MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by wooby | 2026-02-24 19:48:39+00:00
I built GridCalc because spreadsheets on phones feel fundamentally wrong.

On desktop, spreadsheets work because you can see formulas, references, and structure all at once. On mobile, that collapses. You’re constantly panning, zooming, tapping small cells, and losing context.

RPN (Reverse Polish Notation) removes parentheses and operator precedence by using a stack. Instead of writing = (a + b) * c, you enter a b + c *. The order of operations is explicit and linear.

GridCalc combines those ideas: a visible RPN stack with a reference grid.

It’s built for quick, ad-hoc modeling on a phone: loan calculations, position sizing, cash flow scenarios, engineering back-of-napkin math.

It’s not trying to replace Excel. It’s trying to make mobile calculation feel native instead of cramped.

Happy to answer questions about design decisions or implementation.
by kbolino | 2026-02-24 19:48:57+00:00
SQLCipher is not SQLite.

A key aspect of SQLite's development model is its proprietary test suite. As far as I can tell, the SQLCipher developers do not have access to those tests.

This is not to say they aren't doing the best with what they've got, but SQLCipher is a fork of SQLite, and the scope of the changes they must make, no matter how conservatively they try to make them, should lead to a full re-test of the entire product, which they cannot do.
by davorak | 2026-02-24 19:49:02+00:00
I think the level of ai we have is amazing.

> there are people out there who think it's trash because we can trick it if we ask questions in weird ways.

Some of this sentiment comes form wanting AI to be predictable and for me stumbling into questions that the current models interpret oddly is not uncommon. There are a bunch of rules of thumbs that can be used to help when you run into a cases like this but no guarantee that they will work, or that the problem will remain solved after a model update, or across models.
by rvnx | 2026-02-24 19:49:09+00:00
When you are investor and broadly choose to buy US companies (which is what most people do), you get Tesla in the list (e.g. QQQ) as part of the package, and this pushes price higher, no matter if you believe in Tesla specifically or not.

In addition, existing investors are very very deep into Tesla now, and don't want to lose.

The sandcastle is quite fragile so one of the best strategy for everyone (funds and Musk) is to keep buying more, no matter if the news are bad or not. It works, until other people disagree with you, but so far, nobody is interested into losing that game.
by ej88 | 2026-02-24 19:49:09+00:00
surprised nobody responded with the most straightforward, occams razor explanation

they think what they're doing is actually good for society

not everyone is in the hackerspace libertarian / socialist sphere

i used to work for a place that used persona despite it adding extra friction to signups (literally resulting in less paying customers to the dismay of PMs) because it was worth it to combat fraud. theres a tradeoff in everything
by moogly | 2026-02-24 19:49:19+00:00
Audi stopped Q8 e-tron production in early 2025. I don't know how much allocation the US has had of the semi-replacement (S)Q6, and A6 was not launched at all.

Q4 is a bit weird, since it's just a more expensive ID. 4, and not exactly more premium. Actually less premium feel than the sister car Skoda Enyaq, but that's not available in the US.

They're a bit out-of-phase with BMW and Mercedes right now, who just opened the books on their new platform cars. Perhaps you could argue it was bad timing with the Q6 being a bit of an "inbetweener", but the PPE platform was delayed, to be fair.
by bigstrat2003 | 2026-02-24 19:49:20+00:00
It's not a false equivalence at all. Both situations are taking away someone's control of something that they own, borne from a paternalistic desire to protect that person from themselves. If one is acceptable, the other should be. Conversely if one is unacceptable, the other should be unacceptable as well. Either paternalistic refusal to let people do as they wish is ok, or it isn't.
by dvt | 2026-02-24 19:49:48+00:00
I actually think SKILLS.md is such a janky way of doing this sort of thing, let alone the fact that's reliant on the oh-so-brittle Python ecosystem. Also way too much context/tokens being eaten up by something that could be piece-wise programmatically injected in the token stream.

Imo a bad idea, but alas.
by az09mugen | 2026-02-24 19:49:52+00:00
Here is the code edited from my laptop ;)

open Op;; open Var;; open Ctx;; open Ltal;; open Util;;

let debug msg = ();;

let rs = mkvar "rs";; let ra = mkvar "ra";; let rf = mkvar "rf";; let rt = mkvar "rt";; let rr = mkvar "rr";; let ru = mkvar "ru";;

let retty stackty aty = (Code(Ctx.from_list[(rs,stackty); (ra,aty); (rt,toptp); (rf,listtp); (rr,toptp)]))

let rec tt tctx ctx tp = match tp with Il.TVar a -> if bound tctx a then TVar a else lookup ctx a | Il.Int -> DTp Word | Il.Top -> DTp Top (* for now ) | Il.Tensor(t1,t2) -> Ref(Tcltal.mkpair (tt tctx ctx t1, tt tctx ctx t2)) | Il.Exists (alpha, tp) -> let beta = rename alpha in Exists (beta, W, tt tctx (extend ctx alpha (TVar beta)) tp) | Il.List t -> let tv = mkvar "list" in Mu(tv,NRef(Tcltal.mkpair(tt tctx ctx t, TVar tv))) | _ -> DTp(arrowtt tctx ctx tp)

and arrowtt tctx ctx t = match t with Il.Forall(alpha,t) -> let beta = Var.rename alpha in Forall(beta, W, arrowtt tctx (extend ctx alpha (TVar beta)) t) | Il.Arrow(t1,t2) -> let t1' = tt tctx ctx t1 in let t2' = tt tctx ctx t2 in let stk = mkvar "s" in Forall (stk,M, Code(Ctx.from_list[(rs,Stack(Tensor(t1',MTVar stk))); (ra,toptp); (rt,toptp); (rf,listtp); (rr,DTp(retty (Stack(MTVar stk)) t2'))]))

| _ -> tcfail "expected a function type in forall"

let typetrans tctx tp = tt tctx Ctx.emp tp let arrowtypetrans tctx t1 t2 = arrowtt tctx Ctx.emp (Il.Arrow (t1,t2))

( Need to specify the type ty of "the rest of the stack", in most cases alpha )

type code_env = {cctx : cctx; cs : code_section; fctx : Il.ctx; lctx : var Ctx.ctx; fp : int}

let get_fctx cenv = cenv.fctx let get_lctx cenv = cenv.lctx

type block_env = {cenv : code_env; ilist : instruction list; lab : clab; tctx : Ltal.tctx; rctx : Ltal.rctx}

let get_from_cenv f benv = f benv.cenv

exception CodeFail of string code_env exception BlockFail of string * block_env

(* val begin_fn : code_env -> clab -> register_file -> block_env val end_fn : block_env -> code_env val emit_label : fn_env -> clab -> dtp -> block_env val emit : block_env -> instruction -> block_env -> block_env val emit_end : end_instruction -> block_env -> fn_env val drop : reg -> block_env -> block_env val free : reg -> block_env -> block_env val push : reg -> reg -> block_env -> block_env val pop : reg -> reg -> block_env -> block_env val malloc : reg -> block_env -> block_env )

let do_print y x = (debug y; x)

let (>>) f g x = g(f(x)) let (>>=) f h x = let y = f x in h y x

let rec mkltp tctx rctx = Ctx.fold (fun t sk dtp -> let k = match sk with _,W -> W | _,M -> M in Forall(t,k,dtp)) tctx (Code (rctx))

let current_ltp benv = debug ("Generalizing "^(Ctx.pp_ctx (fun _ -> "") benv.tctx)^"\n"); ( rt is caller-save *) let rctx = update benv.rctx rt toptp in (mkltp benv.tctx rctx)
by kidsil | 2026-02-24 19:49:54+00:00
The input method needs to be improved.

I can imagine a camera-based input that would help detect the wagging of a tail, or continued interest in the visuals as an indicator of doubling-down on a given feature.

The dog could actually vibe code a game to their liking, but with the wrong input (a keyboard) it's a missed opportunity.
by forgotaccount3 | 2026-02-24 19:50:06+00:00
My only concern here is that it's using ex post facto information to try to dispute earlier assessments.

If I 'moved' some AI 'patents' to another country 5 years ago and stated they were worth $x using some formula and now some years later the government steps in and says 'No no no, you earned $x + $y and lied on the original value which should have represented the discounted future income!' that's not disputing the formula used in the original point. It's just that 5 years ago people underestimated how far and how valuable AI would be.
by fc417fc802 | 2026-02-24 19:50:35+00:00
So if I call in on the phone do they need a video feed of my surroundings to verify that I'm not being extorted? Perhaps if I come into a branch in person to make a large withdrawal they need a drug test to ensure that I'm not intoxicated?

They absolutely do not have any need to know anything about my bootloader or OS version or safety net or otherwise. It's certainly true that it is within the realm of physical possibility for them to put that information to good use in a responsible manner if they had access to it. But being able to make use of something is not the same as a legitimate need.
by bigstrat2003 | 2026-02-24 19:50:55+00:00
The status quo may not be perfect but it is the best we can do. We try to educate people about scams. We give them warnings that what they are doing can be dangerous if misused. If they choose to ignore those things and proceed anyway, the only further step society could take is to take away the person's freedom to choose. And that is an unacceptable solution.
by jerlam | 2026-02-24 19:51:12+00:00
It's the "forcing yourself to do something unpleasant" part which improves mental state, not the fitness itself. I suspect that people who find exercise enjoyable, or are forced to do it, don't get the same benefits.

This article is basically just the marshmallow test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen...

And 4-6 hours a week would be a low week for me =)
by triceratops | 2026-02-24 19:51:13+00:00
I'm aware tea has different names in different languages. I believe the rule is "cha if by land, tea if by water" (or maybe the other way around). That's not what I'm talking about.

Almost every purported etymology of a well-established word being an acronym of an even older phrase is an urban legend. Another example: "fuck" being an acronym for "fornication under consent of the king". It's baloney.

I'm not talking about modern words like "scuba" or "laser" obviously.
by muzani | 2026-02-24 19:51:21+00:00
Movies screenwriters seem to have found the perfect balance.

A character description looks like this: "APOLLO CREED. Creed is twenty-eight years old. He is a tall, smooth-muscled Black with barely a scar on his light coffee-colored face."

It includes everything important for casting this guy. It doesn't say what he's wearing, hair style, things like a wedding ring. Once they cast an actor, the actor fills this up.

Fight scenes are designed to be as fast to read as the action. Poor writing is something like, "Terrorists B and C fire RPGs at the van. The van makes evasive maneuvers. After the third rocket, the van flips off road." It doesn't make the story nor the scene clearer.

The better script: "The van takes evasive maneuvers to dodge the RPGs. BLAM! BOOM! BANG! The van flips off road."

Maybe when filming, they realize two rockets make more sense. Leave the implementation details to the experts.

However dialogue forms a large part of these scripts. Dialogue is engineered by writers, right down to the syllables. (Funny enough, AI screenwriters often forget syllables exist, and you can tell because they're difficult to actually speak)

What's the purpose of the spec? Instructions? To iron out risks and roadblocks? The document should aim for the bare minimum for that. What's your "dialogue" part - the thing that you need analysts to plan out precisely?
by oenton | 2026-02-24 19:51:22+00:00
> "I tried to trick an LLM and I did" is not exactly a noteworthy achievement at this stage in AI technology.

I agree it’s not surprising and I would also agree it’s not noteworthy, if the CEO of OpenAI wasn’t still making public statements like this:

People talk about how much energy it takes to train an AI model … But it also takes a lot of energy to train a human. It takes like 20 years of life and all of the food you eat during that time before you *get smart*.
by rootusrootus | 2026-02-24 19:51:29+00:00
At the risk of exposing my obvious naivety, my guess is that TSLA is a proxy purchase for many people for SpaceX. I won't be surprised if SpaceX becoming public causes TSLA to tank.

Or maybe it's all because of index funds. What bothers me most about that is that if TSLA tanks, so does a big chunk of the S&P 500 and therefore my 401(k). Hrmph.
by varenc | 2026-02-24 19:51:35+00:00
According to Persona's damage control article[0], the subdomain had "onyx" in its name because that's the internal code name for the project, and it's named after the pokémon Onyx. No connection to Fivecast ONYX.

[0] https://withpersona.com/blog/post-incident-review-source-map...
by therobots927 | 2026-02-24 19:51:58+00:00
That’s good to know. I agree the cameras are the root problem. Flock exacerbated that problem and I think it’s good for them to get some negative publicity.

You could say similar things about Palantir - that it’s just a figurehead and that the NSA / TIA has similar capabilities but it’s still important to use the figurehead as an example to others.

But yes in general I think it’s important to not let this stop here. Denver needs to be pressured to remove the cameras entirely. This is a defensive move on Denver’s part and it shows they’re on their back foot.
by plagiarist | 2026-02-24 19:52:02+00:00
This is the same complete bullshit trying to remove oneself from political donation emails. "Oh, okay, we will remove you from that one." Days later it's a "different campaign." Sometimes it's the exact same people from weeks ago who have just renamed their campaign and started sending again.

We need far stronger laws for all of it, which will never happen because the rot and corruption has fully metastasized.
by ralusek | 2026-02-24 19:52:04+00:00
Has AI transformed the economy radically? Yes.

Will it continue to transform the economy radically? Yes.

Will that translate to the model-makers somehow capturing the entire value of the transformed economy? No.

There were a few key moments that revealed this. When OpenAI initially declared "there is no moat," I wasn't sure whether to believe them. GPT 3.5 and 4 were so much better than the competition, it felt like them saying that they had no moat was some sort of attempt to avoid regulation or scrutiny. But then, lo and behold, Claude and Gemini caught up; there really was no moat.

But up until then, while it was clear that there was no moat around OpenAI, it was unclear if there was a moat around big tech. Mistral was meh. Even Meta's were meh. We also had no idea how much these models actually cost to run. It wasn't until the "DeepSeek moment," and especially once these open source models actually started being hosted on third party services, that it became clear that this was actually a competitive landscape.

And as has already been demonstrated, because the interface for all of these models is just plain language, the cost of switching models is basically non-existent.
by open592 | 2026-02-24 19:52:09+00:00
I checked with their "AI chat" about whether I could lock in current prices by renewing early but they said they would not allow this. I'm kind of surprised that there is no option to do this (I see Jetbrains as an example of a company which makes this very easy)

I've been a 1password customer for many years, so I'm a bit bummed out about this.
by FeloniousHam | 2026-02-24 19:52:11+00:00
I'd been a casual user for a while (very sporadically in illegal days, regularly once legalized). I happened to going through a fairly traumatic breakup, and felt that if it didn't actually help me get to sleep, it at least made the insomnia tolerable.

My life settled down, but I continued to smoke a tiny bit. One puff really, before bed pretty much every night. When things were crazy and awful, I didn't care about feeling mossy the next day, but as normal life resumed, it definitely started to affect my attention.

Then, the "intrusive thoughts" started. It's like having an edge lord in your head. Whatever you think about, the idea gets lensed(?) from the worst/most extreme possible viewpoint/conclusion. It's hard to describe, but it was very distracting, and often just depressing. And of course, waking up at 3am every night, this is what I had to look forward to. And sometimes, I'd take a little toke in the hopes I'd get back to sleep.

Here's the punchline: I quit smoking and it went away in two days and hasn't returned.
by famouswaffles | 2026-02-24 19:52:22+00:00
>I'm not saying it's not possible, but if we wipe out 2/3 of jobs with AI, who is going to be buying all the stuff?

Money is just a proxy for access to resources. If a machine that is capable of replacing almost all jobs is really created then money will matter much less than access to said machine.
Taken to the extreme to make the point, if you had a genie that could grant your every wish, what would you need money for ?
by ericmay | 2026-02-24 19:52:41+00:00
> If you want maintainers to stop complaining and filing potential petitions asking for funding via taxes etc, just pay them.

That's exactly what I want. If you want to give your product away for free, that's great! You're a better person for doing so. If you want to sell it, that's great too! You should be rewarded and compensated for building great stuff just like anyone else is.

But what I do not want to see as a citizen and taxpayer is "we want to build this for free, ope now we want to get paid and it's totally not fair that Meta took our free thing and did something productive with it and we need taxpayer dollars.". That's not fair to anyone, and solving that by "mandating" or "requiring" things is anti-free market, and against the free spirit of human creativity and entrepreneurship.

> When they become aware that their charity disproportionately benefits selfish people who have opposite inclinations

Let's not call it all charity though. You get invited to conferences, you get job opportunities you otherwise wouldn't get, you get to feel great about the thing you are working on - there's a lot of unpaid benefits, and under-the-table ones too.
by disgruntledphd2 | 2026-02-24 19:52:49+00:00
This study seems both wildly underpowered, chooses relatively bad methods for analysis (splitting between below average and above average, really?) and has far too many comparisions (they claim to have used bonferroni corrections where necessary, and then don't mention it again).

All in all, it's a pretty good example of modern psychological research. Bad statistics, hyped up findings and (probably) wild over-generalisation about what this tiny study means for society/the world/my research funding.

I think the biggest flaw here is around the measurement of VO2 max. So they first ask people how often they exercise (cos no-one ever lies) and then use a linear equation to map that to VO2 max. Granted, the equation has lines for age and sex, so it's not entirely useless, but if you're only going to sample 40 students then why not try to measure things a little better?

The most unintentionally hilarious thing about their methods section is that age was not normally distributed (according to a shapiro test). They sampled students, so of course it's not going to be normally distributed. Students have a well-known bias in age.

Ultimately, regardless of whether or not this finding turns out to be true (I like the idea of it, myself) this study provides absolutely no evidence for the effect.

Note: I have a PhD in psychology, but left the field a decade plus ago. I'm both horrified by this study, and also having a lot of fun poking holes in it, maybe I should try to get back into reviewing? ;)
by fxtentacle | 2026-02-24 19:53:01+00:00
I once lived in Singapore for a while and we were all sure that nobody would steal anything anyway, so we just never bothered to lock the doors. (That was also very helpful if you wanted to stop for a quick coffee with a date in the middle of the night.) You could see the MacBooks from the street, but nothing ever went missing. I don’t know what exactly it was, but Singapore felt incredibly safe and crime-free.
by gitbit-org | 2026-02-24 19:53:19+00:00
You mean to tell me, a social media company, whose sole job is to keep you on the platform by any means necessary, by showing you images and posts that will make you angry, jealous, upset, and allow you to say whatever you want from the safety of your home knew their platform was harming your mental health and hid that fact from you? I'm shocked! Shocked! Well, not that shocked.
by so-cal-schemer | 2026-02-24 19:53:30+00:00
Here's a better gauge for code density:

https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

How source-code size is measured

We start with the source-code markup you can see, remove comments, remove duplicate whitespace characters, and then apply minimum GZip compression. The measurement is the size in bytes of that GZip compressed source-code file.

Thanks to Brian Hurt for the idea of using size of compressed source-code instead of lines of code.

median
February 2025
===============
Toit 558
Perl 570
Lua 580
PHP 581
Ruby 583
Python 3 585
Julia 634
Chapel 646
Racket 696
JavaScript 698
OCaml 741
Erlang 798
Go 831
Dart 847
Smalltalk 871
Haskell 892
Java 910
Lisp 938
Swift 939
F# 943
Pascal 959
Fortran 1091
C# 1117
C 1121
C++ 1129
Rust 1235
Ada 1825
by lovenwork | 2026-02-24 19:54:16+00:00
LovenWork is a Swiss dating and professional networking app for ambitious professionals. It matches people using an archetype-based algorithm inspired by Holland’s RIASEC model, combining Work Synergy and Life Passion to help you find a co-founder or a life partner.

Key Features:
Archetype-based matching with compatibility scoring (Work Synergy + Life Passion)
Two modes: Work Mode (collaboration) and Love Mode (dating)
Verified profiles via work email or portfolio
Designed for ambitious people whose identity is tied to work, projects, and passions

Use Cases:
A founder finds a co-founder matched on complementary work archetypes and work style
A freelancer connects with collaborators and mentors aligned with professional goals
A professional meets a partner matched on values, lifestyle, and authentic chemistry
A new member builds a trusted network through verified profiles
by rootusrootus | 2026-02-24 19:54:33+00:00
> Elon's hand gesture, which was 100% not a nazi salute

Yes, much like how the J6 adventure was a guided tour. The problem with assertions like yours is that both of these things were caught on video, which makes them somewhat more difficult to make plausible excuses for.

Most of us manage to go our whole lives without getting accused of making nazi salutes, not because we are magic, but because we just don't make them. It's just this one, simple trick!
by mindslight | 2026-02-24 19:54:35+00:00
Basically yes. The Trump regime is made up of the absolute worst kind of people. They are utterly incapable of comprehending any of the real problems that we face. The only thing they know how to do is attack and bully in an attempt to make others do whatever simple thing can fit inside their own heads. The sad part is how many otherwise-intelligent people they fooled (and continue to fool) with their hollow chest-thumping.
by 0xy | 2026-02-24 19:54:48+00:00
PayPal is steadily decreasing in share of web payments, with the one redeeming part of their business being Venmo, which appears to be crushing Cash App.

Adyen competes primarily on price with no feature differentiation, and doesn't have the same ease-of-use.

Working at several large companies in payments areas who were Stripe customers, I'll sum up what the competition looks like by paraphrasing one of the executives I reported to: "we go to Adyen when we want to take a competing offer to Stripe for them to match".