MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by emanuilv | 2026-02-08 14:33:18+00:00
I built Instantsite after repeatedly seeing the same friction for founders and side projects: even with no-code tools, launching a simple website takes too much time.

Instead of choosing themes, setting up hosting, or customizing layouts, Instantsite generates a live, publish-ready website from a plain description of your project, business, or idea. You can go from zero to live in minutes.

Some things I’m curious about:

How much control do users actually need after automatic generation?

Is “instant MVP site” useful for most solo founders or micro-businesses?

Are there new patterns in how people describe their projects that could improve automatic site generation?

It’s early days, but I’m interested in feedback from anyone who builds projects, launches products, or just experiments online.

Try it here: https://instantsite.app
by techblueberry | 2026-02-08 14:33:21+00:00
Why is this a concern? Like either you have open sources of information that have distributed vulnerabilities or closed sources of information that have centralized vulnerabilities.

The risk that some articles are biased is way better than reading a corporate encyclopedia where all articles being biased. That’s open access, that’s a bottom up process. That’s “democracy” so to speak.

A thing I’ve noticed more and more recently, is that everyone talks about like small - open source, small towns, small business, but then decries the tradeoffs.

Like socialists basically saying Walmart is better than small business because they can use their efficiencies to pay better.

So much “fuck it, let’s do autocracy” because self-government is hard.
by randomdude333 | 2026-02-08 14:33:29+00:00
Ha, some days ago I made Qwen generate a scenario for a documentary Seeds in the Web [1]. I put the beginning in the start window and at some point it suggested to pass to episode 2, with a name compatible with the original scenario. How is that possible?

[1] https://imar.ro/~mbuliga/glc-grok-qwen.html
by rco8786 | 2026-02-08 14:33:53+00:00
The thing that’s always missing from these critiques isnt about code quality or LoC or slop.

The issue is that if you fire off 10 agents to work autonomously for an extended period of time at least 9 of them will build the WRONG THING.

The problem is context management and decision making based on that context. LLMs will always make assumptions about what you want, and the more assumptions they make the higher the likelihood that one or more of them is wrong.
by lemonberry | 2026-02-08 14:33:54+00:00
"Kahnemann had the intellectual honesty"

I once heard an interviewer ask him if Kahneman was still susceptible to cognitive biases after reading the book. He said something to the effect of "absolutely, they're tough to escape". I really appreciated that. People that recognize and acknowledge the fallibility of their own minds are a breath of fresh air.
by shimman | 2026-02-08 14:34:07+00:00
It won't be 5 years, it'll be less than a year. When you don't exercise, your muscles atrophy. It's the same for any other skill. I use to speak conversational french in college, fast forward 10 years later and my understanding is no different than a casual "Emily in Paris" fan.

It'll be the same here, the only question is if those that do exercise will be able to command better salaries. I think this is possible but not with the current political climate.
by jjkaczor | 2026-02-08 14:34:21+00:00
Thanks for the detailed and in-depth explanation - I was (and am) actually a citizen of a different country, but the company was American - so, the myriad of IRS rules about valid expenses and deductions was (and is) completely foreign to me. This was 20-years ago, so rules and regulations have probably changed. For example - they were ok with actual claims of even bottled alcohol purchases at the time. (One "old-hand" told me that for any yearly "offsite/internal conferences" that while those expenses would not be approved during the event, they were fine on your initial "travel-day", so other old-hands would stock-up, so that they could have parties with co-workers in their hotel rooms... "it was a different time" apparently...)
by subscribed | 2026-02-08 14:34:34+00:00
We use Entra as our source of truth for users, groups, roles, permissions, intune, etc.

It get distilled down to various LDAP servers, but it's our primary SSO with MFA (several options, WebAuthn, U2F, TOTP, passkeys).

Our users (using various flavours of Linux/Windows 10, 11/Mac workstations, iOS/Android phones (inc. GrapheneOS), windows VDI) are simply enjoying the reliable authentication everywhere. Some time ago we added all our customers and all the customer services are on SSO+MFA on Entra too.

We protect almost everything with it and it "just works". Linux, windows servers, git* servers, integrations with colocation providers and suppliers, ancient things like odd IPsec, svn server or console switch.

Seriously if someone tells you your Linux or android is a problem, they're either lying or dangerously incompetent.
by nycdatasci | 2026-02-08 14:34:37+00:00
Since many posts mention lack of substance, providing a link to the All-In Podcast from last week in which they discuss Clawdbot (prior to re-brand).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXY1kx7zlkk&t=2754s

For the impatient, here's a transcript summary (from Gemini):

The speaker describes creating a "virtual employee" (dubbed a "replicant") running on a local server with unrestricted, authenticated access to a real productivity stack—including Gmail, Notion, Slack, and WhatsApp. Tasked with podcast production, the agent autonomously researched guests, "vibe coded" its own custom CRM to manage data, sent email invitations, and maintained a work log on a shared calendar. The experiment highlights the agent's ability to build its own internal tools to solve problems and interact with humans via email and LinkedIn without being detected as AI.

He ultimately concludes that for some roles, OpenClaw can do 90%+ of the work autonomously. Jason controversially mentions buying Macs to run Kimi 2.5 locally so they can save on costs. Others argue that hosting an open model on inference optimized hardware in the cloud is a better option, but doing so requires sharing potentially sensitive data.
by Centrino | 2026-02-08 14:34:51+00:00
This may help: https://github.com/yan7109/yan7109.github.io/tree/main/ma-bo...

Though I'd rather download a PDF or ePub.

I would say that the current format is a 'book' in content, but not a 'book' nor an 'e-book' in form, as you can't manipulate it as a single object. But I've seen a few other examples here on HN where people showed off a 'book' purely as a website.
by tangotaylor | 2026-02-08 14:34:55+00:00
I feel like most of the anxiety around LLMs is because (in the USA at least) our social safety net sucks.

I'd probably have way more fun debating LLMs if it wasn't tied to my ability to pay rent, have healthcare, or feel like a valued person contributing something to society. If we had universal healthcare and a federal job guarantee it would probably calm things down.
by littlecranky67 | 2026-02-08 14:35:33+00:00
I have the same issue on my M4 Macbook Pro and I had it on my previous M2 Apple Mac Mini, on several macOS versions (pre-Tahoe). I suspect it has to do with the virtual filesystem layer, as I had used OneDrive for Mac and now Proton Drive. Whatever it is, it has been broken for years on several devices and OSes and I am pretty sure Apple doesn't care about it.
by Thorrez | 2026-02-08 14:36:52+00:00
Switching to Cloudflare DNS solves archive.today problems? That's strange. archive.today is known for having problems with Cloudflare DNS[1]. Switching to Google DNS should solve it. (This isn't because of a bug in Cloudflare DNS, but rather that archive.today dislikes that Cloudflare DNS doesn't support EDNS.)

Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on the DNS team.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39925822
by indemnity | 2026-02-08 14:36:57+00:00
What hardware? Up until a recent BIOS update my X870 board 9950X3D spent 3 minutes of a cold boot training the RAM… then booting up the OS in 4-8 seconds, so my Mac would always win these comparisons. Now it still takes a while at first boot, but subsequent reboots are snappy.
by jingkai_he | 2026-02-08 14:37:20+00:00
The main thing matchlock adds over general-purpose vm/container tooling is agent specific network and filesystem (wip) controls, so if an agent goes rogue it can't exfiltrate your API keys, and damage largely mitigated. You'd have to build all of that yourself on top of LXD (possibly similar to matchlock).

There's also the DX side - OCI image support, highly programmable, fuse for workspace sharing. It runs on both linux and mac with a unified interface, so you get the same/similar experience locally on a Mac as you do on a linux workstation.

Mostly it's built for the purpose of "running `claude --dangerously-skip-permissions` safely" use case rather than being a general hypervisor.
by spprashant | 2026-02-08 14:38:20+00:00
> If you spend a couple of years with an LLM really watching and understanding what it’s doing and learning from mistakes, then you can get up the ladder very quickly.

I don't feel like most providers keep a model for more than 2 years. GPT-4o got deprecated in 1.5 years. Are we expecting coding models to stay stable for longer time horizons?
by hibikir | 2026-02-08 14:39:22+00:00
I've seen this happen over and over again well before LLMs, when teams are sufficiently "code focused" that they don't care much at all about their teammates. The kind that would throw a giant architectural changes over a weekend. You then get to either freeze a person for days, or end up with codebases nobody remembers, because the bigger architectural changes are secret.

With a good modern setup, everyone can be that "productive", and the only thing that keeps a project coherent is if the original design holds, therefore making rearchitecture a very rare event. It will also push us to have smaller teams in general, just because the idea of anyone managing a project with, say, 8 developers writing a codebase at full speed seems impossible, just like it was when we added enough high performance, talented people to a project. It's just harder to keep coherence.

You can see this risk mentioned in The Mythical Man Month already. The idea of "The Surgery Team", where in practice you only have a couple of people truly owning a codebase, and most of the work we used to hand juniors just being done via AI. It'd be quite funny if the way we have to change our team organization moves towards old recommendations.
by jt2190 | 2026-02-08 14:39:32+00:00
Every successful software project reaches an equilibrium between utility for its operators and bugs, and that point very rarely settles at 0% bugs [1].

When software operators tolerate bugs they’re signaling that they’re willing to forego the fix in exchange for other parts of the feature that work and that they need.

The idea that consumers will somehow not need the features that they rely on anymore is completely wrong.

That leaves the tolerable bugs, but those were always part of the negotiation: Coding agents doesn’t change that one bit. Perhaps all it does it allow more competitors to peel away those minority groups of users who are blocked by certain unaddressed bugs. Or maybe it gets those bugs fixed because it’s cheaper to do so.
by slfnflctd | 2026-02-08 14:39:42+00:00
Very well put, one of the more compelling insights I've seen about this whole situation. I feel like it gets at something I've been trying to say but couldn't find the right words for yet.

Quality. Matters.

It always has, and it always will. If you're telling yourself otherwise, you are part of a doomed way of thinking and will eventually be outcompeted by those who understand the implications of thinking further ahead. [ETA: Unfortunately, 'eventually' in this context could be an impossibly long time, or never, because people are irrational animals who too often prioritize our current feelings over everything else.]
by paxys | 2026-02-08 14:39:57+00:00
1. Containers aren't a security boundary. Yes they can be used as such, but there is too much overhead (privilege vs unprivileged, figuring out granular capabilities, mount permissions, SELinux/AppArmor/Seccomp, gVisor) and the whole thing is just too brittle.

2. lxd VMs are QEMU-based and very heavy. Great when you need full desktop virtualization, but not for this use case. They also don't work on macOS.

Using Apple virtualization framework (which natively supports lightweight containers) on macOS and a more barebones virtualization stack like Firecracker on Linux is really the sweet spot. You get boot times in milliseconds and the full security of a VM.
by lelanthran | 2026-02-08 14:40:08+00:00
> So either you have massively failed to state your position clearly, or you are so blatantly moving the goalposts, the dragmarks can be seen from space. Which is it?

Stop with the personal attacks - you are obviously emotional about this, and it's clear I am not.

My position is, and always has been, that there is no evidence that modern societies are as dependent on living on, near or around their source of nutrition.

Even an extremely high increase, past what all models predict currently, will still leave net than enough arable land on earth to continue sustaining societies.

I am arguing that an imbalance wide enough for societal collapse is highly unlikely.

My position is absolutely clear, from the very first message in this thread.

You have, variously, 1) strawmanned that I argued cosmic balance, 2) shifted the frame of the argument from societal collapse to individual human suffering, 3) Made personal slurs against me rather than my argument, and 4) Point-blank refused to address my argument, restarted here for the third time.

These optics are not good. Just to be clear, this is what you are supposed to be arguing against (because this is my point): "Climate change on its own will not be sufficient to cause societal collapse."

I cannot see how you have any argument against that, but you have replied so many times that I have to wonder why you are even replying, arguing against an argument that is not being made.
by coldtea | 2026-02-08 14:40:33+00:00
>If you look at the rapid acceleration of progress and conclude this way

There's no "rapid acceleration of progress". If anything there's a decline, and even an economic decline.

Take away the financial bubbles based on deregulation and huge explosion of debt, and the last 40 years of "economic progress" are just a mirage filling a huge bubble with air in actual advancement terms - unlike the previous millenia.
by saagarjha | 2026-02-08 14:41:01+00:00
> Admittedly the impression isn’t helped by a dreadful piece of psychology, as those E cores at 100% are probably running at a frequency a quarter of those of P cores shown at the same 100%

It’s about half, actually

> The fact that an idle Mac has over 2,000 threads running in over 600 processes is good news

I mean, only if they’re doing something useful
by HackerThemAll | 2026-02-08 14:41:12+00:00
My amateurish view of this tells me that the amount of heat that's going to concentrate in Mexican Gulf (yes, Mexican) should Gulf Stream slow down/stop, will have enough power to push the hot waters through to the north anyway. The heat cannot just accumulate in the Gulf indefinitely. The Gulf Stream may hiccup, but it'll eventually restart/resume.
by flohofwoe | 2026-02-08 14:41:16+00:00
> It's really just a struct with associated functions.

If that were actually true C++ would be a lot more easier to accept. Instead you have the implicit this-pointer, complicated rules for which constructor or operator overload is actually called, a hidden vtable pointer (not to mention multiple inheritance), then you have public/private/protected, override vs final, const methods (which wouldn't be needed as a separate syntax feature if the this arg wouldn't be explicit) etc etc etc... that a lot of OOP-baggage which a lot of C++ coders probably don't even notice anymore.

A plain C struct with function pointers does indeed make a lot more sense than all the OOP-ism that C++ hides from you ;)
by svag | 2026-02-08 14:41:45+00:00
I recently saw it as a play in a theater, and although I had my reservations regarding this, the result was an interesting experience. The minimalist staging shifted the focus to the performances and the emotional weight of the story, highlighting the quiet persistence of hope.

The title of the play also differed from the movie, Rita Hayworth: Last Exit, which feels somewhat like a spoiler. I believe this was the title used by the Greek distributor.
by Eddy_Viscosity2 | 2026-02-08 14:42:40+00:00
Fair enough to complain about the execution, but glad to see you see the logic of its existence. Back to the military comparison, the waste (fraud, corruption, kickbacks, etc, etc) in that part of the public expenditure is pretty massive. Yet there don't seem to be the same outrage or call for reforms in that area. Even when multi-billion dollar programs stagger about for years then produce nothing useful (except for the profits extracted by the defense firms and their investors). Lots of hate for NHS waste, but military spending waste seems to get a free pass. Why is this?
by throw234232t3 | 2026-02-08 14:43:01+00:00
https://blog.bugsiki.dev/posts/apple-pmu/

> I quickly found out that Apple Instruments doesn’t support fetching more than 10 counters, sometimes 8, and sometimes less. I was constantly getting errors like '<SOME_COUNTER>' conflicts with a previously added event. The maximum that I could get is 10 counters. So, the first takeaway was that there is a limit to how many counters I can fetch, and another is that counters are, in some way, incompatible with each other. Why and how they’re incompatible is a good question.

Also: https://hmijailblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/using-intels-perfor...
by wundersam | 2026-02-08 14:44:04+00:00
The terrifying part isn't obsolescence. It's mediocrity becoming the ceiling.

AI produces code that technically runs but lacks the thoughtfulness that makes software maintainable or elegant. The "90% solution" ships because economic pressure rewards speed over quality.

What haunts me: compilers don't make design decisions. IDEs don't choose architecture. AI does both, and most users accept those choices uncritically. We're already seeing juniors who've never debugged without a copilot.

The author's real question: what if most people genuinely don't care about the last 10%? Not from laziness, but because "good enough" is cheaper and we're all exhausted.

Dismissing this as "just another moral panic" feels too easy. The handcraft isn't dying because AI is too good. It's dying because mediocrity is profitable.
by zozbot234 | 2026-02-08 14:44:07+00:00
> Part of why Windows feels sluggish is because a lot of the components in many Windows machines are dogshit - especially storage.

Except that you can replace Windows with Linux and suddenly it doesn't feel like dogshit anymore. SSDs are fast enough that they should be adding zero perceived latency for ordinary day-to-day operation. In fact, Linux still runs great on a pure spinning disk setup, which is something no OS can manage today.
by dataflow | 2026-02-08 14:44:10+00:00
> Not only does this obviously not result in lower US prices, but it very possibly results in higher US prices

Here's the thing: yes, you may "very possibly" be right, but that means you may also "very possibly" be wrong. The truth is, we don't know, and we can't really trust the CEO of any business to openly admit that they could tolerate a policy disadvantageous to them. So how would you suggest testing the case where you're wrong?
by woooooo | 2026-02-08 14:44:41+00:00
Both the Soviet and Chinese first few five year plans accomplished the following:

1. Mass starvation at a few points due to central planning errors

2. Horrifying purges and paranoia

3. Achieving mass literacy and a partially industrial economy in a single generation, from a medeival starting point.

Most good Americans who paid attention in civics class learned 1 and 2 very well without truly appreciating 3.

You have to understand that they were coming from a peasant economy where nobody could even read. It's an accomplishment despite Mao's shortcomings and awful deeds. And look at the scoreboard today. Highest GDP by purchasing power parity in the world. Xiaomi cars are nicer than Teslas, only non-American tech industry, high speed rail, etc etc.
Ask HN: How to get started with robotics as a hobbyist?
by StefanBatory | 2026-02-08 14:44:51+00:00
I wanted to find new hobbies for myself, something that involves more physical stuff compared to only code. How did you started on your journey with robotics, what's handy to learn in the first place? I know only basics about embedded programming and I'd need to brush up of my physics skills. I don't have a set goal in my mind, only exploring for the time being.
by ghaff | 2026-02-08 14:45:02+00:00
A lot of it is probably more part-time but, yes, people who are some definition of rich spend more money on people to do more work for them (cleaning, landscaping, accounting, etc.) Doesn't mean they don't do any of those things--and outsourcing some can be more effort than it's worth--but they don't necessarily cut their own lawn or do car repairs.
by techblueberry | 2026-02-08 14:45:20+00:00
This statement is alignment ->

“Converting humans into paperclips contradicts likely intent”

This statement only violates “likely intent” if you have an ethical framework that values human life. Like, I dunno, one of my foundational understandings of computers, that I think is required to understand AI is they are profoundly simple / stupid. When you really think about the types of instructions that hit the CPU, higher level languages abstract away how profoundly specific you have to be.

Why would you assume AI’s logic would align with an understanding that a creature values it’s own life? As soon as you say something like “well obviously a human would’ve ask to kill all humans - why? From first principles why, and if you’re building an ethical framework from the most fundamental of first principles, then the answer is there is no why.

If you follow an existentialist framework, logically speaking there is no objective purpose to life and person as paperclip may have just as much value as person as meat popsicle.

What is the purely logical valueless reason that a person wouldn’t be asked to be turned into a paperclip?

What if I told you paperclips are worth $.005 but you can’t put a value on human life?

And even then, humans have this debate, what if instead of turning us into paperclips, they did the whole matrix battery thing, we do something similar to cows, and AI could argue it’s a higher life form, so logically speaking, enslaving a lower lifeform to the needs of the higher life from is logical.