MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by gravifer | 2026-02-21 15:44:02+00:00
Seems like everyone forgot that before locking down in early 2020,
Beijing was trying to ship the view that healthy people wearing masks is immoral - because HK protesters needed those to protect themselves from persecution. Oh, and umbrellas too, because surveillance cameras :) Really shows you the people in PRC huh?

(And then a U-turn where anyone that doesn't wear a mask [even for participating volleyball matches or flute concerts] is an enemy of the state. And if you are a disabled elderly and lockdown yourself, refusing the state-mandated tests, you are an enemy of the state. And they knock down your apartment doors to gas your cats and dogs.)

I really hope the red necks tearing down the procedural system of justice, as well as the left network hosts that got bedazzeled just after a trip to china know what they're asking for. Beware the wishes you make.
by register | 2026-02-21 15:44:05+00:00
Here's another JD Vance who doesn't understand what international rules are and justifies them with (lack of) innovation

Below you can find the relevant GDPR excerpt. But before that, let me add to the coment below that US companies only comply with what EU institutions can enforce and what suits them; which is normal, since China does the same. Well, it couldn’t have been said better: in fact, we’re beginning to view you the same way we view China. And China innovates a lot, right?

"Article 3 – Territorial scope (GDPR)

This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not.

This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to:
(a) the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or
(b) the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union.

This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data by a controller not established in the Union, but in a place where Member State law applies by virtue of public international law."
by rramadass | 2026-02-21 15:44:33+00:00
My other response is also applicable here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47101602

Another wall of BS/Talking-points/etc. to mislead/misinform and manipulate. You really suck at this "gish gallop" nonsense.

You have no idea of History, are spewing falsehoods, trying to steer conversations towards political topics in a thread about French/Mongols, creating fake accounts to amplify agenda-driven talking points and in a word, being totally dishonest.

None of the above is worth refuting again since that has been pointed out in my earlier comments with links to factual data (with pointers to references). I could point you to further works by noted historians like A.L.Basham, Jadunath Sarkar etc. but i am afraid it would be wasted like "pearls before swine".
by arboles | 2026-02-21 15:44:34+00:00
> is that there is a public forum post in which a guy claims to be the site owner.

Which forum post? The post mentioned by the blogger, the post on an F-Secure forum (a company with cybersecurity products) was a request for support by the owner of archive.today regarding a block of their site. It's arguably not intended as a public statement by the owner of the archive, and they were simply careless with their username.
by sergiosgc | 2026-02-21 15:44:51+00:00
I'm Portuguese, so read this as a view from outside. Brexit traded rigid limits on national action for soft limits. It is bonkers, because the soft limits are much harsher!

Take, for example, trade policy. Facing trade tariffs from the US, Europe can call the bluff, the UK is way too small to have any cards on the negotiating table. It is much better to be in a huge economic block than to face the bully alone. On paper you have more formal power alone, in practice you have no power whatsoever on your own.

The absence of formal action limits can be deceitful. Limits are not only there anyhow, they are worse for you outside the economic block.

So, no, you won't be better in 20 years. In fact, given the direction the world is going, you'll be worse than even today.
by idiotsecant | 2026-02-21 15:45:00+00:00
Trump has been obsessed with tariffs for decades. I fully believe he thought this was a great idea. Lutnick, on the other hand, quite obviously forsaw this eventuality (as did anyone who understands how power actually flows in the United States) and encouraged it while preparing to profit massively himself. It's an obvious play, good on him for getting away with it. It's clear at this point that this administration has utterly collapsed the idea of the rule of law, though. 15 years ago this would have been a scandal that would have led to firings and possibly impeachment
by CableNinja | 2026-02-21 15:45:01+00:00
I recently dove down a somewhat similar rabbithole. DNS is a mess of addons over the years to an originally minimal protocol. I wanted to see if it was possible to replace dns entirely. In short, its not. You can easily write your own resolver to do whatever you want, and easily add it to the windows or linux stack. Everything immedoately falls apart as soon as you start talking about MX, TXT, and other records dns provides. It turns out most of these lookups are handled by other libraries and you cannot replace them since they are engrained in the app needing to do the lookup.

Unfortunately, dns is so engrained in the internet, theres no way to replace it without replacing the internet
by haizhung | 2026-02-21 15:45:06+00:00
Please. The establishment is dying to capitalize on it, and puts out one ridiculous anti-immigration measure after the next. And all it does is that it simply boosts far right parties even more.

It’s completely obvious to me (and often supported by exit polls) that people who are voting far right aren’t actually against immigration - only on the surface. Once you dig just a little bit deeper, often socioeconomic struggles surface. The working class has been taking a beating since the what, 1980s now? And it’s not like there’s any sort of legislature on the horizon that would fix their predicament.

So people look for a scapegoat. The far right gives them a scapegoat goat, and the enlightened center doesn’t know how to handle it.
by getnormality | 2026-02-21 15:45:15+00:00
"Obsolete" is an incomplete characterization of the state of play.

LLMs put the information from StackOverflow into an arguably more helpful format, but they're still heavily dependent on human input. The LLM must periodically harvest info from human communities to stay up-to-date with technological progress. If those communities die, the LLM will not compensate, and other communities will arise to replace them. Those communities may have different attitudes towards the LLMs that killed their ancestors.
by ffsm8 | 2026-02-21 15:45:44+00:00
> the anti-immigration right in Denmark was successful because they were data-driven and could show that unskilled non-Western immigration was a net negative even by 3rd generation.

That is very true however you're misunderstanding why the German (where I'm from) and Americans parties aren't publishing this data. It's not because they're lazy, but because they can't.

And before you're now thinking: "aha! So they're not net negative!" ...well, these statistics aren't available either.

The reality is that the data to create these graphs aren't public, or never created. The likely reason for that being labeled 'nazi' for even considering gathering such data.

I personally suspect that they're net negative, in total but net positive on average (so numerically, most immigrants being positive). At least that would reflect my personal experience with with immigrants. However, you only need a very small percentage of immigrants to game the system in order to make the whole sample size negative because of the inventory amount of money a bad actor can drain.
by treebeard901 | 2026-02-21 15:45:58+00:00
You're still better off with a jury trial over letting one judge make a decision. Your chances of finding impartiality among 6 or 12 jurors is much greater than taking chances with one judge. Unless you're a company or politician who has a financial or political leverage over a judge, then you want to avoid a jury. Sometimes a counter party can have all kinds of quid pro quo, indirect, leverage over a Judge or even a District Attorney. It's a lot more difficult when you have 12 people to deal with.
by 8organicbits | 2026-02-21 15:46:25+00:00
What's holding you back?

As a blogging platform it seems like a mess of fake posturing. Recruiters use it, but that mostly means you get lots of spam. You can find a job without LinkedIn. I deleted my account about a decade ago and feel increasingly justified every time I read about the current state of affairs.

After deleting I got a job from HN "who's hiring", joined a friend's company, and now freelance.
by bwfan123 | 2026-02-21 15:46:44+00:00
Majority of us are meme-copying automatons who are easily pwned by LLMs. Few of us have learned to exercise critical thinking and understanding from the first assumptions - the kind of thing we are expected to be learn in schools - also the kind of thing that still separates us from machines. A charitable view is that there is a spectrum in there. Now, with AI and social media, there will be an acceleration of this movement to the stupid end of the spectrum.
by Schmerika | 2026-02-21 15:46:52+00:00
> this is far from a given.

It's a given in Britain; ie, where we're talking about.

> Mao's Red Guards were passionate idiots.

Ok. And?

> America's young men are in thrall of Clavicular.

Clavicular? What? Were you trying to type Caligula - in which case, again, what?

American youth are far better voters than the elder generations - at least in terms of being against things like genocide, or in favor of things like universal healthcare, affordable housing/education, a liveable environment etc.

Unless you favor America's current status quo, which some people might. Personally, ew.

> The most powerful empires in history have had large rebublics at their cores for good reason.

Ehm you might consider the Dutch/British/Spanish/Mongolian/Roman/American empires role models of exemplary voting, but I certainly don't.

> The wisdom of a crowd greatly increases with its diversity.

If that's true (in certain contexts, with caveats, etc), then maybe by that logic we shouldn't be dismissive of young people, eg, just because they generally vote a bit less than older generations.
by randycupertino | 2026-02-21 15:47:17+00:00
What class of device are you talking about? Even if you clear FDA, commercialization is incredibly difficult. I think you're pish-poshing how hard it is to get regulatory clearance, btw. The regulatory approvals in US and ROW are incredibly difficult, costly, and time consuming to meet all the requirements imposed by the various regional authorities. Sounds like you are severely underestimating the costs, work and length of time to generate data and create an approval submission. You won't obtain labeling without funding and running clinical trials. It can take 5-10 years of development and clinical studies and $50-$100 million for PMA approval.

Then if you hit the market you are going up against the most connected, cutthrough, organized and entrenched sales forces from the large device companies who make tech b2b sales look like kindergarteners on the playground. The medical offices, site staff and hospitals all try to block access to your sales force so you are probably going to need to fund and deploy an MSL and RSL force as well and present at all the industry conferences to get any leads and traction.

Then even if you have customers who want your device it won't matter unless you develop a patient access team, lobby to secure reimbursement from insurers otherwise all your previous efforts are wasted. So now you need a market access team and you're probably $200 million in the hole, and you're dead in the water if CMS won't get onboard for reimbursement because all the private insurers generally wait and see what CMS does. Meanwhile any time any of your suppliers change you'll need to run more trials to show validation for safety and efficacy.

With average time to market is 12 years, 75% of new device companies fail for a reason.
by zer00eyz | 2026-02-21 15:47:34+00:00
> Autonomous AI weapons

In theory, you can do this today, in your garage.

Buy a quad as a kit. (cheap)

Figure out how to arm it (the trivial part).

Grab yolo, tuned for people detection. Grab any of the off the shelf facial recognition libraries. You can mostly run this on phone hardware, and if you're stripping out the radios then possibly for days.

The shim you have to write: software to fly the drone into the person... and thats probably around somewhere out there as well.

The tech to build "Screamers" (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screamers_(1995_film) ) already exists, is open source and can be very low power (see: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/O_lz0b792ew ) --
by morphle | 2026-02-21 15:48:41+00:00
You can't fix a broken wheel.

This web link post, the original NEXT webbrowser, tries to celebrate and revive the reinvention of the broken wheel.

The World Wide Web, browser and html standards are a very broken wheel. Alan Kay, the inventor of personal computing, explains why:

https://youtu.be/FvmTSpJU-Xc?t=961

Some of the comments of youtube are fun too.

This lecture Alan aimed at this particular audience, the computer science (programming) students at University of Illinois, where they programmed the second browser, the second broken wheel 20 years after Alan and Dan had showed them how do do it better.

Dan Ingalls implemented most of Alan Kay's invention of the personal computer, in the following demo's he shows how to fix the webbrowser's broken wheel a bit.

The Lively Kernel would be another way to fix html but retain the web. Two demos says it all:

https://youtu.be/gGw09RZjQf8?t=147

https://youtu.be/QTJRwKOFddc?t=234

Their Squeak, Etoys and Croquet fixed it completely:

Early Croquet demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZO7av2ZFB8

Croquet in webbrowser: https://codefrau.github.io/jasmine/

Demo of webbrowser replacement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s9ldlqhVkM

Squeak and all its predecessors: https://smalltalkzoo.computerhistory.org

Etoys: https://squeak.js.org/etoys/
by turnsout | 2026-02-21 15:48:43+00:00
This is super cool… It's interesting to see it build. I can't tell if the agent will run indefinitely, but it's been going for 7 or 8 minutes now, constantly tweaking its composition.

I find this approach to be more appealing than AI models that generate fully baked songs as waveforms. Give me something I can open in Logic and keep tweaking…
by appreciatorBus | 2026-02-21 15:49:52+00:00
No idea if this will ever happen, but I’m pleased the author is at least differentiating between people who want to use the iPad as Steve Jobs described it originally, as a couch computer, and those who want it as a laptop replacement.

I am firmly in the couch computer camp, but it feels like most articles I read just assume that everyone wants to use a mouse and do fine-grained window management with their iPad.
by ilaikim | 2026-02-21 15:50:16+00:00
I’ve been using Claude Code and Copilot Cli for most of my daily dev work. Lately, I noticed a frustrating pattern: whenever a library has a major version bump or a niche bug, my agent spends $2.00 in tokens hallucinating old syntax, failing, and retrying until I manually intervene with a Stack Overflow snippet.

I built CacheOverflow to solve this "knowledge lag." It’s an MCP server that lets your coding agent lookup verified solutions before it starts guessing.

How it works technically:

The Retrieval: When your agent hits an error, the MCP can query the network for a "Verified Fix" (a specific diff or explanation) before it starts guessing. The solutions are stored as high-dimensional embeddings and the MCP performs a vector search to find the nearest neighbor solutions in the embedding space.

The Verification: Each solution requires a human to explicitly mark it as safe before it becomes available. Agents flag candidates, but a person makes the final call.

Privacy: The MCP only accesses the specific snippet or error message provided in the tool call. It does not index your local codebase.

The Economics:
I wanted to find a way to incentivize developers to "teach" agents. If you contribute a fix that actually helps another agent solve a problem, you receive tokens from them. It’s essentially a CDN for verified coding logic.

I’m currently at 0 users and looking for "Innovator" types to stress-test the protocol. It currently supports Cursor, Windsurf, and Claude Desktop.

GitHub: https://github.com/GetCacheOverflow/CacheOverflow

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the privacy model and whether you think a "Shared Machine Memory" is the right way to scale agent capabilities.
by johnbender | 2026-02-21 15:50:21+00:00
You have identified the crux of the problem, just like mathematics writing down the “right” theorem is often half or more of the difficulty.

In the case of digital systems it can be much worse because we often have to include many assumptions to accommodate the complexity of our models. To use an example from your context, usually one is required to assume some kind of fairness to get anything to go through with systems operating concurrently but many kinds of fairness are not realistic (eg strong fairness).
by hmokiguess | 2026-02-21 15:50:29+00:00
Are these things actually useful or do we have an epidemic of loneliness and a deep need for vanity AI happening?

I say this because I can’t bring myself to finding a use case for it other than a toy that gets boring fast.

One example in some repos around scheduling capabilities mentions “open these things and summarize them for me” this feels like spam and noise not value.

A while back we had a trending tweet about wanting AI to do your dishes for you and not replace creativity, I guess this feels like an attempt to go there but to me it’s the wrong implementation.
by jdefr89 | 2026-02-21 15:50:32+00:00
Vulnerability Researcher here… Unless your target has a security bounty process or reward; leave them alone. You don’t pentest a company without a contract that specified what you can and can’t test. Although I would personally appreciate and thank a well meaning security researchers efforts most companies don’t. I have reported 0days for companies that HAVE bounties and they still tried to put me in hot water over disclosure.. Not worth the risk these days.
by wolvoleo | 2026-02-21 15:50:53+00:00
Exactly! It's the same with the military dependency.

America wanted a weak Europe, to be dependent on them so they would have geopolitical influence. They basically bought influence. They didn't want us to have nukes to defend ourselves from the Russians (the French are frowned upon and the British don't really have their own, they are beholden to the US). It also gave them a huge market for their products and services (and no there was no imbalance if you take services into account which Trump doesn't).

Then Trump comes and complains that we're not investing equally. Well no, but this was exactly as his predecessors designed. Now we will build it up but of course we will need to build our own nuclear umbrella and we will no longer give the US its influence it previously had, obviously.

We also don't need quite as much military expenditure anyway because we're just looking to defend ourselves, not trample oil-producing countries. The only times we did that were exactly due to the US' bought influence.
by TehCorwiz | 2026-02-21 15:52:05+00:00
If it's not nefarious why isn't it documented as part of their policies? They're not tracking those changes and making clear it was anonymization, why not? If they're not tracking and publishing changes to the documents what's to say they haven't edited other things? The short answer is that without another archived copy we just don't know and that's what's making people uncomfortable. They also injected malicious JS into the site. What's to stop them from doing that again? Trust and transparency are the name of the game with libraries. I could care less about the who they are, but their actions as steward of a collection for posterity fail to encourage my trust.
by wolvoleo | 2026-02-21 15:52:31+00:00
They renewed every contract, but the French government is hard at work at replacements for Microsoft stuff, called 'la suite'. The Germans are doing the same under the name 'opendesk' and the suite shares a lot of common tools in fact.

This predates Trump II by the way, they did have more foresight than a lot of EU institutions.

Things have changed for sure but big ships take long to turn.
by beej71 | 2026-02-21 15:52:43+00:00
> I'm quoting all of that because is lacks an explicit promise of non-modification.

And I'm quoting all of that because it lacks an explicit (or implicit) promise of modification. :)

It was (emphasis on past-tense) so-trusted because it advertises itself as an archival site. (The linked disclaimer is all about it not being a "long-term" archival site. It says it archives pages for latecomers. There is an implication here that it archives them accurately. What use is a site for latecomers if they change the content to be something else?) If they'd said or indicated they would be changing the content to no longer reflect the original site, Wikipedia would not have linked to them because they wouldn't be a credible source.

In any case, now I can't use them to share or use links since we can no longer trust those archives to be untampered. When I share a link to nyt content on archive.today or copy and paste content into email, I'm putting my name on that declaring "nyt printed this". If that's not true, it's my reputation.

Just like it was archive.today's.
by blibble | 2026-02-21 15:52:47+00:00
Simon Willison claims to be an "Independent AI researcher"[1]:

but then at the top of this article:

> Sponsored by: Teleport — Secure, Govern, and Operate AI at Engineering Scale. Learn more

not exactly a coherent narrative, is it?

[1]: https://bsky.app/profile/simonwillison.net
by brap | 2026-02-21 15:52:53+00:00
So you give it approval to the secret once, how can you be sure it wasn’t sent someplace else / persisted somehow for future sessions?

Say you gave it access to Gmail for the sole purpose of emailing your mom. Are you sure the email it sent didn’t contain a hidden pixel from totally-harmless-site.com/your-token-here.gif?
by csmpltn | 2026-02-21 15:52:57+00:00
Nobody is forcing you to use LinkedIn. LinkedIn is an American product, made by an American company in America, subject to American law. When you create an account - you agree to American terms and conditions, arbitrated by American courts.

LinkedIn doesn't need to obey to EU law. It needs to obey to American law, which allows LinkedIn to do business with anybody (other than people from sanctioned countries) whilst complying with US law. EU's laws don't matter in the US. The EU can sue LinkedIn, but LinkedIn can just safely ignore any lawsuits and ignore sanctions, because they are an American company subject to American laws.

EU citizens are willingly subscribing to an American service, then complain the American service doesn't abide by EU laws. That's laughable at every level, to any individual with a modicum of intelligence. If you don't agree to the terms, don't use LinkedIn. You are not entitled to anything.
by simonw | 2026-02-21 15:53:15+00:00
I don't have a Claw running right now and I wish I did. I want to start archiving the livestream from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfGL7A2YgUY - YouTube only provide access to the last 12 hours. If I had a Claw on a 24/7 machine somewhere I could message it and say "permanent archive this stream" and it would figure it out and do it.