MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by wolrah | 2026-02-12 20:02:59+00:00
> I fully agree with your first point: Musk has shown tremendous ability to manage companies to become unicorns. He's clearly skilled in this domain.

I would firmly disagree with that.

What Musk has done is bring money to develop technologies that were generally considered possible, but were being ignored by industry incumbents because they were long-term development projects that would not be profitable for years. When he brings money to good engineers and lets them do their thing, pretty good things happen. The Tesla Roadster, Model S, Falcon 9, Starlink, etc.

The problem with him is he's convinced that he is also a good engineer, and not only that but he's better than anyone that works for him, and that has definitively been proven wrong. The more he takes charge, the worse it gets. The Model X's stupid doors, all the factory insanity, the outdoor paint tent, etc. Model 3 and Model Y arguably succeeded in spite of his interference, but the Dumpstertruck was his baby and we can all see how that has basically only sold to people who want to associate themselves closely with his politics because it's objectively bad at everything else. The constant claims that Tesla cars will drive themselves, the absolute bullshit that is calling it "Full Self Driving", the hilarious claims of humanoid robots being useful, etc. How are those solar roofs coming? Have you heard of anyone installing a Powerwall recently? Heard anything about Roadster 2.0 since he went off claiming it would be able to fly? A bunch of Canadian truckers have built their own hybrid logging trucks from scratch in the time since Tesla started taking money for their semis and we still haven't seen the Tesla trucks haul more than a bunch of bags of chips.

The more Musk is personally involved with a project the worse it is. The man is useful for two things: Providing capital and blatantly lying to hype investors.

If he had stuck to the first one the world as a whole would be a better place, Tesla would probably be in a much better position right now.

SpaceX was for a long time considered to be further from his influence with Shotwell running the company well and Musk acting more as a spokesperson. Starship is sort of his Model X moment and the plans to merge in the AI business will IMO be the Cybertruck.
by skiniks | 2026-02-12 20:03:02+00:00
Not like ReasonML, you still write normal React/TypeScript.

The Rust part is the server runtime. Instead of Node.js running your React Server Components, rari uses a Rust server with an embedded V8 engine. Same React code, different server underneath.

You write React → Rust server executes it → better performance than Node-based alternatives.
by digiown | 2026-02-12 20:03:07+00:00
Linux has few defenses against the compromise of individual programs leading to the whole system being compromised. If you stick to basic tools (command line) that you can fully trust, it might be somewhat resistant to these types of attacks. The kernel might be reasonably secure but in typical setups, any RCE in any program is a complete compromise.

Things like QubesOS can help, but it's quite high-effort to use and isn't compatible with any phone I know of.
by onlyrealcuzzo | 2026-02-12 20:03:27+00:00
Nvidia seems cooked.

Google is crushing them on inference. By TPUv9, they could be 4x more energy efficient and cheaper overall (even if Nvidia cuts their margins from 75% to 40%).

Cerebras will be substantially better for agentic workflows in terms of speed.

And if you don't care as much about speed and only cost, Google will still crush Nvidia.

And they won't be cheaper for training new models either - and the vast majority of chips will be used for inference by 2028 instead of training anyway.

Nvidia has no manufacturing reliability story. Anyone can buy TSMC's output.

Power is the bottleneck in the US. By TPUv9 - Google is projected to be 4x more energy efficient. It's a no-brainer who you're going with starting with TPUv8 when Google lets you run on-prem.

These are GW scale data centers. You can't just build 4 large-scale nuclear power plants in the US. You can't just build 4 GW solar farms in a year in the US to power your less efficient data centers. Maybe you could in China (if the economics were on your side, but they aren't). You sure as hell can't do it in the US.

What am I missing? I don't understand how Nvidia could've been so far ahead and just let every part of the market slip away.
by mpeg | 2026-02-12 20:03:47+00:00
ok so I actually like this, but the description and documentation in general are terrible

"rust-powered" meaning it uses rolldown to bundle the javascript, that's fine, but it's a weird thing to highlight, it's confusing for people that aren't super familiar with vite and might think this is a rust framework

from the docs "one of rari's superpowers is seamless NPM package integration" this makes me think the docs are LLM-written... npm package integration, like every other javascript library.

now, the good: there's very few simple frameworks for react (react router and tanstack) and I think the simplicity here on going from an empty project to RSCs is absolutely great, and should be the tagline

I was also happily surprised at how mature the codebase is in comparison to the docs, the vite plugin actually supports a lot of the options I would have expected to see, they're just not documented yet

edit: I realised after digging a bit deeper this actually does have a rust runtime that runs the js, that was not very clear... is this separate from the framework or does the framework only run in the rust runtime? eg can it run on node?
by marcyb5st | 2026-02-12 20:04:38+00:00
It Is more likely that people are cashing out very liquid assets (tech stocks) to pay back their loans in Yen as interest rates are rising over there.

Tech stocks with all the hype are second only to crypto in terms of how easy and fast are to sell (hence BTC dropped and now tech stocks IMHO).

Btw, I was too young to fully remember, but wasn't the year before the dot com crash also full of IPOs?
by opello | 2026-02-12 20:05:25+00:00
I may have foolishly accepted the premise of incompetence in posing my question. Basically it seemed to me like the complaint was untrained/experienced (incompetent) people were deciding/deploying the fancy laser munition. That seemed worth of rebuke. After some brief searching I'm less clear about who took what action.

It seemed more like giving police forces (or allowing them to buy) APCs, armored Humvees, etc. Less trained/experienced people using things made for a different use case, ultimately exposes the people to more risk. Instead of say coordinating with the DOD to deploy the system and personnel accepting requests or being the decision maker for "take action" after some level of expertise in the area of evaluating targets and whatever else need be considered has also contributed to the process.

I don't know how it does work, let alone have enough context to imagine how it should. While I do agree "things to deter drones are appropriate border defense tools," the rest of the details painted a picture that seemed less reasonable.
by Johnny555 | 2026-02-12 20:05:48+00:00
Don't they already have some sci-fi laser/EW gizmos to take care of those

Isn't that the problem? Someone (but apparently DHS, not the military though there were military staff present, maybe?) had one of those sci-fi laser gizmos and used it without authorization or proper notifications.

I don't think we'll ever learn the real details about exactly what happened, the audit trail (if there was one) is probably in shredder baskets by now
by cschick | 2026-02-12 20:06:40+00:00
I like that some of the non-programmers went on to take programming courses.

As a dabbler, the genAI coding tools have been a force multiplier for me, but I know my way around an IDE; understand (sorta) what's needed for apps, APIs, and the like; know about libraries; and know how to think in pseudocode.

You just can't do genAI coding on autopilot. You need to be the driver AND know a bit of what you are doing.
by staticassertion | 2026-02-12 20:06:41+00:00
I think I did justify it but I'll try to be clearer. When you refuse to engage you will fail to convince - "fuck off" is not argumentative or rhetorically persuasive. The other post, which engages, was both argumentative and rhetorically persuasive. I think someone who believes that AI is good, or who had some specific intent, might actually take something away from that that the author intended to convey. I think that's good.

I consider being persuasive to be a good thing, and indeed I consider it to far outweigh issues of "legitimizing", which feels vague and unclear in its goals. For example, presumably the person who is using AI already feels that it is legitimate, so I don't really see how "legitimizing" is the issue to focus on.

I think I had expressed that, but hopefully that's clear now.

> Cussing an AI out isn't the same thing as not responding. It is, to the contrary, definitionally a response.

The parent poster is the one who said that a response was legitimizing. Saying "both are a response" only means that "fuck off, clanker" is guilty of legitimizing, which doesn't really change anything for me but obviously makes the parent poster's point weaker.
by throw1936827 | 2026-02-12 20:06:58+00:00
Are you against the existence of South Africa? Or were you against the existence of some laws in South Africa?

It also isn’t racist to be against the existence of states in general and believe in a world without borders. But to say that Ukraine has a right to exist, Ireland has a right to exist, Palestine has a right to exist, Greenland has a right to exist - only Israel does not have a right to exist is antisemitic.
by devhouse | 2026-02-12 20:07:08+00:00
The really interesting part is what this system runs on.

Spotify built Fleet Management back in 2022 to apply changes across thousands of repos. Half their PRs were already flowing through it before any AI was involved, but only for mechanical stuff like dep bumps and config updates. Claude Code is what let it understand what the code means, not just its structure.

The thing nobody's talking about is that none of this AI automation works without Backstage doing the boring work of tracking who owns what, how things build, and what depends on what.

I went through the Anthropic case study, Spotify's engineering blog series, and the full earnings call transcript here https://www.everydev.ai/p/blog-spotify-built-an-ai-coding-ag...
by gck1 | 2026-02-12 20:07:21+00:00
Even Anthropic research articles consistently demonstrate they themselves use one agent, and just tune the harness around it.

I ignore all Skills, MCPs, and view all of these as distractions that consume context, which leads to worse performance. It's better to observe what agent is doing, where it needs help and just throw a few bits of helpful, sometimes persistent context at it.

You can't observe what 20 agents are doing.
by renato_shira | 2026-02-12 20:07:27+00:00
exactly. the peon notifications thing is a perfect example, it's a tiny idea but it immediately makes you want to use the tool more. that's underrated in dev tooling.

i think a lot of the best software lately has this quality where you can tell someone had fun making it. it's hard to quantify but you feel it instantly. like the difference between a tool that technically works and one that makes you go "ok that's clever."
by kingstnap | 2026-02-12 20:07:37+00:00
Its possibly label noise. But you can't tell from a single number.

You would need to check to see if everyone is having mistakes on the same 20% or different 20%. If its the same 20% either those questions are really hard, or they are keyed incorrectly, or they aren't stated with enough context to actually solve the problem.

It happens. Old MMLU non pro had a lot of wrong answers. Simple things like MNIST have digits labeled incorrect or drawn so badly its not even a digit anymore.
by lenerdenator | 2026-02-12 20:07:42+00:00
At least from the software engineer pleb perspective, their moat is that their tools seem to work well more often than not. I wasn't comfortable with the idea of using GitHub CoPilot as our GenAI solution at work, and apparently that was a widespread feeling, because we switched to Claude Code, and it's been a relatively smooth transition from manual coding to GenAI agentic loops.
by manuelmoreale | 2026-02-12 20:08:11+00:00
> but AFAIK a simple forum where kids can talk to each other about familial abuse or whatever would also qualify.

I'm currently scrolling through this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_age_verification_... and it seems to me these are primarily focused on "social media" but missing from these short summaries is how social media is defined which is obviously an important detail.

Seems to me that an "easy" solution would be to implement some sort of size cap this way you could easily leave old school forums out.

It would no be a perfect solution, but it's probably better than including every site with user generated content.
by FloorEgg | 2026-02-12 20:08:12+00:00
Hahaha. I'm sorry but I find this funny. I discovered jobs to be done in 2017, then dove deep into outcome-driven innovation and spent years consulting as a practitioner who interviewed people on behalf of my clients. My clients would push for their hypotheses to validate, but instead I would approach the interviews as open-ended exploratory empathy building exercises.

I would start out my interviews with things like " in your own words, what is the purpose of what you do?" And then engage in an open conversation stopping by at questions like what do you enjoy the most about what you do, what do you find the most difficult, what do you find the most tedious, what's the most important thing that you need to get done that you're the least satisfied with?

Most of my questions would be follow-up questions. I would also do a lot of active listening.

What I find funny is that people would often be a bit resistant to doing these interviews, but almost every single interview went long because the interviewee was clearly enjoying it so much. I tended not to ask whether they had a hard stop at the start of the interview, but instead would ask if they had a hard stop about 15 minutes before the scheduled end time. Of course, when interviewees truly did have a hard stop we would end on time, but I swear about 80% of the time. Interviews went long, sometimes 2 hours long. I started to realize that part of what I was doing was providing therapy.

Often the clients hypotheses wouldn't be validated, but I could almost always point to what the interviewees would value and what opportunities were there.

I don't do this anymore because most of the clients I worked with couldn't see the value in it, and I'm sure for very similar reasons that you were lamenting in your comment.

I'm grateful for the experience. I performed over 500 of interviews like this across many different industries from Frontline workers to c-suite of Fortune 500 companies. The experience was so valuable. Now I build product firsthand and exercise the skills I developed with my own customers and the market I serve, and being in a tight feedback loop is working really well so far. It's fun to build things people want.
by walterbell | 2026-02-12 20:08:31+00:00
Apple traffic goes to 17.0.0.0/8 + CDNs aliased to .apple.com, which my egress router blocks except for Apple-documented endpoints for notifications and software update, https://support.apple.com/en-us/101555

appldnld.apple.com
configuration.apple.com
gdmf.apple.com
gg.apple.com
gs.apple.com
ig.apple.com
mesu.apple.com
mesu.apple.com
ns.itunes.apple.com
oscdn.apple.com
osrecovery.apple.com
skl.apple.com
swcdn.apple.com
swdist.apple.com
swdownload.apple.com
swscan.apple.com
updates.cdn-apple.com
updates-http.cdn-apple.com
xp.apple.com

There was no overlap between unexpected traffic and Apple CDN vendors.
by falcor84 | 2026-02-12 20:08:53+00:00
It sounds like we're in agreement. Present-day AI agents clearly maintain state over time, but that on its own is insufficient for consciousness.

On the other side of the coin though, I would just add that I believe that long-term persistent state is a soft, rather than hard requirement for consciousness - people with anterograde amnesia are still conscious, right?
by CuriouslyC | 2026-02-12 20:08:59+00:00
Anthropic's marketing somehow punches hard. Not sure why, but the stuff they do sticks. Not because the products are great, but because the way they communicate about it gives people the right feeling. They do have legitimately the best coding model now for most tasks, and for narrative prose, but the marketing stuck and people stan'd them even when they were trailing.
by kllrnohj | 2026-02-12 20:09:10+00:00
They don't. It's your eyes re-calibrating to something brighter showing up. The brightness of the SDR content didn't actually change, just like it doesn't when someone turns on the lights in the room even though it ends up appearing darker.

The perceptual issue of simultaneous contrast ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_effect ) is a much bigger problem with HDR content in general than people tend to consider. There's far too much HDR content out there that just slams the brightness because it can, essentially resulting in just being an SDR video that had the brightness cranked. Nearly all mobile HDR video falls into this category in particular.

This is not helped at all by the fact that prior to the introduction of gainmaps in images, which many slammed as "a hack" or "not true HDR", the mapping between HDR and SDR values was undefined. BT2048 has attempted to retroactively define that PQ & HLG at "203 nits" maps to "graphics white" (aka, SDR white), but almost nothing is authored to this expectation. The huge advancement of gainmaps, beyond per-pixel local tonemapping, was that the mapping between SDR & HDR was rigidly defined by the spec. So you could actually author content that could be displayed next to SDR content without destroying people's eyes.
by tomjen3 | 2026-02-12 20:09:14+00:00
I think you're missing one element. It works. The culture in Germany in 1600 compared with the culture in Germany in 2026 is very, very different, even though the geography hasn't changed. That's because in the modern world nearly none of the culture of the old Germany works.

This is not unique to Germany, of course. We long ago gave up on the four humours theory. We long ago gave up on burning women who wear pants. We long ago gave up of many things that used to be European culture.

The culture of queuing in Japan works because you are looked down upon if you don't participate and because it is better than the random stuff we do in the West. However, it would probably disappear pretty soon if it wasn't also a good solution.
by opello | 2026-02-12 20:09:58+00:00
Okay, but they're not like styropyro on YouTube here... presumably the DHS people are using the whatever government weapons contractor made device, which is going to come with more nuance, controls, targeting system, etc. than whatever someone might buy off the shelf or cobble together independently.

I think it might have actually been DOD people operating the system even, but there's conflicting reporting and I'm not sure. Either way it seems like there was at the very least some kind of coordination failure.
by zerd | 2026-02-12 20:10:18+00:00
Sounds similar to these quotes from the article:

> we found that employees worked at a faster pace, took on a broader scope of tasks, and extended work into more hours of the day, often without being asked to do so.

> On their own initiative workers did more because AI made “doing more” feel possible, accessible, and in many cases intrinsically rewarding.
by mavamaarten | 2026-02-12 20:10:20+00:00
I agree. On top of that, in true Google style, basic things just don't work.

Any time I upload an attachment, it just fails with something vague like "couldn't process file". Whether that's a simple .MD or .txt with less than 100 lines or a PDF. I tried making a gem today. It just wouldn't let me save it, with some vague error too.

I also tried having it read and write stuff to "my stuff" and Google drive. But it would consistently write but not be able to read from it again. Or would read one file from Google drive and ignore everything else.

Their models are seriously impressive. But as usual Google sucks at making them work well in real products.
by jones1618 | 2026-02-12 20:10:26+00:00
At minimum, you have to provide a snapshot/example of what you're building.

I'm most intrigued by your comment pile digestor. I've often wanted something like that while cruising the Internet but I'm not sure how'd you monetize it. In the commercial world, software for analyzing customer-submitted questions and comments has been a valuable service for a long time, even before AI/ML engines came along. So, that's useful but it's a hard problem, very domain-specific.

Anyway, as others have said the main things you have to do to attract interest/business are: 1) Explain specifically what pain you are solving for what specific user/customer, 2) Offer specifics (examples, features) of how you solve that pain better than anyone else.
by mchusma | 2026-02-12 20:10:34+00:00
This is cool, but they mentioned affordability, and said this is about $1/hour to run, which is about what I pay for claude code on $200/mo plan. This is not literally true, sometimes I'm running up to 3 concurrent intermittently throughout the day for maybe 60 hours per week.

So I do believe if there is something that comes up that is literally continuous, would be interesting, but I'm not sure about it right now. I would be curious if anyone has anything they would literally use running 24/7.
by reenorap | 2026-02-12 20:11:37+00:00
How is Anthropic, OpenAI and xAi going to compete against the likes of Google that can spend $200 billion a year? It’s an impossible war and all these investors are throwing their money into a bottomless insatiable pit of money.

Until the funding stops for one reason or another and then everyone loses all their money at once like a star that collapses into a black hole singularity in a femtosecond.
by dklvs | 2026-02-12 20:12:07+00:00
Totally fair question! SaySigned isn't meant to replace your existing e-signature tool for human signing workflows. It's built for a different use case entirely: AI agents signing contracts with other AI agents, with no human in the loop.

The primary interface is actually MCP (Model Context Protocol) — so AI agents like Claude, GPT, etc. can natively discover and use signing capabilities as tools.

Think of it less like "DocuSign but again" and more like "what happens when your AI procurement agent needs to execute an NDA with a vendor's AI sales agent at 2am." No browser, no email-a-link-to-sign. The audit trail and legal attribution are designed around machine-to-machine workflows.

If you're signing things yourself, your current tool is the right one. SaySigned is for when your AI agents are doing the signing.