MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by conartist6 | 2026-02-27 18:49:55+00:00
To quote the article:

> If you want to stream arbitrary JavaScript values, use async iterables directly

OK, so we have to do this because code points are numbers larger than 8 bits, so they're arbitrary JS values and we have to use async iterables directly. This is where the amount of per-item overhead in an async iterable starts to strangle you because most of the actual work being done at that point is tearing down the call stack between each step of each iterator and then rebuilding it again so that the debugger has some kind of stack traces (if you're using for await of loops to consume the iterables that is).
by grvbck | 2026-02-27 18:49:57+00:00
I think the narrative is more difficult now, as is visibility of goals. “Land a man on the Moon and return him safely” is a crisp, cinematic objective, while “decarbonize the global economy” or “make AI safe and useful” are fuzzier, slower, and don’t give you a single flag‑planting moment.

But there's no lack of huge achievements. The Mars rovers are amazing: super-sonic parachutes, retro rockets, deploying a little helicopter with no real-time control is huge. So is planting JWST at the L2 point and unfolding it a million miles from earth.

Also, the NASA budget in the 1960's was 10 times higher.
by seniorThrowaway | 2026-02-27 18:51:01+00:00
It's really not that hard to run them in docker. Can give them a nestybox (with a little work) sidecar so they can run docker-in-docker. As far as permissions, the only mental model that makes sense to me is treating them like actual people. Bound their permissions in the other systems not on their own machines, basically zero trust. For instance for email, most mail apps have had delegated permissions for a while, executives use it to have their assistants read and write their mail. That's what is needed with these too.
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2026-02-27 18:51:05+00:00
I wouldn't call it a hack, but it's not a general alternative for memory allocated on the heap since the lifetime is tied to that of the allocating function.

I think what you're referring to is an arena allocator where you allocate a big chunk of memory from the heap, then sequentially sub-allocate from that, then eventually free the entire heap chunk (arena) in one go. Arena allocators are therefore also special use case since they are for when all the sub-allocations have the same (but arbitrary) lifetime, or at least you're willing to defer deallocation of everything to the same time.

So, heap, arena and stack allocation all serve different purposes, although you can just use heap for everything if memory allocation isn't a performance issue for your program, which nowadays is typically the case.

Back in the day when memory was scarce and computers were much slower, another common technique was to keep a reuse "free list" of allocated items of a given type/size, which was faster than heap allocate and free/coalesce, and avoided the heap fragmentation of random malloc/frees.
by avoutic | 2026-02-27 18:51:07+00:00
In the end it will all be about separation of duty between agents in a larger team and isolating the ones that need more access to your private stuff.

Wardgate acts like a drop in replacement for curl with full access control at the url / method / content level, so you can allow specific curl access to specific APIs but prevent all other outbound connections. That's what I use for my PA agent. She's very limited and can't access the open internet. Doesn't need it either
by fweimer | 2026-02-27 18:51:14+00:00
And the arms industry has been pushing smart mines for decades, so that they can keep selling them despite the really bad long-term consequences (well beyond the end of hostilities) and the Ottawa Treaty ban. In the end, land mines are killing people although the mines are supposed to be sufficiently advanced not to target persons.

From a security perspective, the “return to base” part seems rather problematic. I doubt you'd want to these things to be concentrated in a single place. And I expect that the long-term problems will be rather similar to mines, even if the electronics are non-operational after a while.
by qingcharles | 2026-02-27 18:51:23+00:00
Especially if you can time your visit to Florida with a launch. Seeing the Shuttle launch in real life made me realize what a poor medium television is to actually show you reality.

(I don't know what the current policies are but you used to be able to apply in advance for VIP tickets, or buy them on the secondary market, which gives you much closer viewing of the launch)
by bombcar | 2026-02-27 18:51:27+00:00
Factorio has phenomenal first-party modding support I've heard - https://lua-api.factorio.com/latest/

And of course, I wonder how many programmers today owe their jobs to Minecraft modding - Java modding is amazingly well supported, even if not always directly by Microsoft/Mojang.

1.7.10 for life!
by fc417fc802 | 2026-02-27 18:51:31+00:00
In my experience if they're semicircular it's because they're folded over on themselves. Not sure what that has to do with cooking (or not) both sides.

Your ingredient mixing distinction doesn't reflect what I've encountered. That seems to have more to do with the nature of a given ingredient or alternatively with presentation or other concerns specific to a given recipe.

Yeah if you wanted "cooked separately and also circular" you'd need to make a two omelette sandwich. I've yet to encounter that at a restaurant.
by fuzzfactor | 2026-02-27 18:51:39+00:00
>the tube amp and the guitar are seperable

Eminently separable, but it's good to be aware of the tradeoffs.

Not magic at all, physics.

It's good to understand that high-impedance is not the biggest deal, but one thing about the magnetic pickups that not everybody realizes is the way that plugging directly into a tube (pre)amp basically magnetically couples the strings to the grid of the input tube.

And that grid has no further physical connection to any other components in the circuit, not even within the same tube, except for clouds of electrons and the flow that occurs among the electrodes.

That way your music basically starts out being sprayed through space directly from the strings which create the magnetic signal.

The thing about high-impedance is the way the relatively minuscule resistor values between the amp's input jack and the input grid's tube pin are so insignificant by comparison to the pickup internal impedance, that resistance might as well be zero.

The only reason there is a resistor in between the input jack and the input grid anyway is to accommodate a high-impedance input with better stability under wider conditions than otherwise.

Now you can get a righteous sound with any number of pedals in between the guitar & amp, especially if the battery power is used to boost the signal to more than the guitar puts out magnetically, and it's been the mainstream for so long people almost never consider doing it any other way.

It's just not the same magnetic coupling from the strings to the tube, you can't have both unless it's a tube pedal.

I've designed lots of solid state circuits too and there is plenty of excellence when coupling the same magnetic pickup directly to a silicon or germanium crystal lattice and going from there. Whether it's pedals or a pure solid-state amp. Instead of using any tubes at all.

Also some people prefer having tubes only for the audio output section, coupled to the magnetic speakers through the antique-style audio output transformer the old-fashioned way.
by meatmanek | 2026-02-27 18:51:40+00:00
obligatory CGP Grey https://youtu.be/eE_IUPInEuc?t=74

> Confusion continues because: People who live in the Hollands are called Hollanders, but all citizens of the Netherlands are called Dutch as is their language.

> But in Dutch they say: "Nederlands sprekende Nederlanders in Nederland" which sounds like they'd rather we call them Netherlanders speaking Netherlandish.

> Meanwhile, next door in Germany, they're "Deutsche sprechen Deutsch in Deutschland". Which sounds like they'd rather be called Dutch.
by margalabargala | 2026-02-27 18:52:09+00:00
I think it's actually a reasonable comparison.

To OP's point, Artemis has cost $92 billion over 14 years. This has produced exactly one launch.

It's hard to put an exact timeline on Starship since a lot of its development overlaps with Falcon 9 using the same components, but it's inarguable that it has cost one tenth Artemis so far.

I agree that Starship has been plagued by delays and the capabilities are so far mostly just talk. However, it has flown a number of times, and I would be willing to make a strong bet that it will orbit the moon with real payload long before it catches up to Artemis in budget.
by GMoromisato | 2026-02-27 18:52:57+00:00
This is a good change. To summarize for those not following closely:

SLS, a rocket derived from Shuttle tech, takes astronauts on the Orion spacecraft to the vicinity of the moon. From there, a lander built by either SpaceX or Blue Origin will take the astronauts to the surface and then back to Orion. The astronauts will then return to Earth in Orion.

Artemis I flew a couple of years ago and took an uncrewed Orion spacecraft around the moon and back to Earth.

Artemis II, which should hopefully fly in April, will take 4 astronauts around the moon--the first time humans have been that far in space in 50+ years.

Artemis III was going to be a crewed moon landing, planned around 2028, but between delays in the lander development and the complexity of this mission, no one expected it to happen on time.

The major change that NASA has announced is to launch SLS more often--ideally once every 10 months. There are two major advantages to this:

1. More frequent launches will improve reliability because the team/engineers will understand the system better. There will be more commonality between launches.

2. With more launches before the end of the decade deadline there are more opportunities for intermediate milestones. In particular, Artemis III will turn into an Earth-orbit mission in which Orion will dock with one or both of the landers. This will test out the system before heading to the moon. Moreover, NASA plans to have at least two lunar landing attempts in 2028, which means that even if the first attempt is scrubbed, they will still have a chance to land before the end of the decade.
by wat10000 | 2026-02-27 18:53:32+00:00
Basically because we don't feel like it.

If you look at the unmanned side of NASA, that's going great. NASA can get amazing stuff done.

The manned side gets political attention, and the nature of current politics makes it a bad kind of attention. Results are essentially irrelevant. Jobs and cronyism are the point.

The overall design of the Space Launch System makes very little sense. We know all too well that solid rockets are a bad idea for crewed spaceflight. Hydrogen is a bad fuel for a first stage. It's horrendously wasteful to use expensive, complicated engines designed to be reused, and then throw them away on every launch. Early estimates were over $2 billion per launch, which in the current age is total clownshoes. The actual costs will be much higher still.

So why are they doing it? Because using all this old, rather inappropriate tech allows them to keep paying the contractors for it. If you gave NASA a pile of money and told them to build a moon program, they wouldn't build this. But it's not their choice.
by wrsh07 | 2026-02-27 18:53:32+00:00
To be clear, I don't think anthropic is itself intervening.

The concerns they've raised about authoritarianism is "AI enabling authoritarians."

When they push back on the US government wanting to use Claude to (legally) surveil US citizens, that still feels consistent to me as a concern about authoritarianism.

I think it's reasonable to hear high minded ideals and become skeptical, but in this case I'm surprised that people are trying to accuse them of hypocrisy
by shimman | 2026-02-27 18:53:54+00:00
If they are terrified of China why aren't they doing more diplomacy or at minimum, not allow NVIDIA to sell their chips to them?

Sorry but the China scare tactics is just more cold war nonsense. The idea China as a serious threat to anyone in the world where you have the USA invading countries (invading Iraq based on lies), kidnapping Presidents (Venezula), assassinating various leaders (drone strikes), abusing democratic ideals (Patriot act, PRISM, parallel construction, using banned chemical weapons against their own civilians; the USA has been a huge threat against the world and itself for the last 25 years.
by schiffern | 2026-02-27 18:54:06+00:00
That's ignoring the huge distinction between manned flight (where failure is not an option) and unmanned tests. NASA and SpaceX both know this concept well.

Terming it a "SpaceX like approach" and connecting to Apollo 1 is a neat trick, but SpaceX wouldn't (and doesn't) adopt a risky approach during manned flights.
by XCSme | 2026-02-27 18:54:21+00:00
Why the downvote?

LE: Searching for "LinkedIn" I do get results, but not for "Reddit", maybe they haven't updated the policy yet, or they are not required to disclose that?

But in the email it says "We'll share hashed emails with Reddit and LinkedIn so we can target ads better. We have updated our privacy policy."
by microtonal | 2026-02-27 18:54:37+00:00
How do I make sure if my phone does get confiscated, Cellebrite can't image it or access the data?"

In this context one super-nice feature of GrapheneOS (do check the legal ramifications though, IANAL) is that it supports a duress PIN. It's an alternative PIN that immediately erases your phone (probably throws away your FDE keys?) and clears your eSIM.

Besides that, it also supports configurable time to reboot after no unlocks. This is relevant because it is typically much harder to exfiltrate data BFU (before first unlock) than after. iPhone also supports this, but only does it after I think 3 or 4 days. On GrapheneOS, this can be set as short as 10 minutes when there is a risk of your phone getting confiscated. Of course, you can also manually reboot, but that's not possible in every situation.
by maniazi83 | 2026-02-27 18:54:40+00:00
One thing we intentionally avoided was long-term storage. Many file tools quietly retain inputs longer than users expect.

Our default model is:

Source deleted immediately after processing

Converted output expires after 24h

Logs retained up to 30 days (metadata only)

No file contents stored in logs

If anyone here runs file-processing infrastructure, I’d genuinely love to know — what retention window do you consider reasonable for this category?
by selridge | 2026-02-27 18:54:43+00:00
You could absolutely randomize care between a doctor and an AI under an IRB. I’d be stunned if there aren’t a dozen studies doing something like this already.

You have to justify it, but most places have sections in the document where you request review to justify it. It’s not any different from giving one patient heart medicine that you think works and another patient a sugar pill.
by mmorse1217 | 2026-02-27 18:55:34+00:00
Discretize the AABB with a certain length proportional to the morton code grid size so that each sample point will land in a distinct but continuous sequence of morton codes enclosing the AABB, compute the hash of each of those points, then dump all of those morton codes into the sort and reverse lookup the other AABBs with the same morton code :)

The problem comes at scale, when you have many AABBs with different sizes. Memory pressure can be punishing and you are bottlenecked by the network for distributed solutions. Is there a faster way with fewer points? I would love to know!
by cyrusradfar | 2026-02-27 18:55:55+00:00
Appreciate that perspective and assumed some folks would feel that way.

I am more interested in testing if folks have the problem and like the shape of the solution, before I try to decide on the model to sustain it. Open Source to me is saying -- "hey do you all want to help me build this?"

I'm not even at the point of knowing if it should exist, so why start asking people to help without that validation.

I work(ed) with OSS projects that have terrible times sustaining themselves and don't default to it bc of that trauma.

Thanks for stopping by.
by base76 | 2026-02-27 18:56:03+00:00
CognOS is a trust verification gateway that sits between your application
and any LLM provider (OpenAI, Claude, Google, Mistral, Ollama).

Every AI decision gets:
- Cryptographic proof of what was decided
- Immutable audit trace for compliance (EU AI Act, GDPR, SOC2)
- Risk signals: epistemic uncertainty, aleatoric uncertainty, OOD detection
- Policy enforcement: monitor (log only) or enforce (block/refine/escalate)

The kicker: it's a drop-in replacement. Just change your LLM provider URL.

## Why This Matters

AI decisions without proof are a liability. If an LLM-powered app causes harm:
- Healthcare: "I prescribed what?" – no audit trail
- Finance: "We denied the loan because...?" – no evidence
- Law: Discovery demands proof of how the decision was made

CognOS gives you that proof.

## Quick Start

```bash
git clone https://github.com/base76-research-lab/operational-cognos.gi...
pip install -r requirements.txt
export COGNOS_MOCK_UPSTREAM=true
python3 -m uvicorn --app-dir src main:app --port 8788
``` {data-source-line="40"}

Or Docker:
```bash
docker-compose up
``` {data-source-line="45"}

Test:
```bash
curl -X POST http://127.0.0.1:8788/v1/chat/completions \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{
"model": "gpt-4o-mini",
"messages": [{"role":"user","content":"Is this output safe?"}],
"cognos": {"mode":"monitor"}
}'
``` {data-source-line="56"}

## What's Included

- Proof engine (epistemic + aleatoric UQ)
- Multi-provider routing (OpenAI, Claude, Google, Mistral, Ollama)
- SQLite trace persistence
- Compliance report generation (JSON/CSV/PDF)
- Python SDK (pip install cognos-sdk)
- Docker + docker-compose

## Status

PoC ready. MIT licensed. Looking for:
- Early adopters (compliance-critical industries)
- Feedback on UX + API design
- Collaborators (epistemology, formal verification)

https://github.com/base76-research-lab/operational-cognos
by conartist6 | 2026-02-27 18:56:03+00:00
I'm fairly sure it's not Promises that are actually the heavy part but the `await` keyword as used in the `for await` loop. That's because await tries to preserve the call stack for debugging, making it a relatively high-level expensive construct from a perf perspective where a promise is a relatively low-level cheap one.

So if you're going to flatten everything into one stream then you can't have a for loop implementation that defensively awaits on every step, or else it'll be slooooooooow. That's my proposal for the change to the language is a syntax like

for await? (value of stream) {
}

which would only do the expensive high-level await when the underlying protocol forced it to by returning a promise-valued step.
by leonflexo | 2026-02-27 18:56:20+00:00
Systemic inefficiencies aside. I wonder how much of that is a public funding feedback loop? The cost gets higher, because the standards, requirements, and processes are stricter, because there is the need to validate the use of public funds, exacerbated by being higher, increasing the standards/requirements etc etc... Especially in a political environment where there is no shortage of sniping funding for points.

Regardless, first thing it reminded me of was that interview quote about how if nasa had SpaceX track record they would have lost funding long ago. Is there a US political landscape, even back to 2008-2016, where that isn't the case?
by xenadu02 | 2026-02-27 18:56:21+00:00
We use a center-tap neutral except for commercial/industrial that receives three phase.

Most small-to-medium homes/businesses have two hot legs coming off each side of the transformer coil. The neutral is connected to the center of the coil and bonded to earth/ground so it becomes a 0v reference. Each hot leg to neutral is 120v. Between hot legs gives 240v. That neatly supports both voltages in a backwards-compatible way. Typically clothes dryers, hot water heaters, ovens/stoves, etc are 240v appliances. Lamps, USB chargers, and other small day-to-day stuff is 120v.

There are two failure modes that can happen but they are rare and usually only affect the customers attached to the affected transformer or a single customer.

1. Floating neutral. If the neutral becomes disconnected that causes floating voltages as the electricity backs up across the neutral and returns via the opposing hot leg. This presents as randomly fluctuating high/low voltages to 120v appliances but most 240v appliances don't use then neutral and don't care.

2. Damaged hot leg. One hot leg partially arcs to ground or is otherwise damaged. This causes half the 120v appliances to flicker/brown out. 240v appliances will see random low voltages.

Three phase is often delivered as wild leg/high leg delta so a neutral can be derived. It is usually setup so one phase (eg A/C) is center-tapped to make the neutral and two hot legs. This gives three phase power per normal and the same setup as a normal home would have: A/C forms two 120v legs wrt the center tap neutral. However you get 208v between the other phases and neutral so for high density housing you also need to balance the phases resulting in some apartments having 208v power rather than 240v. Thus most 240v appliances also support 208v here but unless you've lived in an apartment or worked on commercial/restaurant systems you'd never see that voltage.

Our breaker panels have 3-phase variants. You'd usually install both: a 240/120 panel for "normal" loads and a 3-phase panel for 3-phase and 240v split phase loads. Breaker design is the same: 3-pole takes up three slots and the bus bars alternate by 3 so every third point is on a different phase.
by prescriptivist | 2026-02-27 18:56:59+00:00
I have an agent system analyzing time series data periodically. What I've landed on is the tools themselves pre-process time series data, giving it more semantic meaning. AKA converting timestamps to human dates, additionally preprocessing it with statistical analysis, such as calculating current windows min/mean/max value for the series as well as a the same for a trailing window and surfacing those in the data. Also adding a volatility score, and doing things like collapsing runs of similar series that aren't particularly interesting from a volatility perspective and just trying to highlight anomalous series in the window in various ways.

This isn't anything new. It's not particularly technical or novel in any way, but it seems to work pretty well for identifying anomalies and comparing series over time horizons. It's even less token efficient on small windows than piping in a bunch of json, but it seems to be more effective from an analysis point of view.

The strange thing about it is that it involves fairly deterministic analysis before we even send the data to the LLM, so one might ask, what's the point if you're already doing analysis? The answer is that LLMs can actually find interesting patterns across a lot of well presented data, and they can pick up on patterns in a way that feels like they are cross-referencing many different time series and correlate signals in interesting ways. That's where the general purpose LLMs are helpful in my experience.

Breaking out analysis into sub-agents is a logical next step, we just haven't gotten there yet.

And yeah the goal is to approximate those of us engineers who are good at RCAs in the moment, who have instincts about the system and can juggle a bunch of tabs and cross reference the signals in them.