interested in setting up early stage products with a deep integration to the business side, or do well scoped feature / maintenance work on mature projects to bring them to the next level.

Bonus points for Climate Tech, Geographical Information Systems, FinTech or infra/ dev tooling, but I'm open for any interesting challenges.

Let's chat!

Email: nfabredev[at]gmail.com Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolas-fabre/
by xvilka | 2026-02-15 07:14:17+00:00
> We gave people access to all the information in the world and people "do their own research" and end up making egregious errors because they don't know how to research (naively think it's "searching for information"), what questions to ask, or how to interrogate data (and much more).

You pin pointed a major problem with education, indeed. Personally, I think 3 crucial courses should be taught in school to mitigate that: 1) rational thinking 2) learning how to learn 3) learning how to do a research.
by graboy | 2026-02-15 07:17:05+00:00
I kinda agree with you and I understand your point but I also think there is a social-ethical reality that if a doctor finds something they must treat it. The two options are 1. doing nothing, or 2. reducing cancer risk and you get unnecessary biopsies.

You're thinking of this as there being an objective positive utility for not dying of cancer and a objective negative utility for biopsies, and there being an objective optimal "rational" tradeoff that the best radiologist can optimize for to get their "nearly certain" detection threshold.

But frankly - the tradeoff for the value of a human life is perhaps the most uncertain thing one could choose. It lies in the eyes of the patient if the worry and time associated with a false detection is worth their reduced chance of death. The ethical uncertainty expressed in the OP - are these unnecessary biopsies worth it - is warranted.
by moritzwarhier | 2026-02-15 07:17:37+00:00
> This is one of those seemingly “smart” but actually dumb idea.

Your comment seems very sad to me. If you want your data to be safe, you could use physical storage though, and save the data there, on redundant physical hard disks in distributed locations, in various encodings.

You could also try to add even more redundancy by using an audio track with the bit sequences as spoken words combined with a video track that is resilient to low-bandwidth encoding, for example a news show where every segment takes place in front of an info graphic representing one or two bytes per segment. Could be a giant pie chart for variable-precision floating point numbers or a giant still frame of an alphabumeric character to represent raw bytes.

Add some enganging current events to the coverage to make sure the videos stay relevant.

Use large fonts to keep them resilient to video compression.

Combine YouTube, Twitch, Vimeo and at least two disk storage arrays to get five-nines enterprise-grade reliability.

The overhead for encoding and decoding is easily outweighed by the cost-neutral added redundancy.
by alexey-salmin | 2026-02-15 07:18:19+00:00
> With my change: 95% of people who are shown scans have cancer and are treated earlier. 5% of people do not have cancer and get CT scans. 0.5% of people get useless biopsies Without my change: many of those 95% die, the 0.5% do not get useless biopsies

You assume that treating cancer automatically improves the outcome. Treating cancer often kills you, so treating a non-fatal tumor can easily be a bad decision. And a lot of the tumors found by agressive scans are like that, but we don't know yet how much exactly and how to tell one from the other. It's a new question that requires decades-long observations to answer.

> This is wrong. If you had a 100% accurate cancer detector, fewer people would die of cancer with no downside

You're saying it as if detection somehow cures cancer, it doesn't.
by matwood | 2026-02-15 07:19:24+00:00
> MRIs are great for certain things like herniated disks in your back.

I have had a lot of experience with MRIs on both myself (back and knee [1]) and my dogs with herniated discs. The doctors always make it sound like MRIs are great to confirm what's suspected because of other symptoms like pain, but a point in time MRI alone is not that valuable. Everyone's bodies (including animals!) are surprisingly different inside making normal be somewhat unique. I think what would be interesting is if scanning technology like MRIs could be made so inexpensive and easy that everyone had one done 4x/year. That way it's the differential being checked and I'm guessing it would be way more valuable. Normalization such as this could also lower anxiety around findings.

[1] Even when I tore my ACL the MRI came back only as probable.
by aktuel | 2026-02-15 07:19:25+00:00
I recently discovered https://www.cozodb.org/ which also vector search built-in. I just started some experiments with it but so far I'm quite impressed. It's not in active development atm but it seems already well rounded for what it is so depending on the use-case it does not matter or may even be an advantage. Also with today's coding agent it shouldn't be too hard to scratch your own itch if needed.
by mapt | 2026-02-15 07:20:44+00:00
No it isn't.

If you get the MRI you are performing simultaneous blind tests for a thousand rare, unsuspected conditions. The blood test only tests for one of them, and eats 10ml of blood. There isn't enough blood in your body for all those tests.

We should arguably be, in an ideal healthcare system, getting annual MRIs with the other typical tests in a physical, and feeding that data into an AI, and have the AI issue recommendations for informed hazard & secondary testing/biopsy priorities. Tomographic analysis and differential diagnosis is exactly the sort of multidimensional pattern recognition task an AI is great at compared to a human doctor, if you can provide the training data.

Normalizing an annual MRI is the biomedical equivalent to survey astronomy and opening up those gargantuan datasets - you expect lots of simultaneous serendipitous discoveries in unrelated areas without securing an organizational mandate to fund a dedicated research effort into each one of them. The worst the process is ever going to be diagnostically is right now before we're collecting any data in a concerted fashion - every bit of training improves it.
Show HN: DocSync – Git hooks that block commits with stale documentation
by suhteevah | 2026-02-15 07:20:47+00:00
Hi HN,

I built DocSync because every team I've worked on has the same problem: documentation that was accurate when it was written and never updated after.

DocSync uses tree-sitter to parse your code and extract symbols (functions, classes, types). On every commit, a pre-commit hook compares those symbols against existing docs. If you added a function without documenting it, the commit is blocked.

How it works:

1. `clawhub install docsync` (free)
2. `docsync generate .` — generates docs from your code
3. `docsync hooks install` — installs a lefthook pre-commit hook
4. From now on, every commit checks for doc drift

Key design decisions:
- 100% local — no code leaves your machine. Uses tree-sitter for AST parsing, not an LLM.
- Falls back to regex if tree-sitter isn't installed
- Uses lefthook (not husky) for git hooks — it's faster and language-agnostic
- License validation is offline (signed JWT, no phone-home)
- Free tier does one-shot doc generation. Pro ($29/user/mo) adds hooks and drift detection.

Supports TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Rust, Go, Java, C/C++, Ruby, PHP, C#, Swift, Kotlin.

Landing page: https://docsync-1q4.pages.dev

Would love feedback on the approach. Is doc drift detection something your team would actually use?
by foota | 2026-02-15 07:21:13+00:00
I've been having much the same thoughts. What will work look like, say, 10 years from now? I'm beginning to think that we might have all the knowledge worker type jobs largely filled, or filled with significantly less workers, (hopefully) more free time for everyone, and the remaining people working in more physical positions.

In many ways, I think this is probably better for society than the opposite, since in general there are fewer knowledge workers than not.
by Mr_Minderbinder | 2026-02-15 07:21:15+00:00
I have been into computer chess for many years and I was fully expecting those concessionary statements. I have seen enough programs in this lucrative genre where a lot of attention can be gained by fraudulently claiming you implemented chess in a seemingly impossibly small size. When confronted, the charlatans will often claim senselessly that those omissions were in fact superfluous. This is a behaviour I have unfortunately also observed in other areas of computing.

If anyone reading this is interested in small and efficient chess programs that are still reasonably strong, there was a x86 assembly port of Stockfish called asmFish from a couple of years ago (the Win64 release binary was about 130KiB). Also see OliThink (~1000 LOC) and Xiphos which has some of the simplest C code for an engine of its strength that I have seen. I have not investigated the supposedly 4K sized engines that participated in TCEC too closely but from what I have seen so far it would seem that there are a few asterisks to be attached to those claims.
by RsAaNtDoYsIhSi | 2026-02-15 07:21:43+00:00
"Where exactly is the skill to know good code from bad code supposed to come from?"

Answer: Books. Two semesters of "Software Engineering" from a CS course. A CS course. CS classes: Theory of Computing. (Work. AKA Order(N) notation. Turing machines. Alphabets. Search algorithms and when/why to use them.) Data Structures. (Teaches you about RAM vs. Disk Storage.) Logic a.k.a. Discrete Math. (Hardware stuff = Logic. Also Teaches you how to convert procedures into analytic solutions into numerical solutions aka a single function that gives you an answer through determining the indeterminate of an inductive reasoning (converting a series, procedure or recursive function into an equation that gives you an answer instead of iterating and being dumb.) Networking. (error checking techniques, P2P stuff) Compilers. (Dragon book.) Math. Linear Algebra. (Rocket science) Abstract Algebra (Crypto stuff, compression) Theory of Equations (functional programming). Statistics (very helpful). Geometry. (Proofs).

Taking all these classes makes you smart and a good programmer. "Programming" without them means you're... well. Hard to talk to.

I don't think you need to write any code to be a good programmer. IMHO.
Show HN: DepGuard – Local dependency audit and license compliance (10 pkg mgrs)
by suhteevah | 2026-02-15 07:22:04+00:00
Hi HN,

DepGuard is a single tool that wraps native package manager audit commands (npm audit, pip-audit, cargo audit, govulncheck, etc.) and adds license compliance on top.

Why I built it: I was tired of running different audit commands for different projects and having no unified view of license risk. Snyk solves this but sends your data to the cloud. I wanted something local-only.

What it does:
- Detects your package manager automatically (supports 10: npm, yarn, pnpm, pip, cargo, go, composer, bundler, maven, gradle)
- Runs the native audit tool for each
- Scans all dependency licenses and categorizes them (permissive/copyleft/unknown)
- Generates CycloneDX SBOMs for compliance
- Git hooks that block commits modifying lockfiles with critical vulns
- Auto-fix by upgrading to patched versions

Design decisions:
- Uses native audit tools, not a proprietary vulnerability database
- Everything runs locally — no code or dep lists sent externally
- License validation is offline (JWT, no phone-home)
- Free: one-shot scan + license check. Pro ($19/user/mo): hooks + auto-fix. Team ($39/user/mo): SBOM + compliance.

Install: `clawhub install depguard`

Landing page: https://depguard.pages.dev

Curious if license compliance is something you've been asked about by legal/compliance teams. That's been the most requested feature in my experience.
by 4gotunameagain | 2026-02-15 07:22:18+00:00
Nobody is saying that your 1000 euro speakers sound the same like the earbuds that came with your mp3 player in 2005. You know, the ones with the injection mold ports still there, that would dig into your ears.

This is to expose the people that buy gold wires for USB, a digital protocol.

You are free to spend your money how you like, but extreme diminishing returns are a very much overlooked thing in the "audiophile" circles.
by missedthecue | 2026-02-15 07:22:24+00:00
"There's a reason social media has the hold on us it does even though we all hate it."

The reason is stated vs revealed preferences. It's that simple. People say they hate social media while their actions reveal something else. So yes, you can easily design an app that doesn't incentivize the behaviours we say we don't like, and we won't use them, because despite saying we don't like them, we prefer them.
by zeroCalories | 2026-02-15 07:23:05+00:00
Yeah, but why do something difficult when you could do something easy? Going on a 300 cal deficit a day, you have 2100 calories a week. A couple bad days could easily throw off all your progress, and you might not even know what messed you up. If I eat at a 3000 cal deficit I'm gonna lose weight even if I don't do things perfectly. Go out for ice cream? Skip the gym? Who cares?
by retsibsi | 2026-02-15 07:25:15+00:00
I think the AI-coding skill that is likely to remain useful is the ability (and discipline) to review and genuinely understand the code produced by the AI before committing it.

I don't have that skill; I find that if I'm using AI, I'm strongly drawn toward the lazy approach. At the moment, the only way for me to actually understand the code I'm producing is to write it all myself. (That puts my brain into an active coding/puzzle solving state, rather than a passive energy-saving state.)

If I could have the best of both worlds, that would be a genuine win, and I don't think it's impossible. It won't save as much time as pure vibe coding promises to, of course.
by jtrn | 2026-02-15 07:27:00+00:00
Because it’s annoying that people can’t even stick with the criteria that are basically the same across all the major diagnostic manuals. And because I believe that words and concepts should mean somethin. Because it’s proof that they are not really as focused on details as they claim.

Every time someone wrongly claim they have PTSD, which is a lot these days, they water down and diminish the experience of people who have experienced severe and real trauma.

Said another way. Because it’s egotistical.

For the record, I have worked with hundreds of people with ASD and helped them understand how to navigate social relations. And I’ve tried to work with people that claim they have ASD, but in reality, just use it as an excuse to be a jackass. Guess which ones of them are defensive with regards to their pet diagnosis?
by rtpg | 2026-02-15 07:27:03+00:00
I do think that there's some meta-skills involved here that are useful, in the same way that some people have good "Google-fu". Some of it is portable, some of it isn't.

I think if you orient your experimentation right you can think of some good tactics that are helpful even when you're not using AI assistance. "Making this easier for the robot" can often align with "making this easier for the humans" as well. It's a decent forcing function

Though I agree with the sentiment. People who have been doing this for less than a year convinced that they have some permanent lead over everyone.

I think a lot about my years being self taught programming. Years spent spinning my wheels. I know people who after 3 months of a coding bootcamp were much further than me after like ... 6 years of me struggling through material.
by 112233 | 2026-02-15 07:28:14+00:00
The point about haughty attitude is an important, but rarely mentioned. No one has convinced me to reexamine and change my views by calling me stupid, mocking me, and pointing a finger. If anything, it makes me avoid both that person and their whole group.

"the industry that supports audio engineering" though — are you sure this support is welcome? It is not unlike asking to treat counterfeit drug producers with dignity and respect because they support medical professionals.

I really do not see how any actual engineer producing audio equipment would not be there if not for a company selling one-directional ethernet cables for 1000/m that improve sound, with a plastic bag filled with gravel that also improves sound... I mean...
by DiogenesKynikos | 2026-02-15 07:28:38+00:00
We don't actually know that much about how the brain works, and nobody discussing intelligence will decide tomorrow that humans aren't intelligent if the details of how the brain functions turn out to be slightly different from what we previously thought.

LLMs obviously display what everyone prior to 2022 would have called "intelligence," before the goalposts started rapidly shifting with the release of ChatGPT. They can carry conversations about arbitrary subjects, understanding what you're asking and formulating thoughtful answers at the level of a very smart and extremely well educated human. They're not identical to humans (e.g., they don't have fixed personalities), but they display what everyone commonly believes to be intelligence.
by alterom | 2026-02-15 07:30:01+00:00
Sure, if the "uncanny valley" aesthetic is what you're going for, then by all means, tell the machine to shrink the wheels further.

It's just not what makes a great bicycle picture.

Also, that bicycle's seatpost must be outright penetrating that pelican's cloaca.

You can say I'm being anal about it, and you'll have a point. But it's not that pedantic to notice it.
by tovej | 2026-02-15 07:30:34+00:00
You have to unwrap every array access? That does not feel clear to me at all. Also this would make every hot loop slower.

The amount of safety features here seems excessive. The language is stricter than Rust. It's not very "clear" either. For some reason the author has decided to rename concepts that are familiar to programmers, making it more didficult to switch to for experienced programmers (repeat instead of for, num instead of... float I assume?), but the langauge isn't really beginner-friendly either, due to the strict semantics.

This feels like vibe-coded slop. Why is this on the front page? HN has fallen off.
by throwup238 | 2026-02-15 07:32:16+00:00
PET scans are not really unreliable, they’re just very sensitive and lots of anomalies ranging from benign cysts to malignant tumors show up on them. It’s not always possible to differentiate them without other measures like biopsies, so that’s where the false positives come in.

Getting regular scans to track cancer progression is a different matter altogether, since most of the blips can be eliminated over time and there’s a history to compare against.
by ofalkaed | 2026-02-15 07:32:40+00:00
Most distros were stable well before Arch because Arch worked out most of the bugs for them and documented them on their wiki. Arch and other bleeding edge distros are still a big part of the stability of linux even if they don't break all that often anymore, they find a lot of the edge cases before they are issue for the big distros. In 2005 it was not difficult to have a stable linux install, you may have had to hunt a bit for the right hardware and it may have taken awhile to get things working but once things were working they tended to be stable. I can only think of one time Slackware broke things for me since I started using it around 2005, it taking on PulseAudio caused me some headaches but I use Slackware for audio work and am not their target so this is to be expected. Crux was rock solid for me into the 10s, nearly a decade of use and not even a hiccup.
by nxobject | 2026-02-15 07:33:48+00:00
The tapes? Yes. The hardware, though? I'm not sure I would bet on having compatible hardware to read a particular LTO generation tape, decades from now, given how specialty the hardware already is. I don't think there's any free lunch to be had here: the storage media needs to be viable, and you have to have a recovery strategy that's equally viable as well.

EDIT – that being said, "tape as a service" does exist... S3 Glacier.
by ehnto | 2026-02-15 07:34:34+00:00
Oh I agree, I mean there was no solution to traffic in my comments.

I do think some don't appreciate that it is not an anti-car stance to wish for less car dependant cities. You still get to have a car, and commuting by car should be easier if you need it, since there is less demand on the limited resource that is the road network.
by bob1029 | 2026-02-15 07:34:42+00:00
I was never too fanatical about the signal chain. The room and the loudspeakers were always more important to me. There was a time when things like SACD and high res audio were interesting, but it became clear this stuff has negligible impact compared to concerns like the dimensions of the room.

My preferred equipment today is a MiniDSP 2x4HD, a pair of 8" studio monitors on floor stands, a 12" subwoofer and a tape measure. The whole setup cost maybe $1200 and is nearly indistinguishable from my prior setup which cost easily 10x as much.

If you've got a bunch of money to spend on audio gear, the best thing you can probably buy right now is some rockwool and the time of a construction crew.
by maho | 2026-02-15 07:34:57+00:00
> At a pragmatic level, can't you say, hey here's something thats probably nothing, let's scan it again in 6 months

If a doctor even _hints_ there might be cancer, the patient will have a terrible 6 months (with actual, measurable negative health impacts of the added stress). Also, at some uncertainy-level (say, 10% chance of cancer) the doctor _has_ to say something and has to schedule expensive followups to not risk liability, even though in 90% of the cases it is not only unnecessary, but actively harmful to the patients.

When, on average, the cost of the screening + the harm done by a false positive outweighs the benefits of an early detection, you shouldn't do the screening in the first place.
by hedayet | 2026-02-15 07:35:09+00:00
[author here] That’s a very good point - "not ceremony" was poorly phrased.

ROX does introduce more explicitness, which indeed introduces more ceremony. The goal isn’t to reduce keystrokes; it’s to reduce hidden behaviour.

A better framing would be: ROX prioritizes clarity over convenience. Explicitness may cost more keystrokes, but it eliminates hidden behavior. [README updated]
by matwood | 2026-02-15 07:35:39+00:00
Sort of, but the speed at which I can see results and the ability to quickly get unstuck does pull me in more than just coding. While I find both enjoyable, I'm more of a 'end result' person than a 'likes to the type in the code' person. There was a conversation about this a month or so ago referencing what types of people like LLMs and which do not.
by Groxx | 2026-02-15 07:35:53+00:00
The Arch wiki has rapidly become my go-to source for every time I need a real answer... and honestly it should just become my default for everything Linux. It's astoundingly high quality, some of the best content out there whether or not you're using Arch.

So +1000, I love their work, and all the contributors! It's so, so good, and greatly appreciated.
by nxobject | 2026-02-15 07:35:59+00:00
> I just use a box full of old harddrives now, i basically use those like tape cassettes.

Re: hard drives – I gave up entirely on the idea of storing backups "at rest" indefinitely, and use two NASes at different sites. I only store ~50TB, and I plan to need to recover every five years (e.g. when a working computer finally gives up the ghost.)