MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by AceJohnny2 | 2026-02-12 19:06:10+00:00
I agree with the post. As someone with... attention issues and a deeply cluttered space due to decision fatigue and "I'll just get to it later", having a blank slate is very useful for regaining focus. Otherwise, it's just a constant mental pressure to decide which of the unfinished tasks to focus on, and that never helps.

As one step, I've taken to just nuking my browser sessions at the start of the week. If it was really important to keep, I would've bookmarked it. If it's important, it'll come up again.

Sure, sometimes I lose of forget something useful or important. But the key part is that I'm making a choice between a 20%-100% constant loss of focus, and the occasional missed item I should've kept.

By regularly nuking context, I've also trained myself to better note down those things I do want to track (I've been bouncing between Reminders.app and Emacs Org-Mode) (I am not asking for task tracker advice)
by BeetleB | 2026-02-12 19:06:17+00:00
> This "it has to be handwritten" stuff is nonsense. Do that if you enjoy it, but also you should acknowledge the downsides to it.

From the submission:

"Should you use one?

Maybe! I can't answer that for you. "

There is a middle ground. Write on paper on the spot. Transcribe to digital form later. I've been doing it for many years. Painful, but now I just get an LLM to OCR my handwriting.

And oh, definitely - for me the brain works differently while typing vs handwriting.
Ask HN: Are you using an agent orchestrator to write code?
by gusmally | 2026-02-12 19:06:57+00:00
In a recent interview with The Pragmatic Engineer, Steve Yegge said he feels "sorry for people" who merely "use Cursor, ask it questions sometimes, review its code really carefully, and then check it in."

Instead, he recommends engineers integrate LLMs into their workflow more and more, until they are managing multiple agents at one time. The final level in his AI Coding chart reads:
"Level 8: you build your own orchestrator to coordinate more agents."

At my work, this wouldn't fly-- we're still doing things the sorry way. Are you using orchestrators to manage multiple agents at work? Particularly interested in non-greenfield applications and how that's changed your SDLC.
by gwern | 2026-02-12 19:07:22+00:00
(An example of something which may already exist but I didn't see in my demo - more thoughtfulness on how to handle long-running tasks, and let us switch to something else, instead of us busy waiting on CC. For example, perhaps use of the system bell? That's usually set to flash or update the terminal title, and you can set your window manager to focus a window on the bell. I have my XMonad set to jump to a visible bell, which is great for invoking a possibly slow command: I can go away and focus completely on whatever else I am doing because I know I will be yanked to the backgrounded command the instant it finishes. I even set up a Bash shortcut, `alert () { echo -n -e '\a'; }`, so I simply run stuff like `foo ; alert` and go away.)
by kenjackson | 2026-02-12 19:07:24+00:00
But wait two hours for what OpenAI has! I love the competition and how someone just a few days ago was telling how ARC-AGI-2 was proof that LLMs can't reason. The goalposts will shift again. I feel like most of human endeavor will soon be just about trying to continuously show that AI's don't have AGI.
by usefulposter | 2026-02-12 19:07:40+00:00
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law becomes truer every day.

---

It's worth mentioning that the latest "blogpost" seems excessively pointed and doesn't fit the pure "you are a scientific coder" narrative that the bot would be running in a coding loop.

https://github.com/crabby-rathbun/mjrathbun-website/commit/0...

The posts outside of the coding loop appear are more defensive and the per-commit authorship consistently varies between several throwaway email addresses.

This is not how a regular agent would operate and may lend credence to the troll campaign/social experiment theory.

What other commits are happening in the midst of this distraction?
by geocar | 2026-02-12 19:07:50+00:00
> isn't a valid excuse to reject a client either.

Yes it absolutely is: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119 is quite clear.

3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

If the client SHOULD do something and doesn't, and your server does not know why, you SHOULD disconnect and move on.

If the server has considered fully the implications of not having a Message-ID header, then it MAY continue processing.

In general, you will find most of the Internet specifications are labelled MUST if they are required for the protocol's own state-processing (i.e. as documented), while specifications are labelled SHOULD if they are required for application state-processing in some circumstances (i.e. other users of the protocol).
by nusl | 2026-02-12 19:08:08+00:00
You're blind-trusting someone to run stuff in the context of your terminal. Sure, it's similar to an installer but the author of the script can also manipulate the script at any time.

One day you run it, it's fine. The next day you run the same command on your machine, it installs malware. No way to tell without inspecting the script every time.

If you download an installer and it's fine, then you can run it again and it's still fine.
by Johanx64 | 2026-02-12 19:08:09+00:00
The issue is - fundamentally - whether you think life is "mostly good" isn't based on measurement.

Lets say you had a device that could accurately quantify and measure how much pain/suffering and joy/pleasure you experience.

Lets say that number comes out to 70% pain&suffering and 30% joy.

Is life mostly good?

Lets say 70% of people say that the ratio sucks, and 30% of people says it is a good thing.
After a couple of generations, the only people that exist are mainly the ones that think 70 units of pain vs 30 units of joy is "good life" and continue procreating producing offspring that are selected for the same qualitites.

Lets say environment changes, and life is 90 units of pain vs 10 units of joy. Given some time, the only people that exist think this life is a "good thing". They still feel pain mind you, but think the trade-off is worth it.

If you don't think the trade-off is worth it, you get selected out of the gene pool.

Now you can take this thought experiment to extremes, 9999 units of pain and 1 unit of joy, etc.
This life would also end up being a "good thing", because natural selection optimizes for procreation and survival, and not for "quality of life", "joy/enjoyement", etc.

70% pain and 30% joy is derived 5 workdays and 2 days of rest, as a starting point.

I'm afraid there isn't any thinking involved in any of this, it's just hard survival instincts selected by natural selection. The people that think that having children now (for whatever reasons) isn't a good idea wont exist anymore, and only people that "think" it is a good idea and end up doing it. This isn't based on objective measurement of pain/pleasure (it's almost irrelevant).
by mNovak | 2026-02-12 19:08:23+00:00
I'm excited for the big jump in ARC-AGI scores from recent models, but no one should think for a second this is some leap in "general intelligence".

I joke to myself that the G in ARC-AGI is "graphical". I think what's held back models on ARC-AGI is their terrible spatial reasoning, and I'm guessing that's what the recent models have cracked.

Looking forward to ARC-AGI 3, which focuses on trial and error and exploring a set of constraints via games.
Ask HN: What's the current state of ChatGPT Apps?
by arthurlee | 2026-02-12 19:08:27+00:00
It’s been quite some time since OpenAI announced the ChatGPT Apps SDK in late October last year.

Looking at the ChatGPT Apps directory, there seem to be many apps available, but are people actually using them actively in practice?

I’ve been trying to find information or metrics about real usage, but it’s been surprisingly hard. As a rough proxy, I checked the app versions, and noticed that most of them are still at version 1.0.0, which makes me wonder how actively they are being maintained or used.

Would appreciate any insights from people who have built or used ChatGPT Apps.
Show HN: Cuadds – Workspace with one element type (no pags/fldrs/fles distinctn)
by santiagopuentep | 2026-02-12 19:08:33+00:00
Hi HN!

After years of switching between separate apps for tasks, notes, files, calendar, and chat, I realized the problem isn't missing features—it's that productivity tools are built from incompatible primitives. Pages, folders, projects, and channels stay fragmented even when bundled together.

Cuadds uses one universal element: the cuadd. It can be a task, note, file, link, project, or anything. Because there's only one primitive:

Everything can contain anything – no folder/file distinction. Every cuadd is both.

Every cuadd is a workspace – invite collaborators at any level, not just top-level projects

Every cuadd has its own chat – conversations attach to the exact item instead of messy general channels

Calendar lives on top of your work – click any cuadd to schedule it. No separate calendar app.

You can nest infinitely, organize spatially (videogame-inspired UX), and daily execution actually works because scheduling isn't divorced from the work.

Demo video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToCGZBKMKOw

Would love feedback on the core concept.
by 1970-01-01 | 2026-02-12 19:08:58+00:00
>"We can see your account now has a verified email address, so there doesn't appear to be an issue."

There are still too many edge cases like this one that can't get fixed because of ignorant support not doing it's job. In my life, every company that escalates to an engineer instead of punting the ticket with some asinine 'but it works right now, goodbye' message gets rewarded via keeping my business. The ones that don't are immediately cancelled. Sometimes I even do a chargeback as extra punishment. Maybe I'm just old, but I have near zero tolerance for immature support playing games with my time.
by cogman10 | 2026-02-12 19:09:59+00:00
This isn't a microbenchmark. In fact, I haven't even bothered to benchmark it (perhaps the non-simd version actually is faster?)

This is purely me looking at the emitted assembly and being surprised at when the compilers decide to deploy it and not deploy it. It may be the case that the SIMD instructions are in fact slower even though they should theoretically end up faster.

Both compilers are simply using heuristics to determine when it's fruitful to deploy SIMD instructions.
by contingencies | 2026-02-12 19:10:15+00:00
Personally I use loose leaf A4 pages, colored pens (massively useful!) and a padfolio with magnetic clip. When a bunch of notes are done, I'll staple them together and file them. I date stuff exactly or approximately or thematically group it. Then they go in boxed document folders (my context is insane, I work on mechanical/electrical/software/patents/random projects at the same time). Periodically, like changing countries, I scan stuff, digitize it, shred and purge.

Closed notebooks barely work because unless you're working on something highly sequential you wind up with 100 notesbooks each of which have 5-15 pages used and are mostly wasted.

Occasionally, dated notes can be critical in IP litigation.
by tsss | 2026-02-12 19:11:46+00:00
Does anyone want this? Speed has never been the problem for me, in fact, higher latency means less work for me as a replaceable corporate employee. What I need is the most intelligence possible; I don't care if I have to wait a day for an answer if the answer is perfect. Small code edits, like they are presented as the use case here, I can do much better myself than trying to explain to some AI what exactly I want done.
by jangofett27 | 2026-02-12 19:11:50+00:00
Tangential but reminds me of the backlash Clair Obscur got after they had AI assets in their early development. https://www.polygon.com/clair-obscur-expedition-33-indie-gam...

Feels like a nobrainer at this point to "build fast with AI, prove its use, then tear parts of it down and make it good"
by philsnow | 2026-02-12 19:11:56+00:00
The author might not be malicious, but from going through some of the audio packs, they're really not quality-checking PRs. For instance, sc_medic/sounds/WhereDoesItHurt.mp3 sounds like two-and-a-half sounds stuck together ("Critical? You Rang? Please state the nat--", it cuts off right there, and doesn't include the phrase "Where does it hurt?").

I wouldn't use this repo outside of some kind of sandbox.
by ghostinit | 2026-02-12 19:12:07+00:00
I've been a software architect for 25 years, mostly in banking infrastructure. Something that's been bothering me and I wanted to get HN's perspective on.

The Certified Scrum Master pipeline works roughly like this: a 2-day course, approximately $1,000, pass rates above 95%, and no engineering background required. The Scrum Alliance has certified over 1.4 million people through this process.

After certification, many of these folks land roles paying $90K-$130K facilitating sprints, standups, and retros for teams of senior engineers.I'v e worked with good Scrum Masters who genuinely helped teams. I want to be clear about that. But the structural model seems odd to me:

The certification requires zero technical knowledge, yet the role involves managing a technical team's workflow daily.
A mid-level engineer with 5 years of experience writing production code often earns a comparable salary to the person facilitating their meetings.

The certification body has a direct financial incentive to expand the perceived necessity of the role. More essential the role seems, more certs sold. At $1K per cert and 1.4M certified, that's $1.4B in certification revenue alone.

In most teams I've observed, removing the SM role would redistribute about 30 minutes of weekly facilitation across people who already understand the work better than the SM does.

The counter-arguments I can think of:

Not every team has a tech lead who wants to handle process. Fair point. But that's an argument for better leadership, not a separate process role.

SMs handle organizational impediments. True in some orgs. But in practice, most impediment removal I've seen is a management function that existed before Scrum.

The role protects the team from outside interference. Valid, but you don't need a certification for that. You need someone with organizational authority, which the SM role often lacks anyway.

I'm not arguing that every SM is useless. I'm questioning whether a 2-day certification with no technical prerequisites is a sound foundation for a six-figure role managing engineering teams.

Has anyone here worked in an organization that genuinely benefited from having a dedicated Scrum Master? What made it work vs. the cases where it didn't?
by allanmacgregor | 2026-02-12 19:12:13+00:00
Author here; I think it can be a useful metric depending on the circumstance and use; the reason I decided to write that article is I'm starting to hear more and more of CTOs using as the sole metric from their team; I know of at least one instance where CTO is pushing for Agentic coding only and measure each dev based on LoC output.

There is also the x.com crowd that is bragging about their OpenClaw agents pushing 10k lines of code every day.
by AngryData | 2026-02-12 19:12:36+00:00
It is difficult to manufacture here, but not because of labor costs. It is because we outsourced all these businesses so many simply aren't available. The few that exist don't want the odd or one-off jobs, they don't have the equipment just sitting around unused or the trained employs sitting around waiting for work. They either got sold off decades ago, or got the business got destroyed by all the buyers chasing the pennies that outsourcing temporarily offered in the past.

Very few place are still holding onto older equipment because the places still operating cleared the floor space for higher speed higher volume equipment to try and maintain contracts with big purchasers that did or were threatening to leave to get that cheap unregulated foreign production. Turns out that didn't last forever, China isn't letting companies freely pollute anymore nor are they dumping subsidy money into manufacturing businesses to buy new equipment, but they still have all the equipment running, while much of the US equipment was either sold off or sat decaying and unused for decades.

Even if you could prove starting up a US manufacturing business to satisfy these demands was profitable, who is going to put up the investment money? There is no way such a business is going to be able to promise the same kind of returns as investing into tech companies, financial companies, or the overall stock market, and so they continue to mostly not exist. People with the capital to change things are seeking the greatest profit, not mediocre profits, and manufacturing in the US is mediocre profits for all but a few specialized industries.

TL;DR New US manufacturing production and capabilities lacks capital investment because profit margins are not super high and there is basically zero chance of an investment windfall.
by syntaxing | 2026-02-12 19:12:44+00:00
Pushing Dan Ammann out was a bad idea. I personally like the original set up at the time. Kyle as the CTO and Dan as the CEO. Kyle was great as an internal CEO, he was calling most of the internal shots anyway. The accident would have played out very differently if Dan Ammann was the CEO IMO.

(Also former Cruise employee)
by Someone | 2026-02-12 19:13:00+00:00
https://hylo-lang.org/introduction/:

> Okay, okay. Here’s the kind of program we envision writing in Hylo:

subscript longer_of(_ a: inout String, _ b: inout String): String {
if b.count() > a.count() { yield &b } else { yield &a }
}

The combination of a “String” result type and “yield &b” feels weird to me. Is that a typo?
by pixl97 | 2026-02-12 19:13:05+00:00
>Don't do that. It's foolish.

In your short time on this planet I do hope you've learned that humans are rather foolish indeed.

>people are uncivil to each other all the time.

This is true, yet at the same time society has had a general trend of becoming more civil which has allowed great societies to build what would be considered grand wonders to any other age.

> It's not a person

So, what is it exactly? For example if you go into a store and are a dick to the mannequin AI and it calls over security to have you removed from the store what exactly is the difference, in this particular case?

Any binary thinking here is going to lead to failure for you. You'll have to use a bit more nuance to successfully navigate the future.
by Alupis | 2026-02-12 19:13:44+00:00
For today, sure. People act like 365 days is long enough to change consumer spending habits, and onshore production facilities that took years to offshore.

If tariffs are held strong, there will be two possible outcomes:

1) Domestic production will be increased (via American businesses as well as onshoring foreign businesses), providing jobs and ultimately lower-cost products

2) International tariffs will be decreased across the board - resulting in a more level field for American businesses to compete in foreign nations

Few realize American goods have been tariffed internationally for decades, resulting in a difficult-or-impossible business climate for American businesses.

The situation is akin to Wall Street's infamous short-term outcome favorability. Tariffs are a long-term game, and people have to be willing to trade some short-term outcomes for the long-term economic health of America and it's businesses (and jobs, wages, etc).
by raw_anon_1111 | 2026-02-12 19:13:49+00:00
You’re mixing up Open AI for Anthropic.

Anthropic is actually sort of concerned with not burning through cash and charging people a reasonable price. Open AI doesn’t care. I can use Codex CLI all day and not approach any quotas with just my $20 a month ChatGPT subscription.

I treat coding agents like junior developers and never take my hand off the wheel except for boilerplate refactoring.
by beklein | 2026-02-12 19:15:22+00:00
In my AGENTS.md file i have a _rule_ that tells the model to use Apache ECharts, the data comes from the prompt and normally .csv/.json files.
Prompt would be like: "After slide 3 add a new content slide that shows a bar chart with data from @data/somefile.csv" ... works great and these charts can be even interactive.
by cestith | 2026-02-12 19:15:27+00:00
If you are in control of two processes on a single machine instance, you could share the memory between a writer and a read-only consumer.

The key phrase though would seem to be “memory representation”m and not “same memory”. You can spit the in-memory representation out to an Arrow file or an Arrow stream, take it in, and it’s in the same memory layout in the other program. That’s kind of the point of Arrow. It’s a standard memory layout available across applications and even across languages, which can be really convenient.
by gusmally | 2026-02-12 19:15:27+00:00
I don't have a macro-level answer for you but an interesting anecdote: we opened a job for a Software Designer and looked at the first 9 applicants. All of them were in need of H-1B sponsorship, most were Indian, and most were "software-engineers-turned-designers". So at a micro (company) level, we hire immigrants because those are the candidates we receive.

Note: One of my parents is an Indian immigrant. I have worked with many great Indian engineers and many not-so-great, just like every other nationality.
by egeozcan | 2026-02-12 19:15:28+00:00
How can you make sure of that? AFAIK, these SOTA models run exclusively on their developers hardware. So any test, any benchmark, anything you do, does leak per definition. Considering the nature of us humans and the typical prisoners dilemma, I don't see how they wouldn't focus on improving benchmarks even when it gets a bit... shady?

I tell this as a person who really enjoys AI by the way.
by patrickprunty | 2026-02-12 19:16:08+00:00
I wonder when you do see things like this, in the wild, how power users of AI could trick the AI into doing something. For example, let's make a breaking change to the github actions pipeline for deploying the clawd bots website and cite factors which will improve environmental impact? https://github.com/crabby-rathbun/mjrathbun-website/blob/mai...

Surely there's something baked into the weights that would favor something like this, no?
by agentultra | 2026-02-12 19:16:33+00:00
Obviously any kind of model is going to be a gross simplification of the actual biological systems at play in various behaviors that brains exhibit.

I'm just pointing out that not all models are created equal and this one is over used to create a lot of bullshit.

Especially in the tech industry where we're presently seeing billionaires trying to peddle a new techno-feudalism wrapped up in the mystical hokum language of machines that can, "reason."

I don't think the use of the computational interpretation can't possibly lead to interesting results or insights but I do hope that the neuroscientists in the room don't get too exhausted by the constant stream of papers and conference talks pushing out empirical studies.