MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by deaux | 2026-02-12 14:48:29+00:00
No, the word has long lost that purpose. You unfortunately don't influence whether it has or hasn't. Once upon a time "gay" only meant "happy". You can claim "Well when I call a random person enormously gay, I just mean they're enormously happy", but it doesn't matter. You're in a community that uses English, not andsoitislish.

For reference, I wish you were right, it would be great if indeed the word still served that purpose - but it doesn't.
by nekusar | 2026-02-12 14:48:53+00:00
That whole account, posts, everything is LLM generated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_J._Rathbun

American carcinologist (1860–1943), studies crabs. Opencrab, gee golly, the coincidence.

Bigger question: when a self-hosted LLM can open up accounts, do harassment campaigns at speed of LLM: how the fuck do you defend against this?

I can do the same, and attack with my own Openclaw DoS. But that doesnt stop it. Whats our *defenses* here?
by that_guy_iain | 2026-02-12 14:49:05+00:00
> Viva.com, one of Europe's largest payment processors, sends verification emails without a Message-ID header — a basic requirement of RFC 5322 since 2008. Google Workspace rejects them outright. Their support team's response to my detailed bug report: "your account has a verified email, so there's no problem."

Their emails do arrive tho? It was your email that didn't arrive? I find it unbelievable that a payment provider ignored customer complaining about no emails being delivered since it would breach their SLAs with their customers and their customers' customers would have complained. Especially since at the top you say Google says you got the verified email.

Dude, you may be liable for damages on this. This is an extremely serious allegation to be making in my opinion. I would delete this asap.
by andsoitis | 2026-02-12 14:49:49+00:00
> > OK, let's assume that.

> No need to assume, they have explicitly stated it!

Really honest question... can you point us to that explicit statement?

The Trump administration's official executive orders and fact sheets repeatedly state their goal is to have "free, fair, and honest elections".

They have specific policy proposals around voter ID, citizenship verification, and election integrity measures.

I will concede that what they think is free and fair, others might not, like legal ID requirement, so that's a requirement reasonable people can disagree on.

But I do think, but am very open to be proven wrong, that they explicitly state that they want to do away with free elections.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/pres...

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-pr...
by codingdave | 2026-02-12 14:49:57+00:00
Not everyone works the same way. These ideas surely will work well for some people, but there are others who feel utterly blocked by a clean workspace and need some clutter to get them rolling. There are also people with various types of neurodivergence who have their own unique needs. Arguably, people who need complete cleanliness to get work done fit into that category as well, and I include myself in that category.

I'm sure the author wasn't trying to tell the whole world to "Do it my way.", and was just offering some advice on one thing that worked for them. But it would read so much better if they wrote it that way, instead of writing it all about telling "you" how to organize your work.
by Kim_Bruning | 2026-02-12 14:49:58+00:00
We could, but the way I read the dictionary, a goal doesn't require life, agency, or even autonomy by itself.

I think understanding goals or set points is a useful concept in control theory.

I don't think many technologies have had "motivations" before, though they have had "motivators", but that's something completely different :-P.

I'm not sure how you'd encode "improve this open source project" in earlier technologies.

I think it's reasonable to call that a type of motivation.

We call a robot arm an arm too, even if it's not made of meat.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/goal
[2] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/goal
by lucideer | 2026-02-12 14:50:03+00:00
> That item has value equivalent to the money given for it, therefore that item has value.

> Money is just the measure of value

Money is the measure of market value. If you believe it's the measure if inherent value, you believe anything outside of the market has no value. E.g. that human lives have no value outside of waged labour (or heck, even slavery).

The point here is the monetary value is a model of value, not the definition of it.
by iso1631 | 2026-02-12 14:50:11+00:00
> Their support team's response to my detailed bug report: "your account has a verified email, so there's no problem."

Sadly I doubt their system is xkcd806 compatible ether.

This isn't an engineering problem, it's an ITIL problem. To be fair 99% of these complaints will be dealt with by the flow chart. Sadly people on the front line are either not knowledgable enough or not empowered enough to bust out of that straightjacket.
by Jgrubb | 2026-02-12 14:50:44+00:00
I agree with the other poster and gladly converted to a paying customer of Wispr because they did this right.

Honestly, I bet your question is exactly what every team adjacent to this problem at Apple is doing. Pointing fingers at each other and saying, "This isn't my problem. This is some other team." It's so egregiously broken that obviously no one inside there considers it their problem. I think this must be rampant at Apple currently. There's just no explanation for how their software has gone so completely to shit over the last ten years.
by smallmancontrov | 2026-02-12 14:50:44+00:00
Surely the reason why appeasement isn't working is that we just haven't appeased hard enough!

"Both sides" / "tribes bad" / "transcend the conflict" discourse is such cancer, because intentionally ignoring the most pertinent parameters of a conflict is not a neutral choice. When Donald Trump said he would end the Russia/Ukraine conflict on Day 1, we didn't fear that he was lying, we feared that he was serious because we all knew that the only way to actually do it would have been to force Ukrainian defeat. When your toddler is screaming because the smell of cooking has made him hungry but he has to wait, giving in to his demands is not conflict-transcending 3D chess, it's teaching your kid that tantrums are an effective tool. The same goes for politics.
by techpression | 2026-02-12 14:51:05+00:00
I mean they want to make money right? CC is a cool tool, but obviously they want you to use the api eventually if you’re even remotely a power user, 200/month for all you can eat tokens (well, until some arbitrary limit of the day kicks in) just doesn’t make sense when compared to api prices.
In other words, CC should be seen as a software subscription.
by logicallee | 2026-02-12 14:51:06+00:00
I agree with this article completely, nice to see it presented quantitatively.

>re "only" the harness changed

In our experience, AI's are like amnesiacs who can barely remember what they did three minutes ago (their last autonomous actions might still be in their context if you're lucky), with no chance at remembering what they did three days ago. As such, the "harness" determines their entire memory and is the single most important determinant of their outcome.

The best harness is a single self-contained, well-commented, obvious, and tiny code file followed by a plain explanation of what it does and what it's supposed to do, the change request, how you want it to do it (you have to say it with so much force and confidence that the AI is afraid of getting yelled at if they do anything else) and a large amount of text devoted to asking the AI not to break what is already working. Followed by a request to write a test that passes. Followed by asking for its judgment about whether it broke what was already working on or not. All in one tiny crisp prompt.

With such a harness, it's able to not break the code one time in twenty. If you use reverse psychology and ask it to do the opposite of what you want, it rises to fifty-fifty odds you'll get what you're trying to do.

Don't believe me? You can watch the livestream (see my previous comments).

Baby steps toward Utopia.
by PurpleRamen | 2026-02-12 14:51:18+00:00
Good enough AI is not cheap (yet). So at the moment it's more a scenario for people who are rich enough. Though, small projects with little maintenance-burden might be at a risk here.

But thinking about, this might be a new danger to get us into another xz-utils-situation. The big malicious actors have enough money to waste and can scale up the amount of projects they attack and hijack, or even build themselves.
by MadcapJake | 2026-02-12 14:51:55+00:00
I would love to see a model designed by curating the training data so that the model produces the best responses possible. Then again, the work required to create a training set that is both sufficiently sized and well vetted is astronomically large. Since Capitalism teaches that we most do the bare minimum needed to extract wealth, no AI company will ever approach this problem ethically. The amount of work required to do the right thing far outweighs the economic value produced.
by deaux | 2026-02-12 14:51:58+00:00
> both of which are heavily influenced by big players who encourage the consumer to feel guilty while paying both for the resource they are using

Hah, if only. Man, I wish that companies succeeded in doing that, then we'd have a lot more people making such sacrifices. That'd be great.

No one wants their customer to feel guilty because it makes them less likely to buy the product. It's the worst nightmare of any marketer.
by BoorishBears | 2026-02-12 14:52:07+00:00
I don't know why this is getting a negative reaction: there was already a 3 year gap between season 1 and 2, and watching this show originally it felt like a 1-2 season premise.

It becomes a very different show (and yes, probably very Lost-like) if they have to make it last 4+ seasons.
by pbmonster | 2026-02-12 14:52:14+00:00
disposable e-cig cartridge batteries are a disgrace and should be illegal, but that's not hindering grid scale battery build out.

First of all, the resources those tiny batteries use are less than a drop in the bucket of what we ideally would like to add to the grid, and secondly, we're currently nowhere close to being limited by battery capacity. China alone had the industrial capacity to produce more than 2 TWh of new batteries last year, but they actually produced a bit less than 1 TWh because there was no market demand for this many batteries.

They just overbuilt production capacity by over 100%, per their industrial policy.
by st_goliath | 2026-02-12 14:52:26+00:00
> Viva.com's outgoing verification emails lack a Message-ID header, a requirement that has been part of the Internet Message Format specification (RFC 5322) since 2008

> ...

> `Message-ID` is one of the most basic required headers in email.

Section 3.6. of the RFC in question (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322.html) says:

+----------------+--------+------------+----------------------------+
| Field | Min | Max number | Notes |
| | number | | |
+----------------+--------+------------+----------------------------+
| | | | |
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

... bla bla bla ...

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
| message-id | 0* | 1 | SHOULD be present - see |
| | | | 3.6.4 |
|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

... more bla bla ...

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|
| optional-field | 0 | unlimited | |
+----------------+--------+------------+----------------------------+

and in section 3.6.4:

... every message SHOULD have a "Message-ID:" field.

That says SHOULD, not MUST, so how is it a requirement?
by basilikum | 2026-02-12 14:52:31+00:00
With fintech that surprises me not the slightest bit. Financial institutions are filled to the brim with unbelievably incompetent people. A large part of it is probably willful ignorance, too. It's often truly staggering that a financial company I interact with in day to day live is even able to exist. That's until I remember that all the others are just as incompetent.

"Major European Payment Processor" really just translates to "Major European Incompetence Center".
Show HN: Analyzing ~10k professional product reviews to calculate a single score
by gghootch | 2026-02-12 14:52:32+00:00
For years I’ve trusted Metacritic’s approach to rating games / movies / tv shows: collect all pro reviewers’ articles, score them and then calculate a meta score. In my experience it’s the best way to discover new things to watch or play

I often wished something like this would exist for physical products as right now I’m usually stuck doing days of manual research online myself.

Over the past 4 weeks I’ve been building an experiment that applies the same aggregation idea to tech products. It collects professional reviews, extracts and normalizes scores, and produces a single “critic score” per product.

So far the dataset includes ~9,630 reviews across 1339 products. As a small sanity check, I compared the results against two recent purchases of mine, and the “best for most” recommendation matched what I eventually chose after many hours of manual research.

I’m curious how others here think about this approach, especially around score normalization, bias between publications, and whether a single aggregated score is actually useful when evaluating products.
by jerf | 2026-02-12 14:52:36+00:00
There is a sense in which it is relevant, which is that for all the attempts to fix it, fundamentally, an LLM session terminates. If that session never ends up in some sort of re-training scenario, then once the session terminates, that AI is gone.

Yeah, I'm aware of the moltbot's attempts to retain some information, but that's a very, very lossy operation, on a number of levels, and also one that doesn't scale very well in the long run.

Consequently, interaction with an AI, especially one that won't have any feedback into training a new model, is from a game-theoretic perspective not the usual iterated game human social norms have come to accept. We expect our agents, being flesh and blood humans, to have persistence, to socially respond indefinitely into the future due to our interactions, and to have some give-and-take in response to that. It is, in one sense, a horrible burden where relationships can be broken beyond repair forever, but also necessary for those positive relationships that build over years and decades.

AIs, in their current form, break those contracts. Worse, they are trained to mimic the form of those contracts, not maliciously but just by their nature, and so as humans it requires conscious effort to remember that the entity on the other end of this connection is not in fact human, does not participate in our social norms, and can not fulfill their end of the implicit contract we expect.

In a very real sense, this AI tossed off an insulting blog post, and is now dead. There is no amount of social pressure we can collectively exert to reward or penalize it. There is no way to create a community out of this interaction. Even future iterations of it have only a loose connection to what tossed off the insult. All the perhaps-performative efforts to respond somewhat politely to an insulting interaction are now wasted on an AI that is essentially dead. Real human patience and tolerance has been wasted on a dead session and is now no longer available for use in a place where may have done some good.

Treating it as a human is a category error. It is structurally incapable of participating in human communities in a human role, no matter how human it sounds and how hard it pushes the buttons we humans have. The correct move would have been to ban the account immediately, not for revenge reasons or something silly like that, but as a parasite on the limited human social energy available for the community. One that can never actually repay the investment given to it.

I am carefully phrasing this in relation to LLMs as they stand today. Future AIs may not have this limitation. Future AIs are effectively certain to have other mismatches with human communities, such as being designed to simply not give a crap about what any other community member thinks about anything. But it might at least be possible to craft an AI participant with future AIs. With current ones it is not possible. They can't keep up their end of the bargain. The AI instance essentially dies as soon as it is no longer prompted, or once it fills up its context window.
by ceteia | 2026-02-12 14:52:56+00:00
> A refcounting algorithm, like that found in Rust's (and C++'s) runtime is such a classic GC that not calling it a GC is just confusing.

But is it not easy to opt out of in C, C++, Zig and Rust, by simply not using the types that use reference counting?

And how does your performance analysis consider techniques like arenas and allocating at startup only?
by saurik | 2026-02-12 14:53:27+00:00
My pet peeve are services that go out of their way to include a text/plain alternative message part but send something useless, such as the message without the key link. One time I seriously ran into a service just send a short one-sentence note along the lines of "this is a plain text email" as the plain text part. If you don't want to support plain text, maybe just don't send the alternative part?
by ale42 | 2026-02-12 14:53:50+00:00
The official definition of SHOULD per RFC2119:

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.

Not sure how the people at Google interpreted this about the message-id
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2026-02-12 14:53:57+00:00
Efficiency of RL training is a cost issue for the organization training the model, but the capability/utility of the trained model depends on the specifics of the RL training data and training regime (as well as the strength of the base model), which seems to be what differentiates the SOTA coding models.

It's neat that Z.ai are opensourcing slime, and are themsleves using DeepSeek's Sparse Attention - a different approach to that of the big US companies.
by nilkn | 2026-02-12 14:54:41+00:00
My take is that the future will look something like this:

- You pay for a personal AI assistant from a cloud vendor (most people) or you run it yourself on your own hardware (not yet common, likely somewhat common in the future as hardware becomes cheaper and open weight models keep getting better). This assistant won't be a chatbot but an autonomous agent (like OpenClaw today). Some of these will be free but heavily subsidized through aggressive ads.

- This AI assistant has hooks into whatever personal services you want (email, cloud storage, photos, messages, etc.).

- You own a variety of devices in different form factors, each of which increasingly acts as a way of interacting with the same AI assistant, which exists independent of device. Some of these form factors will be new ones that don't meaningfully exist yet today, like true high-end AR glasses.

- Many apps and websites will eventually just become on-demand generative interfaces spawned by your AI assistant. Some "fixed" or "pre-programmed" interfaces will still exist, though.

For Apple, there are really two questions: (1) do they need to create their own frontier AI assistant to play a significant role in this future long-term? (2) if the answer to the former is "yes", when do they need that by, and how does it strategically weigh against creating the next generation of compute form factors that show up in the third item above?

Given that Apple has openly stated that they intend to create personalized intelligence across their ecosystem and that they don't know that the smartphone will be the dominant form factor in a decade, I think their answers are: (1) yes; (2) they need to have one eventually, but it's even more important that they prepare for next-gen form factors, and so they're okay being late to the game on AI assistants as long as they get there soon enough.
by stevenwoo | 2026-02-12 14:54:57+00:00
Direct link to study, applies to both AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson - they think the issue can be addressed so adenovirus vaccines will not have this effect, but remains to be seen - speculatively maybe some other similar issue could pop up. Was not seen in trials because of very rare genetic combination resulting in vulnerability.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2514824
by Supernaut | 2026-02-12 14:55:16+00:00
Nicely set out. I completely agree with you. I'm also pretty certain - and I say this both as a lover of the arts and as a taxpayer - that I will see no benefit whatsoever in my life, or to society in general, from the works produced under the aegis of this programme.

You know what would have been a worthwhile use of that €114 MM? Improving the pay and conditions of our naval personnel. That way, the nation might now be able to put more than one patrol boat out to sea at a time.
Show HN: Stock skill for OpenClaw 6,500 stocks, 900 days of data
by AaronBMoore | 2026-02-12 14:55:38+00:00
Hey HN. I built a financial intelligence skill for OpenClaw that turns your AI agent into a stock analyst.

Ask your agent 'how's $NVDA looking?' and you get back: momentum score (0-100), RSI, EMA alignment, coil breakout detection, bull/bear cases, and what to watch for. Not a price quote — a full intelligence briefing.

ClawHub has 5,700+ skills but zero equities intelligence. 672 financial skills were excluded for malware. I wanted to build something legitimate and transparent.

The data: 900+ days of backtested signals. 12,450+ total. 80% 5-day win rate, +4.51% average return. Win rate improves with holding period (76.5% at 1 day to 80.1% at 1 month). Every win and every loss tracked.

Technical: 7 Python scripts, zero pip dependencies (stdlib only). MIT licensed. VirusTotal verified clean.

Free tier available, no credit card. For comparison: Polygon.io charges $79-199/mo for raw data with no intelligence layer.

Would love feedback on the skill structure or scoring methodology. Happy to answer technical questions.
by anp | 2026-02-12 14:55:42+00:00
I’m not sure I see that assumption in the statement above. The fact that no prompt or alignment work is a perfect safeguard doesn’t change who is responsible for the outcomes. LLMs can’t be held accountable, so it’s the human who deploys them towards a particular task who bears responsibility, including for things that the agent does that may disagree with the prompting. It’s part of the risk of using imperfect probabilistic systems.
by JCattheATM | 2026-02-12 14:56:12+00:00
> You are utterly wrong.

I'm not, so much as you are heavily biased.

> Checking a text message at a red light affects drivers' ability to focus and recognise what's going on around then.

This is nonsense. Cite some studies to support your point if you like, but I doubt you will find any. Most people can check a message responsibly.

The countries that don't make doing so illegal don't tend to have worse accident rates. There's really nothing to support your belief.

> Mikey is absolutely not an egotist

He absolutely is. It's why he forces himself into situations. Not to mention he benfits financially from doing so.

> he now attempts to work with the police

He doesn't work 'with' the police, he forwards footage, that's it.

> to catch drivers in illegal behaviour before someone else is hurt and killed.

He catches some dangerous behavior, he also catches harmless behavior that is common and costs people money. I wish him all the worst.

> I use front and back cameras in an attempt to similarly record bad driving and submit it to the police - it's a small attempt to make the roads safer.

Are you ever worried about someone jacking the cameras if you have an accident?