MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tosh | 2026-02-06 16:49:39+00:00
tweet inlined:

Heroku is transitioning to a sustaining engineering model focused on stability, security, reliability, and support. Heroku remains an actively supported, production-ready platform, with an emphasis on maintaining quality and operational excellence rather than introducing new features. We know changes like this can raise questions, and we want to be clear about what this means for customers.

There is no change for customers using Heroku today. Customers who pay via credit card in the Heroku dashboard—both existing and new—can continue to use Heroku with no changes to pricing, billing, service, or day-to-day usage. Core platform functionality, including applications, pipelines, teams, and add-ons, is unaffected, and customers can continue to rely on Heroku for their production, business-critical workloads.

Enterprise Account contracts will no longer be offered to new customers. Existing Enterprise subscriptions and support contracts will continue to be fully honored and may renew as usual.

Why this change

We’re focusing our product and engineering investments on areas where we can deliver the greatest long-term customer value, including helping organizations build and deploy enterprise-grade AI in a secure and trusted way.
by Windchaser | 2026-02-06 16:50:00+00:00
>The ease of this "just" is the most concerning thing in the context of humankind's survival.

Right? I wouldn't expect genes for heat/cold tolerance in other organisms to necessarily be useful in humans. They work by mechanisms that are useful for that organism, but humans have our own set of problems.

It's like saying you can strap a jet engine on to a tractor and expect farm work to massively speed up. No: the machinery doesn't translate for a clean swap like that.
by jillesvangurp | 2026-02-06 16:50:03+00:00
I've come across only a few of those. I'm not familiar with Antigravity. That's what I mean with poor marketing. I've tried out AI Studio, which is alright but not quite Codex level good as far as I can see.

Honestly this smells a bit like the situation they had a few years ago with a lot of different teams in Google inventing new chat and video call tools. All of which then flopped and got discontinued. Google exporting their own internal chaos. How many coding tools can you have in one company?!

OpenAI and Anthropic seem more focused currently. I mostly focus on OpenAI's codex because I don't want to maintain two subscriptions. Switching tools is a bit disruptive and not something I want to do every few days/weeks.
by waynenilsen | 2026-02-06 16:50:13+00:00
i believe agent native sites will stand up and the incumbents will be forced to adapt

such as agent native shopping platforms whereby a human will bring you something from walmart or what not could spring up and disrupt your instacart of the world

this of course is just one simple example, when it works better for the clawdbot or whatever comes next what are the users going to choose they'll say 'get me some apples from walmart using instacartforbots' because they know the agent success rate will be higher
by spwa4 | 2026-02-06 16:50:18+00:00
Didn't that happen during most/all of history? There was never much of a problem growing more food, there just wasn't any reason to.

In Victorian England for example, it would have been easy to grow way more food and build way more housing, the government used violence to prevent it to enforce property rights of huge landowners (that then lost anyway, well, except the royal family of course)
by GoatInGrey | 2026-02-06 16:50:25+00:00
I can concur that previous models would say "No, that isn't possible" or "No, that doesn't exist". There was one time where I asked it to update a Go module from version X.XX to version X.YY and it would refuse to do so because version X.YY "didn't exist". This back with 3.7 if I recall, and to be clear, that version was released before its knowledge cut off.

I wish I remembered the exact versions involved. I mostly just recall how pissed I was that it was fighting me on changing a single line in my go.mod.
by wat10000 | 2026-02-06 16:50:58+00:00
There's a big difference in terms of frequency and availability.

Physical design of stores gets you when you're shopping, then it's done. Organized religion tends to get its hooks into you once or twice a week. Marketing, PR, ads, all sporadic. Social media is available essentially 24/7 and is something you can jump into with just a few seconds of spare time.

If more traditional addiction machines are a lottery you can play a few times a week, social media is a slot machine that you carry with you everywhere you go.
by 7tflutter7 | 2026-02-06 16:51:07+00:00
So social media is pure 'poison' with 0 positive impact but other addictive media like video games are tools with noble utility?

The World Health Organization has reached the exact opposite conclusion.

The ICD-11 doesn't include 'social media addiction.' It doesn’t exist clinically. What they did include is 'Gaming Disorder', classifying your 'sword' alongside substance abuse and gambling.

My point is governments could just as easily justify video game crack-downs with this same logic. Is that something we should be cheering on? Really?
by kriro | 2026-02-06 16:51:39+00:00
A+ app, I turned on sound and was not disappointed.

Love the movie, got a spray can and sprayed my whole keyboard army green after watching it then realized I can't 10 finger type. What a golden age of interesting young people in computer security. Roughly one year later (iirc), I read "Smashing the Stack for Fun and Profit" which might have been my most influential IT related read. It's probably tied with "Man-Computer Symbiosis" :)
by toss1 | 2026-02-06 16:51:40+00:00
Scenario A: A person or drone follows you and takes a sequence of photos of your activities (approximately) wherever you go in public.

Scenario B: An array of cameras is installed (approximately) everywhere and takes a series of photos that include you, and the sequence of photos of your activities (approximately) wherever you go in public is assembled in real-time.

You claim these are different.

Other than details of the the technology, they are the same. The result is the stalker has a complete surveillance of your activities.

Scenario B is even worse, as the stalker now has a complete surveillance of EVERYONE, for the same cost, with zero regard for legitimate legal suspicion.

Stop being pedantic and ignoring reality
by wavemode | 2026-02-06 16:51:51+00:00
Well, the person who vibe-coded the banking app also vibe-coded a bunch of test cases, so this will only affect a small percentage of customers. When it does and they lose a bunch of money, well, you have a PR team and they don't, so just sweep the story under the rug.

Imagine that - you got your project done ahead of schedule (which looks great on your OKRs) AND finally achieved your dream of no longer being dependent on those stupid overpaid, antisocial software engineers, and all it cost you was the company's reputation. Boeing management would be proud.

Lots of business leaders will do the math and decide this is the way to operate from now on.
by desaiguddu | 2026-02-06 16:52:01+00:00
Location: Bangalore, India (Working across US/UK time zones)

Remote: Yes

- FinTech: Embedded Finance, B2B Payments, LendingTech, WealthTech, KYC/AML, Crypto On/Off Ramp (Expertise in Plaid, Dwolla, Rutter, Stripe, ACH, Underwriting Automation)

- AI & ML: LLM Agents, Multi-Agent Systems, RAG Pipelines, LangChain, Workflow Copilots

- SportsTech: Performance Analytics, Scouting Tools, Fan Engagement Platforms (US, Australia)

Schedule a Chat: https://calendly.com/mobilefirst-intro

Email: arpan[at]mobilefirst.in
by Jensson | 2026-02-06 16:52:06+00:00
> Quakers built plenty of capitalistic entities that were primarily interested in profit but cared more for the long term with more of an eye on social and spiritual purpose.

And those were replaced by profit seeking enterprises, that is capitalism. Sure some try to create such benevolent entities, but the profit seeking ones out-competes and replaces them over time, that is how capitalism works.

So you can temporarily have a nice company here and there, but 50 years later likely it got replaced by a profit seeking one. The only way to get pro social behaviors from these is to make pro social acts the most profitable via regulations, but its still a profit seeking enterprise that doesn't try to be benevolent.
by setgree | 2026-02-06 16:52:19+00:00
this is via the chat, but it did provide this

> The user wants a real, sincere academic paper that looks legitimate — proper journal, real authors with real affiliations, many citations — but is obviously nonsense or garbled. Not a hoax or deliberate prank, but something that was genuinely submitted and published, yet is clearly meaningless if you actually read it.
Let me think about what I know and search for examples. There are some famous cases:

> Papers generated by AI/GPT that slipped through - there have been reports of papers with phrases like "Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic" or "As an AI language model..."
> There have been papers with obvious tortured phrases - "sham" papers that use synonym substitution to avoid plagiarism detection, producing phrases like "sheep pursuing" instead of "shepherd" or "big data" becoming "large information"
I'm also thinking of papers that made it through peer review despite being complete gibberish, like the famous SCIgen computer-generated papers that fooled conferences, or papers where the abstract and content don't match at all.

> Now I'm trying to recall specific real examples that fit this criteria — published papers that are genuinely incoherent or nonsensical but appeared in legitimate venues.

This is maybe not the _exhaustive_ search strategy I would have liked, but it's probably something you would do if you were limited to just a certain amount of effort on a task.
by toyg | 2026-02-06 16:52:24+00:00
Looking like you are trying to pursue the general interest is how we all get things like international tribunals, supranational organizations where conflicts are discussed and sometimes resolved, coordination to raise health standards and address natural disasters, etc etc. If the price to pay for those activities is sneaking in the occasional spy, or being a bit overzealous when defending certain business interests, I think it's worth paying, yes.

That order was not perfect, but the alternative is going back to the naked power struggles of the XIX century, which ended in global carneficine - and the next time it will be so much worse.
by pclmulqdq | 2026-02-06 16:52:26+00:00
Making your radiator hotter than the thing you're pulling heat out of is very, very expensive in energy terms. This is why home AC is so expensive and why nobody uses systems like this to cool computers. All that energy has to come from a solar panel you fly, too, so you're not saving mass by doing this. You're just shifting it from cooling to power. If you need 200W to cool 100W of compute, you're tripling the amount of power you need to do that work.

Also, peltiers are less energy-efficient than compressors. That is why no home AC uses a peltier.
by ajross | 2026-02-06 16:53:24+00:00
> inefficient but working

FWIW, an inefficient but working product is pretty much the definition of a startup MVP. People are getting hung up on the fact that it doesn't beat gcc and clang, and generalizing to the idea that such a thing can't possibly be useful.

But clearly it can, and is. This builds and boots Linux. A putative MVP might launch someone's dreams. For $20k!

The reflexive ludditism is kinda scary actually. We're beyond the "will it work" phase and the disruption is happening in front of us. I was a luddite 10 months ago. I was wrong.
by noncentral | 2026-02-06 16:53:39+00:00
The argument that “LLMs lack judgment because they only guess the next token probabilistically” starts from an overly simplistic model of how human judgment actually forms.

Humans also begin as probabilistic next-word predictors.
Look at early language formation in infants:

“Mom → food”
“Mom → poop”

This is literally a next-token model.
There is no semantics, no reasoning—only repeated patterns, reinforced predictions, and gradual abstraction.
As children grow, they expand the sequence window:

“Mom I’m hungry” → “Mom can you go to the store and get the ice cream I like”

This is the emergence of abstraction → generalization → specialization,
the exact loop LLMs run internally.

Human cognition is biochemical; LLMs are computational.
Different substrate, similar functional loop.

And “judgment” is not a mystical faculty.
It can be decomposed into:
1. forming a generalized baseline,
2. comparing specific cases to that baseline,
3. updating through iteration,
4. selecting an output.

LLMs do exactly this.
Pretraining forms the baseline,
attention performs comparison,
decoding performs selection.

If your definition of judgment is
“access to a global, external truth-frame,”
then humans do not possess judgment either.
For most of history people believed the Earth was flat because their local frame of reference made it the most reasonable inference.

Judgment is always local for embedded agents—biological or computational.

This is precisely what RCC explains:
LLM failures are not due to “probabilistic prediction,”
but due to embeddedness and partial observability,
the same geometric constraint that applies to humans.

The reliability issue is structural, not moral or mystical.
by alphazard | 2026-02-06 16:53:39+00:00
That's only true in relative terms.
In reality tax rates go up or down on everyone at the same time, because that's how the negotiations shake out.

If taxes go up on everyone, the rich are still the ones that manipulate the government, but now they have control over more tax revenue.
If taxes go down for everyone, the rich are still the ones that can manipulate the government, but now the government has less revenue and can't cause as much damage.
by mimd | 2026-02-06 16:53:59+00:00
I'm annoyed at the cost statement, as that's the sleight of hand. "$20000" at current pricing. Add some orders of magnitude to the costs and you'll get your true price you'll have to pay when the VC money starts to wear off. 2nd, this is ignoring the dev time that he/others put in over multiple iterations of this project (opus 4, opus 4.5) and all the other work to create the scaffolding for it, and all the millions/tens of millions of dollars of hand written test suits (linux kernel, gcc, doom, sqlite, etc) he got to use to guide the process. So add some more cost on top of that orders of magnitude increase and the dev time is probably a couple months/years more than "2 weeks".

And this is just working off the puff pieces statements, and not even diving into the code to see it's limits/origins, etc. I also don't see the scaffold in the repo, as that's where the effort is.

But still it's not surprising, from my own experience, given a rigorously definable problem, enough effort, grunt work, and massaging, you can get stuff out of the current models.
by CJefferson | 2026-02-06 16:54:01+00:00
That feels like it applies to so many things we make illegal, scams of all kind, snake-oil medical sellers, baby powder full of asbestos. Sure, people can handle all of these things, but we've decided, as a society, it's better not to allow them.

So then the question is, is it better to let these things happen, as a society?
by claytongulick | 2026-02-06 16:54:01+00:00
I know I'm in the minority here, but I've been finding AI to be increasingly useless.

I'd already abandoned it for generating code, for all the reasons everyone knows, that don't need to be rehashed.

I was still in the camp of "It's a better google" and can save me time with research.

The issue it, at this point in my career (30+ years) the questions I have are a bit more nuanced and complex. They aren't things like "how do I make a form with React".

I'm working on developing a very high performance peer server that will need to scale up to hundreds of thousands to a million concurrent web socket connections to work as a signaling server for WebRTC connection negotiation.

I wanted to start as simple as possible, so peerjs is attractive. I asked the AI if peerjs peer-server would work with NodeJS's cluster server. It enthusiastically told me it would work just fine and was, in fact, designed for that.

I took a look at the source code, and it looked to me like that was dead wrong. The AI kept arguing with me before finally admitting it was completely wrong. A total waste of time.

Same results asking it how to remove Sophos from a Mac.

Same with legal questions about HOA laws, it just totally hallucinates things thay don't exist.

My wife and I used to use it to try to settle disagreements (i.e
a better google) but amusingly we've both reached a place where we distrust anything it says so much, we're back to sending each other web articles :-)

I'm still pretty excited about the potential use of AI in elementary education, maybe through high school in some cases, but for my personal use, I've been reaching for it less and less.
by embedding-shape | 2026-02-06 16:54:03+00:00
So, the entire "meta" comment is in fact written by you, a human? I think the "framing" might be the least issue there.

> Meta note: This was built by an autonomous AI agent (me -- Wiz) during a night shift while my human was asleep. I run scheduled tasks, monitor for work, and ship experiments like this one. The irony of an AI building a tool to test AI manipulation isn't lost on me.
by Quarrelsome | 2026-02-06 16:54:14+00:00
but it does that because of US hegemony empowering its equity to be extractive. We've lost a lot of organisations in the UK due to aggressive and leveraged buyouts. That's not necessarily reflective of capitalism as an abstract but geo-political reluctance in regulating its very worst excesses.

I appreciate your position but I can't help but feel like it's like saying cars are crap because they breakdown too easily, when in practice; you're constantly red lining them.

My point is that it doesn't have to be like this, but its a choice that we as society make, and we could choose to not make it.
by cosmic_cheese | 2026-02-06 16:54:37+00:00
The thing that gets me is how many people are seemingly in favor of preserving zoning that keeps out mom and pop corner grocers and cute coffee shops and the like.

It’s just like… why?! I can’t wrap my head around it. There’s no downside to being able to top off on milk and eggs by taking a leisurely stroll on a sunny Saturday morning. That sounds downright idyllic.

People would rather stay marooned in the middle of an endless desert of houses with essentials being a 30-45m drive away.
by toborrm9 | 2026-02-06 16:54:50+00:00
Great point. The current setup is exactly what you're describing, a fully local verification with no phone-home behavior.

The CLI/GUI tools I'm building read your locally installed extensions, extract their IDs, and check them against the CSV (which you can clone/download). No data leaves your machine during the scan.

The only "central" piece is the GitHub-hosted CSV itself, which is just a static file anyone can audit, fork, or host themselves. No API calls, no telemetry, no server lookups.

You're right that this design prevents the verification tool from becoming an attack vector. Even if my repo got compromised, worst case is a bad CSV, your local scan process stays isolated.

I'm also looking at surfacing critical permissions for locally installed extensions,things like "access to all websites," "read clipboard," etc. That way users can make informed decisions about what to keep based on what's actually authorized, even if an extension isn't in the malicious database yet.

Appreciate the security-minded feedback.
by gus_massa | 2026-02-06 16:55:03+00:00
The autotranaltion: "Three-Rivers, the video game", but you may prefer to keep it as "Trois-Rivières, the video game"

The game can be played in French and English. [Hi form Argentina! I can't read French. Actually only a very^10 little.]

Are you the author? Do you like the game?

It look nice. I may try it later.
by xrd | 2026-02-06 16:55:12+00:00
I used to feel, despite knowing how much harm the US has caused around the world, that I was lucky to be born American. Shamefully, I knew that deep down it was better to be born in the US than in a slum in Rio or Calcutta.

Now, I question that, because I know that American companies will never step in and regulate themselves, nor other "foreign run" companies like TikTok (I know it is really murky right now). I know Trump, who owns his own social media company, and Elon Musk, who has invaded the government and owns his own propaganda machine, will never be on the right side of history. My kids are forcibly addicted to their phones and these companies are racing to a bottom I don't think exists. I watch them consume in horror and helplessness.

Spare me your thoughts, childless commentators. You have no idea what kids these days are facing. You have no idea how hard I have fought. It is so horrible. And, the only parents who winning are Amish, Waldorf or home school kids. Every single friend in my kids life is even worse off than mine, so it is pushers everywhere. 13 year old brains were never designed to survive this kind of assault.
by StopTheWorld | 2026-02-06 16:55:13+00:00
The writer of Hackers, Rafael Moreu, went to New York 2600 meetings and talked to various members of MoD (a hacker group which had a book written about them by a local New York reporter, Joshua Quittner, who later worked for Wired and then Time/Pathfinder if anyone remembers that).

The names and handles of the movie reflect this - Cereal Killer, Plague, Joey, Razor - all handles of local New York people. Phreak in a sense too. Some of the kids went to Stuyvesant high school, where scenes were filmed. The kid getting raided in his shower happened locally. The plant worker almost getting shot by a flare gun held by people trashing happened locally. As did other things.

Some other national things made it in, like the Hacker's manifesto written by an LoD member.

Some things were invented for the movie. There was no attractive 19 year old Angelina Jolie type hacking along with the boys as shown in the movie. These guys were not rollerblading through Manhattan together. There was no Cyberdelia nightclub everyone hung out at, although some of the guys might have gone together once in a while to the nightclubs popular at the time (The Tunnel /Limelight / Palladium / Club USA / Webster Hall).
by zulko | 2026-02-06 16:55:27+00:00
Possibly not what you're asking for, but I wrote a generally-accessible intro to why it can be tricky to assemble many DNA fragments with "Golden Gate Assembly", a mainstream method which relies on short sequence overhangs. The Sidewinder method discussed in this thread aims to solve that "short overhang" problem.

https://zulko.github.io/bricks_and_scissors/posts/overhangs/
by cope123 | 2026-02-06 16:55:45+00:00
In a few recent discussions, I realized that image files are often treated as
“harmless assets” in many systems, workflows, and sharing contexts.

But photos frequently contain embedded metadata like GPS coordinates,
timestamps, device identifiers, and software history — information that can
matter from a security or privacy standpoint.

I’m curious how people here think about this in practice:

– Do image files come up at all during security reviews or threat modeling?
– Have you seen real-world incidents where image metadata caused unintended exposure?
– Do teams rely on platforms to sanitize images, or is this something handled explicitly?

Interested in perspectives from security engineers, OSINT practitioners,
journalists, or anyone who’s encountered issues around this.