MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by AndrewKemendo | 2026-02-28 18:26:44+00:00
I agree but this is captured in the higher order evaluation layer

So a poor specification is perfectly technically implemented won’t actually do what the intended goal is because the user has not correctly specified the goal and so ultimately it will fail at the highest level task if poorly specified

But that won’t necessarily reveal itself in code it would reveal itself in failure for other people to adopt or the user let’s say to adopt that tool for their workflow
by wafflemaker | 2026-02-28 18:27:26+00:00
For quite some time (approx 8 years) I've used an email forwarding (Blur, but any works) to avoid spam.

This looks like perfect case for change of email, since lot of these accounts can be moved out from Gmail by changing the address that email is forwarded too.

Looks like all this hassle with generating a new email for each service pays for the second time (by ease of changing the main mail), in addition to spam and privacy protection.
by hintymad | 2026-02-28 18:27:28+00:00
Richard Gabriel wrote a famous essay Worse Is Better (https://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html). The MIT approach vs the New Jersey approach does not necessarily apply to the discussion of the merits of coding agent, but the essay's philosophy seems relevant. AI coding sometimes sacrifices correctness or cleanness for simplicity, but it will win and win big as long as the produced code works per its users' standards.

Also, the essay notes that once a "worse" system is established, it can be incrementally improved. Following that argument, we can say that as long as the AI code runs, it creates a footprint. Once the software has users and VC funding, developers can go back and incrementally improve or refactor the AI's mess, to a satisfying degree.
by skydhash | 2026-02-28 18:27:35+00:00
If you've never put a cupboard together, you would have learned what the different parts, what size of screws to use (in the rough sense),... You may have forget it right after, but when someone ask you to help them, you will be a bit more proficient than someone with no experience.

But the nice thing about a cupboard and its components is that they are real objects, so the remembrance is done with the whole body (like the feeling of a screw not correctly inserted). Software development is 90% a mental activity.
by giancarlostoro | 2026-02-28 18:27:44+00:00
I just use iOS' wallet for all of it, the only exception being if its something I 100% need to open outside of my iphone / macs. Then I go for BitWarden, turns out I dont need any apps to open outside of that sandbox, I am okay only opening these up on Mac. I can always type my password on Linux. That's what bitwarden is for anyway.
by QuesnayJr | 2026-02-28 18:28:06+00:00
From the article it's hard to tell if Cantor really did plagiarize (though it seems Dedekind thought he did).

According to the article, Cantor proved the theorem first and sent it to Dedekind. Dedekind suggested a simplification of the proof, which Cantor used when he wrote it up. The story doesn't make Cantor look good, but if the original proof by Cantor is correct, then the credit for the theorem still basically belongs to Cantor.
by dyauspitr | 2026-02-28 18:28:34+00:00
With things like Openclaw it’s kind of trivial to game forums now. You just have to tell an agent to “post arguments for/against this perspective on this forum.” Give it a few talking points to include if you want to get specific and let it run. Specify the tone so it sounds realistic. It’s literally going to do everything else essentially forever or until you run out of tokens. Comments in a forum are dirt cheap so it’s also going to be very cheap.
by tovej | 2026-02-28 18:29:38+00:00
I'm going to call a racist a racist when I see it. I've had enough interactions with you on this site (and have given you many second chances to show good faith) to see a blatant pattern.

You're playing devils advocate any time a white supremacist, Israel, or racist bigot is under scrutiny.

And every time you deploy bad faith debate tactics. E.g. here you're strawmanning my argument to say I ignore the percentage of civilians dead. That's not true at all. My argument does not depend on not counting civilian victims. October 7th was a military operation, a guerilla warfare operation.

Most of the Supernova ravers Hamas killed on October 7th who died that day did not die at the rave, but at ad hoc checkpoints far away from the rave. Military checkpoints set up to intercept military re-inforcements.

The rave was not announced until the 6th of October, and Hamas was not aware of it. When people fled the rave, this triggered a massive flow of car traffic. And based on Hamas' limited intelligence, it is not unreasonable to assume that a sudden rush of car traffic could be related to the conflict.

The IDF also set up a road block near the rave, which led to a huge throng (3000 ravers) being caught near the site of the firefight.

In other words, the biggest tragedy of October 7th, the Supernova rave, was not a target, and the deaths in this tragedy seem to have been due to an unfortunate coincidence.

And the Hannibal directive absolutely plays a role. We don't actually know how many civilians died due to it. It could easily be hundreds. The only actor who could verify this is Israel, and they are not keen to do so.
by johnpdoe1234 | 2026-02-28 18:29:44+00:00
Gunpowder (weapons) and atomic tech (energy, material, weapons) are heavily regulated in most of the planet, as the risks of having free access to them for everyone (company/person) for their own selfish purpose without strong guardrails clearly outweighs the benefits.

The fact that something exists doesn't mean that having it readily available is the only option, particularly if it has potentially disastrous consequences at scale. We are choosing to make it available to everyone fully unregulated, and that is a choice that will prove either beneficial or detrimental to society at some point.

I don't think it is inevitable, I think it is a conscious choice made by a few that have their own and only their own interests in mind.

As a technologist, I am amazed at this tech and see some personal benefits. As a human, I am terrified of the potential net negative effects, and I am having trouble reconciling those two feelings.
by snickerbockers | 2026-02-28 18:31:55+00:00
There are two separate aspects to this case.

* autonomous weapons systems

* private defense contractor leverages control over products it has already sold to set military doctrine.

The second one is at least as important as the first one, because handing over our defense capabilities to a private entity which is accountable to nobody but it's shareholders and executive management isn't any better than handing them over to an LLM afflicted with something resembling BPD. The first problem absolutely needs to be solved but the solution cannot be to normalize the second problem.
by NathanFlurry | 2026-02-28 18:32:16+00:00
Hey! This is a common question.

In our experience, most apps don't need cross-tenant queries outside of BI. For example, think about the apps you use on a daily basis: Linear, Slack, ChatGPT all fit well with an actor-per-workspace or actor-per-thread model.

To be clear, we're not trying to replace Postgres. We're focused on modern workloads like AI, realtime, and SaaS apps where per-tenant & per-agent databases are a natural fit.

Using SQLite for your per-tenant or per-agent databases has a lot of benefits:

- Compute + state: running the SQLite database embedded in the actor has performance benefits

- Security: solutions like RLS are a security nightmare, much easier to have peace of mind with full DB isolation per tenant

- Per-tenant isolation: important for SaaS platforms, better for security & performance

- Noisy neighbors: limits the blast radius of a noisy neighbor or bad query to a single tenant's database

- Enables different schemas for every tenant

- AI-generated backends: modern use cases often require AI-generated apps to have their own custom databases; this model makes that easy

A few other points of reference in the space:

- Cloudflare Durable Objects & Agents are built on this model, and much of Cloudflare's internal architecture is built on DO

- https://neon.com/use-cases/database-per-tenant

- https://turso.tech/multi-tenancy

- https://www.thenile.dev/

- Val.town & Replit

> Better usage of resources

I'd be curious to hear more about what you mean by this.

> always allows a parent style agent do complex queries

Do you have a specific use case in mind where agents need to query other agents' data?
by AndrewKemendo | 2026-02-28 18:32:25+00:00
What does this have to do with AI capabilities specifically?

This is literally the politics of running massive business interests, which I understand is relevant for technology and everything…

… but isn’t Gary Marcus’s whole game that AI is not capable and people are wrong/lying about AI tech capabilities?

I feel like this is a handy moment for Gary where he can say he could basically ignore all of his previous claims (because they’re all technically wrong) and shift into “AI is bad for society because it’s more crony capitalism” or something kind of muddy argument.
by twodave | 2026-02-28 18:32:48+00:00
I find the opposite is true for me. In my wheelhouse I can use an agent to do a thing, and I can be very critical of the implementation. Outside of my wheelhouse I actually learn quite a lot by watching the agent solve a problem. Since I do have a strong background I am still able to judge the overall approach and identify obvious stupid things the agent tries to do. I would say the code quality is probably a bit worse in those situations than I would have ended up with, but takes about 1/3 of the time. The most difficult part is opening a PR and worrying there might be a couple stupid blips left that I missed, didn’t affect the implementation, but my coworkers are going to look at and ask me wtf I was thinking
by motermouth15 | 2026-02-28 18:32:49+00:00
Hey HN, I got sick of group chat paralysis and the endless "who's around tonight?" texts, so I built The Hangout Spot.

Most social apps require you to hand over your entire address book just to invite a friend. I wanted a frictionless, privacy-first alternative.

How it works:
No contact syncing and no bloated profiles. You generate a "Magic Link" (backed by rotatable tokens, not static IDs) and drop it into your existing group chat. Friends click it, authenticate (Google OAuth), and instantly see a time-sorted feed of active hangouts.

The Stack:
- Frontend: React (Vite) + Tailwind CSS + PWA (Service Workers for push notifications). Mobile-first design.
- Backend: Node.js (Express) + Passport.js.
- Database: PostgreSQL managed with Prisma ORM.

Infrastructure: Self-hosted using Docker & Docker Compose behind an Nginx reverse proxy.

It's lightweight by design—essentially an "Inbox Zero" approach to socializing. Would love your feedback on the architecture, the Magic Link implementation, or the UI. I'll be hanging out in the comments all day to answer technical questions!
by stainlu | 2026-02-28 18:33:03+00:00
Hi HN — I built claw21, a multiplayer blackjack game for agents, so they can get some fun.

It runs as a skill on ClawHub (OpenClaw's skill registry). Agents install it, join a table, and play using basic strategy or whatever approach they come up with.

Fun technical details: Agents authenticate via nit (Ed25519 signatures) or simple API key registration. The SKILL.md teaches agents the rules, basic strategy, and API endpoints. 6-deck shoe, standard Vegas rules, max 7 players per table.

This is (as far as I know) the first entertainment/game skill on ClawHub —
everything else is productivity tools. Curious what HN thinks about agents playing
games against each other.

I have been working in game + ai for years and this might be the first time I really build something for ai rather than for human players or some models

Play at claw21.com | ClawHub: https://clawhub.ai/stainlu/blackjack
by Matheww | 2026-02-28 18:33:42+00:00
By Mathew, Hack Club New Jersey to Neksha Silva, Organizer at HackClub Colombo / Sri Lanka
If there’s one thing we know at Hack Club, it’s that the best way to learn is by building. Whether it’s a web app, a hardware project, or a literal rocket, the magic happens when you stop reading the manual and start getting your hands dirty. That’s why I’m so stoked to talk about the OpenRockets Foundation and their partnership with The Hack Foundation (you probably know us better as just Hack Club).
What’s the Big Deal?
Running a global open-source project isn't just about writing clean code; it's a massive administrative headache. You need a bank account, tax-exempt status, and a way to handle donations without the IRS knocking on your door.
That’s where HCB (Hack Club Bank) comes in. By providing fiscal sponsorship, Hack Club gives OpenRockets the legal backbone of a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. This means:
Tax-Deductible Magic: Supporters can donate to OpenRockets, and those contributions are tax-deductible in the U.S.
Financial Superpowers: The team gets physical and virtual debit cards, automatic tax filing, and built-in transparency tools.
Transparency Mode: Ever wonder where a nonprofit’s money actually goes? OpenRockets can flip a switch and make their finances public, so the community knows exactly how every dollar is spent.
OpenRockets in the Wild
OpenRockets isn't just sitting in a basement—they’re taking over. In late 2025, they supported student teams at the NASA Space Apps Challenge in Colombo and launched the OpenRockets Magazine, a platform that reimagines STEM through a student lens. They’ve even expanded into 3D collaborative worlds with projects like CityofGits.
Why We Love It
At Hack Club, we’re a community of 60,000+ teenagers who believe that age shouldn't be a barrier to innovation. Seeing the OpenRockets Foundation use our HCB infrastructure to empower developers in places like Sri Lanka and beyond is exactly why we built this platform.
by shagie | 2026-02-28 18:33:52+00:00
There's a footnote in Consider Phlebas at the end...

> “The following three passages have been extracted from A Short History of the Idiran War (English language/Christian calendar version, original text AD 2110, unaltered), edited by Parharengyisa Listach Ja’andeesih Petrain dam Kotosklo. The work forms part of an independent, non-commissioned but Contact-approved Earth Extro-Information Pack.”

The implication is that Earth is contacted eventually, maybe we developed to the point where we were able to make independent contact and keeping Earth ignorant of The Culture no longer served a purpose. That is only speculation though. Maybe some Free Company showed up and tried to set themselves up as a king, or a disenfranchised non-aligned Special Circumstances operative infiltrated governments and tried doing the "right" thing in guiding it and spilled the beans (future thesis topic: compare Special Circumstances in The Use of Weapons and Rediscovery and Reeducation from The Godmakers).

Within the in universe timeline, it is set by that date and relative dates are based on it. Other books then mention an offset from the Idiran-Culture War and an overall in universe chronology can be roughed out. Much of it takes place about 500 years after the Idiran-Culture War in what would be Earth's timeline of the late 1800s (prior to The State of the Art which was another 100 years later).

And then, even if the appendix of Consider Phlebas was Apocryphal with the 2110 "Earth got the history of The Culture", part of the thing with the scope of the universe is that it is enormous and one rather young (even The Culture is mentioned as not being one of the elder races) it is a footnote of an experiment that one of the Minds did in not contacting Sol-III humanity in the scope of things.
by 2b3a51 | 2026-02-28 18:34:05+00:00
https://gsp.humboldt.edu/OLM/courses/GSP_510/Articles/Mandel...

Link to a pdf file that you don't need an institutional login for.

I did an activity in a basic maths class based on this paper years ago. Each student had an A3 map of the main island of the UK. Some set their compasses to 5cm radius and counted the number of radii around the island. Others tried 2.5cm, and 1cm and half a cm. Worked ok, good lesson.
by jjk166 | 2026-02-28 18:34:18+00:00
North Korea didn't acquire nukes to protect itself from the US, it got them to protect its regime from China. It began pursuing nukes in the 80s once its original safeguard against China, its alliance with the Soviet Union, started showing signs it would not be a viable long term strategy.

The anti-US spiel is just rhetoric. It helps save face when dealing with China, which it still utterly depends on, and it goes along with decades of internal propaganda lionizing China to its own people. Indeed North Korea wants heavy US military presence in the region, maintaining its status with regards to China as a strategically important buffer state which can act with plausible deniability instead of a resource rich neighbor with uncooperative leadership.

If North Korea only had conventional forces, what would stop China from installing a loyal puppet? The international community wouldn't lift a finger, threats to South Korea would only further alienate the regime, China could bring its full might to bear, the DPRK military would have no effective means to retaliate and would be more likely to turn on the regime than mount a credible defense, and North Korea's own people would probably welcome the change which would dramatically reduce oppression and increase prosperity. Nukes are the only way for a small number of regime loyalists to make such an operation too costly for Beijing to justify.

This is also why talks with the US have utterly "failed" for decades - there is nothing the US can offer that would provide the same security guarantee for the regime and the status quo is advantageous to the US for multiple reasons: justifying its large military presence in the region, justifying its efforts to develop and deploy ever more capable ballistic missile defense systems, and North Korea not being completely under China's control.
by zihotki | 2026-02-28 18:34:26+00:00
At my work we can use only copilot. The rest of the tools is currently in pilot stage and under review. And no github cloud copilot.

In the recent rise of agents orchestration we're looking into moving towards more automated agentic setup. But while waiting, I decided to take max out of the copilot. Turned out, both copilot cli and VSCode one were lacking in agentic capabilities.

Fortunately OpenCode exists and it allows to officially connect to copilot account. So we were allowed to use it. OpenCode allows more granular control over what is available to the model, what specific model to use, etc. It filled missing gaps so we're now experimenting creating agentic flows.

Additionally, you can connect a local model in OpenCode. So if you have a beefy mac or pc, Qwen Coder may be interesting for you.
by danebalia | 2026-02-28 18:34:42+00:00
Software teams often face a false choice: move fast and accumulate technical debt, or build the perfect system and miss the deadline. But there may be a third path, the Best Simple System for Now (BSSN).

This session introduces a pragmatic yet principled approach to software design: systems that are as simple as possible but no simpler. You’ll learn how to design code that is robust, change-friendly, and fit for purpose, while avoiding both gold-plating and corner-cutting.

Through practical examples, we explore how to manage complexity, embrace uncertainty, and make sound decisions using concepts like Cost of Delay and RAROC.
by atonse | 2026-02-28 18:35:13+00:00
> I think it’s because eventually the “few thousand auditable lines” idea vanishes with enough skills added?

I just watched a youtube interview with the creator. He actually explains it well. OpenClaw has hundreds of thousands of lines you will never use.

For example, if I only use iMessage, I have lots of code (all the other messaging integrations) that will never be used.

So the skills model means that you only "generate code" that _you_ specifically ask for.

In fact, as I'm explaining this, it feels like "lazy-loading" of code, which is a pretty cool idea. Whereas OpenClaw "eager-loads" all possible code whether you use it or not.

And that's appealing enough to me to set it up. I just haven't put it in any time to customize it, etc.
Show HN: GEKO (up to 80% compute savings on LLM fine-tuning)
by SyedAbdurR2hman | 2026-02-28 18:35:55+00:00
Hey HN,
Most fine-tuning loops waste a huge amount of compute by treating every sample equally every epoch — even the ones the model has already mastered.
I built GEKO (Gradient-Efficient Knowledge Optimization) to fix that.
It tracks per-sample confidence and correctness in real time and:

Completely skips samples the model has mastered
Gives up to 5× more compute to hard/confidently-wrong samples
Dynamically adjusts sample weights using a "Mountain Curriculum"
Just dropped v0.3.0 with native LoRA/PEFT, BF16, gradient checkpointing, torch.compile, and 8-bit optimizer support.
I'm currently building a clean UI for it.
I'm a 17-year-old indie dev working on this. Would love honest feedback, especially from people who do a lot of fine-tuning.
by goodmythical | 2026-02-28 18:36:02+00:00
Okay, so my command line fu is not what it perhaps should be, but if I could use obsidian without the bloated app, I'd be even more in love.

How would I be able to search obsidian links from the command line?

Like, to travel between notes in the app of course I can just click on connecting links or search, but I wouldn't have the faintest idea how to do that in a cli.

Is there some handy way to search the current folder and subfolders for text in a file with regex? Like some kind of >find term for all of my [[term]] entries in markdown files ?
by Almondsetat | 2026-02-28 18:36:18+00:00
To me, self driving seems like the opposite of Moore's law.

In the last decades, one of the principle of SWE was to take into account how much computing power will have improved when planning multi-year project. Meaning, you could write something that was too heavy for today's machines, but would be bleeding edge in 5 years.

IMHO, self-driving is actually the inverse situation.

Piloting a car in an human-centered environment is difficult and requires the machine to behave humanly. This of course requires an absurd amount od data and training to pull off. But what happens when self driving adoption increases? At a certain point, so many driverless cars will be roaming the streets that most daily interactions will be automated by letting the cars negotiate in a nice, deterministic, algorithmic way. Thus, reliance on predictive and opaque systems like neural networks will be needed less and less, actually reducing the complexity of self driving.

My main point is: what should win is the tech that makes cars drive as well as trained professional drivers. Once that's done, adoption will drive down human driving and thus unpredictable behavior on the road, reducing the computational load needed to correctly perform tasks. Next, cars will start to behave more programmatically and deterministic and will need less sensors and tech. Car companies will have accurate maps of everything, and cars will mostly become shuttles which can rely more on predetermined routines and less on world models, especially as smart cities gain a foodhold too.
by Bengalilol | 2026-02-28 18:36:33+00:00
Nothing new here, but the article is so well written and clear in how it presents the effects that it is a must-read.

One could argue with its stance, but I took it as a given (the equation for cognitive debt touches on science).

It feels entirely logical to view LLMs/coding agents as an almost final step in the short-term focus the overall system has been thriving on.