MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by vintermann | 2026-02-06 11:30:44+00:00
Even European monarchs, with the Catholic church holding much of the keys to their authority and being very against it, managed to do a considerable amount of tactical relative-killing. Everywhere else it's basically the norm for monarchies that princes murder each other.

A shattering bow

A burning flame

A gaping wolf

A screeching pig

A rootless tree

A mounting sea

A flying spear

A falling wave

One night's ice

A coiled serpent

A bride's bed-talk

or a breaking sword

A bear's play

or a child of a king.

(Odin listing up some of the things a wise man never trusts, in stanza 85 and 86 of Hávamál)
by joncrocks | 2026-02-06 11:32:38+00:00
I think people might be able to support more than they think, but I'd also be sceptical that they could unrack 2x bodyweight without _some_ training.

Could they use a machine to load up to that point? Cushioned and loaded in a way that doesn't use traps/a barbell? Maybe.

I say this as someone who deals regularly with weights around that level, at a similar weight.

Having said all that, I do 100% agree that loading your back and getting the weight there are two different things!
by andrekandre | 2026-02-06 11:33:31+00:00
as someone who has done that in a professional setting, it really does work well, at least for straightforward things like data classes/initializers and average biz logic with if else statements etc... things like code annotations and other more opaque stuff like that can get more unreliable though because there are less 1-1 representations... it would be interesting to train an llm for each encountered new pattern and slowly build up a reliable conversion workflow
by esquivalience | 2026-02-06 11:33:32+00:00
As an avid knitter, I can confirm it really is. In practice there might be multiple knots as you change balls of yarn for example but topologically each sweater is just a very fancy knot.

In fact, the words are etymologically linked, they’re really just the same word! See https://www.etymonline.com/word/knit

> knit(v.)

> Old English cnyttan "to tie with a knot, bind together, fasten by tying," related to Old Norse knytja "bind together, form into a knot," Middle Low German knütten "to tie, knot," Old English cnotta "a knot," from Proto-Germanic knuttjan, from stem knutt-. Of brows, late 14c. Intransitive meaning "do knitting, weave by looping or knotting a continuous thread" (especially in reference to plain stitch) is from 1520s.
by brockmeier | 2026-02-06 11:33:56+00:00
Also, the new Mistral model is unbelievably fast:

https://simonwillison.net/2026/Feb/4/voxtral-2/

And the costs of usage are very low. For instance, with voxtral-mini-latest, you you can dictate for 5.5 hours and only have to pay $1:

https://mistral.ai/pricing#api
by awightman | 2026-02-06 11:33:57+00:00
Hey HN – I'm building Vereda, a standup tool for engineering teams.

The free tier lets anyone in your Slack respond to standups without creating accounts. Only the manager needs to sign up. Responses get stored with full history and you can ask an AI questions like "what did the team work on this week?"

Looking for beta testers, especially engineering managers with remote/async teams. Feedback on what's missing or broken is really helpful.

Happy to answer questions about the tech (Fastify, Prisma, OpenAI, Claude MCP integration).
by insomagent | 2026-02-06 11:34:02+00:00
I'm not super impressed with the performance, actually. I'm finding that it misunderstands me quite a bit. While it is definitely better at reading big codebases and finding a needle in a haystack, it's nowhere near as good as Opus 4.5 at reading between the lines and figuring out what I really want it to do, even with a pretty well defined issue.

It also has a habit of "running wild". If I say "first, verify you understand everything and then we will implement it."

Well, it DOES output its understanding of the issue. And it's pretty spot-on on the analysis of the issue. But, importantly, it did not correctly intuit my actual request: "First, explain your understanding of this issue to me so I can validate your logic. Then STOP, so I can read it and give you the go ahead to implement."

I think the main issue we are going to see with Opus 4.6 is this "running wild" phenomenon, which is step 1 of the eternal paperclip optimizer machine. So be careful, especially when using "auto accept edits"
by TheOtherHobbes | 2026-02-06 11:34:06+00:00
It's literally a marketing funnel for corruption. Having Smart People™ at your "parties" adds a layer of legitimacy and social proof you wouldn't get if you were Bubba from Nowhere Town.

Some people will be attracted by the menu, some people won't realise what's happening until they see the video they're starring in.

Either way, you own them.
by bonesss | 2026-02-06 11:34:44+00:00
> Measure productivity by all means—I’m all for accountability—ideally as tangible business impact… proxy business metrics are fine too… Just don’t try to measure the individual contribution of a unit in a complex adaptive system, because the premise of the question is flawed.

Great article, but I disagree with this conclusion and don’t think it reflects its own reasoning.

If proxy metrics are acceptable, then measure by proxy the effort and impact of the activity. You are using stories and have story points. You should also have increasing velocity and capability metrics to show the levelling up from mentoring or happier pairing versus the hourly salaries involved and opportunity costs management gets to evaluate… Put those mentoring stories in and point them, or proportion those points across paired members, and measure them over time. The analytics will show things.

I find unwillingness to subject engineering activity to metrics highly suspect, and often based of flawed business application of business accounting or process monitoring. Proxy metrics are used for this exact reason, but to arbitrarily stop quantifying and assert subjective opinion as a conclusion is literal vibe management. “It feels like X, and we measure only 1/2 of Q, therefore X… which coincidentally was our pre-conclusion, our pre-judice, and preferred-conclusion.”

Here we have a teammate pairing for 100% of a senior developer position? … counter assertions we could make into the total lack of data about that: the juniors were stifled and would progress far faster self-directed, the seniors were annoyed by habits they can’t talk about politically with higher turnover and lower productivity, the manager is normalizing just-show do-nothing non-accounted jobs which is a corruption gravy train, there’s an entitled Socratic unicorn getting salary refusing to account for his time, and comparable teams are seeing more effective mentorship and aggregate team output improvement per senior-pairing hour (we think … but could never actually compare, since one party isn’t accounting).

Now I bet author is fully right and this super dev was an accelerant and used well. I disagree that this can’t be measured and feelings match a proper accounting. If the author was being misled by a bullshit artist you have a 0-point 100% salary that should be visible from orbit being granted based on personal favours. Not a great look for anyone involved. Not something I’d pay for.
by Avamander | 2026-02-06 11:35:43+00:00
Popular Linux distributions also use HTTP CDNs. Even though the content is always signed, it still exposes the HTTP stack, signature verification code and a bunch of the application logic to the attacker.

Apt has had issues where captive portals corrupt things. GPG has had tons of vulnerabilities in signature verification (but to be fair here, Apt is being migrated to Sequoia, which is way better).

But these distros are still exposing a much larger attack surface compared to just a TLS stack.
by donkeybeer | 2026-02-06 11:35:50+00:00
The idea is mostly that we shouldn't worry. The user of the lib on an arduino will feed it arduino sized problems and the amd64 user will likewise larger problems. Again I think just think of the transition from 32 to 64 bit. Most ranges are "input"/"user " dependent and it would have been needlessly messy to have to even with automatic conversion help rewrite say every i32 to i64 or which ones to convert.
by tedk-42 | 2026-02-06 11:36:03+00:00
Yes, but no need for the attitude.

Linux powers the world in this area and bash is the glue which executes all these commands on servers.

Any program or language you write to try and 'revolutionise CI' and be this glue will ultimately make the child process call to a bash/sh terminal anyhow and you need to read both stdout and stderr and exit codes to figure out next steps.

Or you can just use bash.
by vee-kay | 2026-02-06 11:36:59+00:00
Reddit and Twitter are cesspools of noise and misinformation since years.

Even whole subreddits are taken over by shady admins, and totally weaponised.
e.g., r/India is filled with anti-India hate posts and malicious misinformation, because that subreddit is controlled by Pakistani admins.

I was actually glad when my Reddit user account got banned for speaking some truths about history of my nation, LOL.

Lot less stress on HN, it is more peaceful, simple, and informative, I like it.
by direwolf20 | 2026-02-06 11:37:09+00:00
When a Nazi wants to speak on a college campus, they point out the speaker is a Nazi and the administration cancels the speaking appointment.

But not really, because administrations are fine with Nazis giving speeches. The actual reality is that 5-20 people stand near the speaking place with picket signs reading "this guy is a Nazi". The Nazi speaks as planned, and the listeners (who are also Nazis) complain the speech was shut down.

Joe Rogan called himself cancelled. Literally the biggest podcaster in the world who says anything he wants to. Complains that he can't say anything and has no audience.

It's all grift.
by MomsAVoxell | 2026-02-06 11:37:36+00:00
Bingo.

These tool fails are as a consequence of a failure of proper policy.

Tooling and Methodology!

Here’s the thing: build it first, then optimize it. Same goes for compile/release versus compile/debug/test/hack/compile/debug/test/test/code cycles.

That there is not a big enough distinction between a development build and a release build is a policy mistake, not a tooling ‘issue’.

Set things up properly and anyone pushing through git into the tooling pipeline are going to get their fingers bent soon enough, anyway, to learn how the machine mangles digits.

You can adopt this policy of environment isolation with any tool - it’s a method.

Tooling and Methodology!
by fatherwavelet | 2026-02-06 11:37:59+00:00
It only doesn't add up if you are viewing him like Warren Buffet in terms of finance. Obviously, his audited track record of returns is nowhere to be found.

It very much all adds up if you view Epstein as a financial genius in terms of financial crimes.

This idea he was some intelligence created stooge is just absurd. I would suspect he was an intelligence asset exactly because of his ability to launder money and commit financial crimes. His wealth came from taking a cut. The size of his wealth was a reflection of the amount of financial crimes committed. That level of financial crime is how you get a sweetheart deal to keep those crimes in the shadows.

Also the kind of thing that would get you suicided. This podcast/social media narrative that he was a created intelligence asset to blackmail the rich and powerful is probably misdirection to not focus on the actual financial crimes. The cover up has been executed to perfection considering the misdirection narratives have taken on a life of their own and we know basically nothing about the financial crimes he commited.
by mold_aid | 2026-02-06 11:38:15+00:00
I think a lot of people are asking the question around many digital services; I'm pretty sure in areas like education and media "no AI!" is going to be something that rich people look for, sure.

Editing and proofreading are "substantial" elements of authorship. Hope these laws include criminal penalties for "it's not just this - it's that!" "we seized Tony Dokoupil's computer and found Grammarly installed," right, straight to jail
by DenisDolya | 2026-02-06 11:38:37+00:00
This is seriously impressive — 6 BIPS by a single developer is insane.
The correctness-first approach and clean architecture really show.
But honestly, at this point, to make it truly useful, you probably just need to write your own OS next
Thanks for sharing this it’s inspiring to see what focused systems work can achieve.
How did you not burn out doing all this?
by lelanthran | 2026-02-06 11:38:48+00:00
> No, you'll have to match the performance of the actual code, regardless of what is in the article. It is a C compiler written in Rust.

Look, it's clear that you don't hire s/ware developers very much - your specs are vague and open to interpretation, and it's also clear that I do get hired often, because I pointed out that your spec isn't clear.

As far as "playing games" goes, I'm not allowing you to change your single-sentence spec which, very importantly, has "must match performance", which I shall interpret to as "performance of emitted code" and not "performance of compiler".

> Your games reveal your intent.

It should be obvious to you by know that I've done this sort of thing before. The last C compiler I wrote was 95% compliant with the (at the time, new) C99 standard, and came to around 7000LoC - 8000LoC of C89.

> EDIT: And good LORD. Who writes a C compiler in python. Do you know any other languages?!?

Many. The last language I implemented (in C99) took about two weeks after hours (so, maybe 40 hours total?), was interpreted, and was a dialect of Lisp. It's probably somewhere on Github still, and that was (IIRC) only around 2000LoC.

What you appear to not know (maybe you're new to C) is that C was specifically designed for ease of implementation.

1. It was designed to be quick and easy to implement.

2. The extensions in GCC to allow building bootable Linux images are minimal, TBH.

3. The actual 16-bit emission necessary for booting was not done by CC, but by shelling out to GCC.

4. The 100kLoC does not include the tests; it used the GCC tests.

I mean, this isn't arcane and obscure knowledge, you know. You can search the net right now and find 100s of undergrad CS projects where they implement enough of C to compile many compliant existing programs.

I'm wondering; what languages did you write an implementation for? Any that you designed and then implemented?
by yourapostasy | 2026-02-06 11:39:14+00:00
The challenge not addressed with this line of reasoning is the required sheer scale of output validation on the backend of LLM-generated code. Human hand-developed code was no great shakes at the validation front either, but the scale difference hid this problem.

I’m hopeful what used to be tedious about the software development process (like correctness proving or documentation) becomes tractable enough with LLM’s to make the scale more manageable for us. That’s exciting to contemplate; think of the complexity categories we can feasibly challenge now!
by Someone | 2026-02-06 11:40:12+00:00
FTA: “Therefore I will have to close the report as out of scope”

and “05/02/2026 - Report Closed as wont fix/out of scope”

I think it’s a bit early to say “won’t fix”. AMD only said that it was out of scope for the channel used to report it (I don’t know what that was, but it likely is a bug bounty program) and it’s one day after the issue was reported to them.
by isodude | 2026-02-06 11:41:30+00:00
nitpick, it should be `touch a c & mv a b & mv c d` as `&;` returns `bash: syntax error near unexpected token `;'`. I always find this oddly weird, but that would not be the first pattern in BASH that is.

`inotifywait` actually sees them in order, but nothing ensure that it's that way.

$ inotifywait -m /tmp
/tmp/ MOVED_FROM a
/tmp/ MOVED_TO b
/tmp/ MOVED_FROM c
/tmp/ MOVED_TO d

`stat` tells us that the timestamps are equal as well.

$ stat b d | grep '^Change'
Change: 2026-02-06 12:22:55.394932841 +0100
Change: 2026-02-06 12:22:55.394932841 +0100

However, speeding things up changes it a bit.

Given

$ (
set -eo pipefail
for i in {1..10000}
do
printf '%d ' "$i"
touch a c
mv a b &
mv c d &
wait
rm b d
done
)
1 2 3 4 5 6 .....

And with `inotifywait` I saw this when running it for a while.

$ inotifywait -m -e MOVED_FROM,MOVED_TO /tmp > /tmp/output
cat /tmp/output | xargs -l4 | sort | uniq -c
9104 /tmp/ MOVED_FROM a /tmp/ MOVED_TO b /tmp/ MOVED_FROM c /tmp/ MOVED_TO d
896 /tmp/ MOVED_FROM c /tmp/ MOVED_TO d /tmp/ MOVED_FROM a /tmp/ MOVED_TO b
by MrSkelter | 2026-02-06 11:41:37+00:00
The broader point is that if you start from the premise that LLMs cannot ever be considered the way sentient beings are then all abuse becomes reasonable.

We are in danger of unscientifically returning to the point at which newborn babies weren’t considered to feel pain.

Given our lack of a definition for sentience it’s unscientific to presume no system has any sentient trait at any level.
by Thiez | 2026-02-06 11:41:46+00:00
There isn't enough energy in the solar system to count to 2^128. Now a uuid v4 number "only" has 2^122 bits of entropy. Regardless, you cannot realistically scan the uuid domain. It's not even a matter of Moore's law, it is a limitation of physics that will stand until computers are no longer made of matter.
by phicoh | 2026-02-06 11:42:46+00:00
C uses pointer casts all over the place to fake generics. If you don't have that (in Pascal or MODULA-2) then life becomes very unpleasant.

There is a quite a bit of C code that makes creative use of the size of allocations. For example linked lists with a variable sized payload. Again one of the things that would prevent a C programmer from switching to Pascal.

I don't expect the Zig user base to become larger than the Rust user base any time soon. But we have to wait and see, Zig is quite young.
by soulofmischief | 2026-02-06 11:42:50+00:00
I am having trouble with 4.6 following the most basic of instructions.

As an example, I asked it to commit everything in the worktree. I stressed everything and prompted it very explicitly, because even 4.5 sometimes likes to say, "I didn't do that other stuff, I'm only going to commit my stuff even though he said everything".

It still only committed a few things.

I had to ask again.

And again.

I had to ask four times, with increasing amounts of expletives and threats in order to finally see a clean worktree. I was worried at some point it was just going to solve the problem by cleaning the workspace without even committing.

4.5 is way easier to steer, despite its warts.
by mytailorisrich | 2026-02-06 11:43:01+00:00
"Today, the European Commission preliminarily found TikTok in breach of the Digital Services Act for its addictive design. This includes features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and its highly personalised recommender system."

IMHO it is a very slippery slope to start judging "addictive design" as an offence, especially over such trivial features...
by fnordpiglet | 2026-02-06 11:43:18+00:00
Here’s an example. Agents get exposed a set of tools one of which is file system tools. They are basically read and write or edit a file. The edit requires a replacement syntax. The write function truncates the file. There is no append. These are generally documented as how you work with adding memories. Memories are expected to be read, then rewritten, by the LLM. This is watched by a watchdog and vectorized for RAG. Note however that you have to read the memory in and write it out to append to it through the LLM. Why?

I rewrote almost all the agent functions and denied the existing ones because they are flawed deeply and don’t do what you need to do for any specific purpose. The plugin distribution model is a bit weird and inscrutable. Instead they seem to advocate for skills distribution. These though depend on being able to exec arbitrary bash code. Really?

Moltbook itself depends on agents execing curl commands for each operation. Why? Presumably because the plugin distribution model is inscrutable. I wrote plugins for all the Moltbook operations with convenience and structured memory logs etc. Agent adherence went through the roof.

Sessions don’t seem to reliably work or make sense. Heartbeats randomly stop firing. I turned off heartbeats because they were so flakey despite them being documented as the canonical model for regular interaction in favor of cron jobs that I decomposed my heartbeat task into prime number intervals based on relative frequencies but it seems to randomly inject some heartbeat info into the promoting occasionally if you run cron jobs a certain way. Despite being called cron they don’t actually fire reliably or on the prescribed schedule somehow. The web UI is a mess. Configuration management in the UI is baffling. The separation between the major MD files per agent seems to not matter at all and are inexplicably organized. Hotloading works except when it doesn’t. Logging doesn’t seem to log things that should clearly be logged.

I am down with vibe coding and produce copious amounts of such code myself. But there’s an art to producing code worth using let alone distributing. Entropy and scope need to be rigorously controlled and things need to ship in a functional state - actually functional not aspirationally functional. Decisions need to be considered and guidance given. None of this seems to have happened here. Once it gets to a certain level of chaos IMO it’s unmaintainable and OpenClaw is way past that point and rapidly getting beyond that. It’s probably also a supply chain party bag.
by hebejebelus | 2026-02-06 11:43:53+00:00
This was mentioned recently and I had a look[0]. It seems like the benchmark is not quite saying what people think it's saying, and the paper even mentions it. The benchmark is constructed by using a model (Deepseek) to define questions of a certain level of difficulty for the models. That may result in easier problems for "low-resource" languages such as Elixir and Racket and so forth since the differentiator couldn't solve harder problems. From the actual paper:

> Section 3.3:

> Besides, since we use the moderately capable DeepSeek-Coder-V2-Lite to filter simple problems, the Pass@1 scores of top models on popular languages are relatively low. However, these models perform significantly better on low-resource languages. This indicates that the performance gap between models of different sizes is more pronounced on low-resource languages, likely because DeepSeek-Coder-V2-Lite struggles to filter out simple problems in these scenarios due to its limited capability in handling low-resource languages.

At the same time I have used Claude Code on an elixir codebase and it's done a great job. But for me, it's undefined that it would have done a worse job if I had picked any other stack.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46646007
by andai | 2026-02-06 11:44:59+00:00
There was a guy a few months ago who found that telling the AI to do everything in a single PHP file actually produced significantly better results, i.e. it worked on the first try. Otherwise it defaulted to React, 1GB of node modules, and a site that wouldn't even load.

>Am I better served

For anything serious, I write the code "semi-interactively", i.e. I just prompt and verify small chunks of the program in rapid succession. That way I keep my mental model synced the whole time, I never have any catching up to do, and honestly it just feels good to stay in the driver's seat.
by Applejinx | 2026-02-06 11:45:19+00:00
Now then, Moltbook is a pathological case. Either it remains a pathological case or our whole technological world is gonna stumble HARD as all the fundamental things collapse.

I prefer to think Moltbook is a pathological case and unrepresentative, but I've also been rethinking a sort of game idea from computer-based to entirely paper/card based (tariffs be damned) specifically for this reason. I wish to make things that people will have even in the event that all these nice blinky screens are ruined and go dark.