MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Someone | 2026-02-25 16:16:37+00:00
FTA: “Now let's come back to our jumping thought experiment: the issue here is that, if you jump to a random byte of a CSV file, you cannot know whether you landed in a quoted cell or not. So, if you read ahead and find a line break, is it delineating a CSV row, or is just allowed here because we stand in a quoted cell? And if you find a double quote? Are you opening a quoted cell or are you closing one?

[…]

Real-life CSV data is usually consistent. What I mean is that tabular data often has a fixed number of columns. Indeed, rows suddenly demonstrating an inconsistent number of columns are typically frowned upon. What's more, columns often hold homogeneous data types: integers, floating point numbers, raw text, dates etc. Finally, rows tend to have a comparable size in number of bytes. We would be fools not to leverage this consistency.

So now, before doing any reckless jumping, let's start by analyzing the beginning of our CSV file to record some statistics that will be useful down the line.

[…]

Anyway, we now have what we need to be able to jump safely”

‘Safely’. An attacker who has control over a row in that file can easily embed data that satisfies the statistical checks, thus injecting data.

The author also admits that, saying “This technique is reasonably robust and will let you jump safely”

I agree with “reasonably robust”, but not with “will let you jump safely”.
by buescher | 2026-02-25 16:16:57+00:00
"Can" does not mean "always will without fail". On the flip side, you will never catch things in review if you don't review.

Having a specific review for new parts helps to keep footprint errors from "passing through". I've never seen a general layout review catch a footprint error: if you're used to using internal library parts, no one thinks to check them.
by SpicyLemonZest | 2026-02-25 16:17:04+00:00
I don't think it's right to say "privacy/sovereignty". As gestured towards in the source article, Japan and Korea have joined the US's preferred data privacy forum https://www.globalcbpr.org/. Data sovereignty is not a common idea outside the EU, and AFAIK even the current American government doesn't object to US citizens' data being stored in foreign servers under foreign jurisdiction.
by mksglu | 2026-02-25 16:17:23+00:00
That's a known bug in older versions — the WebFetch hook wasn't blocking reliably. Fixed in v0.7.1.

npm install -g context-mode@latest

If you're on the plugin install, re-run:

/plugin marketplace add mksglu/claude-context-mode
/plugin install context-mode@claude-context-mode

Then restart Claude Code. Sorry about that.
by homebrewer | 2026-02-25 16:17:27+00:00
If you are suspicious, look at comment history. It's usually fairly obvious because all comments made by LLM spambots look the same, have very similar structure and length. Skim ten of them and it becomes pretty clear if the account is genuine.

I'm more worried about how many people reply to slop and start arguing with it (usually receiving no replies — the slop machine goes to the next thread instead) when they should be flagging and reporting it; this has changed in the last few months.
by socalgal2 | 2026-02-25 16:17:31+00:00
There weren’t any consequences of the tech shown. There as just a justifiably untrusting person catching their partner’s infidelity. They’d have had problems anyway. The tech didn’t cause or exacerbate the issue.

To point out it was this particular person’s issue and not the tech, everyone one else in tbe show also had the tech yet were doing fine. They were shocked when they meet one person who didn’t have it. so clearly from the writing itself it was normalized and no one was having issues, otherwise they’d have all brought up the issues
by jcl | 2026-02-25 16:17:47+00:00
Correct… they “cheated” a little to make the props for the movie. There are other designs for single-sheet unicorn, winged unicorn, and Pegasus — particularly the ones from John Montroll — but they look a bit different from the movie props, and are harder to fold.

https://johnmontroll.com/books/dragons-and-other-fantastic-c...
by cableshaft | 2026-02-25 16:18:22+00:00
So I've handcoded and released a couple dozen games in the past, but I'm now old with responsibilities and a day job of coding, and my brain just doesn't have the energy to mess about with it like it used to after a day of work, so I have started experimenting with letting A.I. agent code some things (and been surprised at how well it can work).

I'm aware of the gen AI stigma but it's either that or this damn game probably never gets released at this point (I basically let the game sit dormant all year last year, only recently picking it back up again), and I have a full graveyard full of unreleased projects the past decade and would like to finally get something out there again.

That being said, at least for the forseeable future, I won't use any A.I. generated art or music in the game (unless I inadvertently hire an artist that does use it, I guess), because there is still a huge (and somewhat justifiable) stigma against A.I. generated art and music assets.

So instead I'm just doing what I did in the past, and creating the art and music myself as best I can with Illustrator or Logic Pro, and keeping my games fairly simple and abstract so it doesn't seem too much like programmer art (I might at some point pay an artist or musician to improve things just before it gets released though).
by joe_mamba | 2026-02-25 16:18:32+00:00
>I'd be scared if 90% of the continent sees you like DPRK

Sees me? I'm European, and am speaking to how I see other Europeans see the US, which comes from the local media which is heavily anti-US as it twists and omits facts to maintain a constant anti-Trump narrative no matter the facts since people lap it up without doing any due diligence or research online.

Remember the BBC famously clipped Trump's speech to make it seem like he said something he didn't actually say on Jan 6.
by Analemma_ | 2026-02-25 16:18:47+00:00
> The EU is to blame for cookie banners on basically every website on the internet.

This is the most low-rent complaint imaginable and it boggles my mind how I keep seeing it made straight-faced. One time I literally timed how long it took me to dismiss a EU cookie banner, it was about 350ms and only needs to be done once per site. All this outrage is over 350ms and I cannot take it seriously.
by hamuraijack | 2026-02-25 16:18:53+00:00
so how would you eval your own claude.md? Each context is unique to the project, team, and personal root claude.md. Do you just take given task and ask it to redo the same one over and over again against a known solution? Do you just keep using it and "feel" whether or not it's working? How is that different from what everyone is already doing?
by vincentalbouy | 2026-02-25 16:19:02+00:00
Good question.

Globally, meetings, incentives, conferences, events, and group travel together represent a 500B+ market all in. Almost every mid-sized or large US company runs some form of in-person event each year, whether that is a retreat, sales kickoff, or team meetup. Since COVID, distributed teams have made these gatherings more important, not less.

Corporate offsites are just our entry point because the pain is clear and budgets are structured. Almost every mid-sized or large company runs in-person events every year, and since COVID those gatherings have become more important for distributed teams.

Long term, we are not limiting this to corporate. The underlying problem is group coordination with real budgets, contracts, and logistics. That applies to associations, communities, weddings, large friend trips, and more. Our ambition is to expand into every type of group travel and event where planning is complex and high stakes.
by stego-tech | 2026-02-25 16:19:18+00:00
I had no idea what I was using were called “EM-dashes” until the AI bubble. I just used them to reflect pauses in my speech for tangents - an old habit from my IRC days.

Incidentally, some folks reported my stuff for potential AI generation and I had to respond to the mods about it. So that was kinda funny, if also sad to hear that some folks thought I was a bot.

I’m a dinosaur, not a robot dinosaur. I’m nowhere near that cool, alas.
by microtonal | 2026-02-25 16:19:25+00:00
Major US tech businesses are making money with analytics/ads though, so they would never roll out end-to-end encryption in a serious way. At least outside the US, a lot of E2E-encrypted services are popping up (Proton, Zeitkapsl, etc.).

I don't trust the small number of E2E US services at all. E.g., some of the companies that were/are in PRISM seem to have very convenient 'accidental' backdoors. E.g. WhatsApp doing backups on Google Drive without encryption by default on Android or Apple doing iCloud backups of iMessage that are not E2E encrypted unless you enable ADP. And even if you are wise enough to enable E2E in both cases, most people that you communicate with don't, because they use the defaults, so it's game over anyway.
by atourgates | 2026-02-25 16:19:29+00:00
Shoutout to my English Major comrades who have been using em-dashes forever, and have had to stop so we don't sound like AI.

If AI starts use the New Yorker style diaeresis (umlaut-looking thing when there are two vowels in words like coöperate) I swear I'm gonna lose it.
by quentindanjou | 2026-02-25 16:19:33+00:00
This is not true.
There is now a skill gap. There are countless examples that it isn't about being cheaper. The organisation and optimization of the workforce and infrastructure isn't something we can ignore. The choice of China isn't because it is cheaper, a lot of high-end and even luxury products are produced in China because they can ensure a high-quality manufacturing.

There are other places, as the comment above mentioned, that can produce for cheaper.
by Dumblydorr | 2026-02-25 16:19:59+00:00
The argument that it’s wrong would be because it’s bad for US consumers and those abroad too. There’s monopolization arguments, and there’s clear evidence of wrong-doing by these companies already.

Even for US tech folks like HN, I doubt it would help us. US companies hoard their profits and power, so most people here would see no benefit. It’s yet another move to protect rich corporations and the corporate cronies of the most corrupt administration in US history.
by wernsey | 2026-02-25 16:20:02+00:00
Google's concerns about security rings hollow to me. I believe it is strictly to exercise more control over the platform.

The appeals to people in Southeast Asia being scammed reminds me of a blog by Cory Doctorow last year: Every complex ecosystem has parasites [1]

The gist of it is that technology can be useful, but that usefulness comes with a price: sometimes bad actors are going to commit fraud or other undesirable actions.

As an example, you can reduce the amount of banking app scams to 0% by simply denying any banking apps on phones. But because of banking apps' usefulness we're not going to do that, so there will be some non-zero risk that you will get scammed.

As a technical user I chose Android for its usefulness, accepting that there may be a (minute) chance that I get scammed, but it is a risk I am willing to take, and Google will unilaterally take this choice away from me.

Still, I don't believe Google's security concerns are sincere, so I think I just wasted my time typing all of this

[1] https://pluralistic.net/2025/04/24/hermit-kingdom/
by crote | 2026-02-25 16:20:21+00:00
Step 1: Get everyone to use your free internet filter

Step 2: Alter filters to mark newly-registered domains and low-traffic websites as "potentially harmful".

Step 3: Charge a lot of money for "business verification" - which gives them a fancy badge somewhere and incidentally makes their website trustworthy in the eyes of your filter.

Step 4: Profit!

The Big Tech cartel has been doing this pretty successfully with email (see the weekly "Don't self-host your email" posts), why should we assume they are doing anything different with browser-based website blocking?
by miroslavr | 2026-02-25 16:20:29+00:00
I am wondering what EU was doing 20+ years in the digital world? Why doesn't it have own video streaming, cloud, email, social net... pretty much all that we use now Alphabet, Amazon and Microsoft for. It is very difficult for fragmented Europe to have the central service in pretty much any domain. And its citizen and ruling classes were sleeping 20 years living cozy.
by bonoboTP | 2026-02-25 16:20:46+00:00
> protect the vulnerable (elderly, mentally disabled, etc)

Yes, one could imagine some kind of mental test and if you fail you don't get to use your bank online, you have to walk to the physical location to make transactions. But this can obviously be abused to shut out people from banking based on political and other aspects. Generally democracies are wary of declaring too broad sets of people as incapable of acting independently without some guardian. Obviously beyond a certain threshold of mental incapacitation, dementia etc. it kicks in, but just imagine declaring that you're too easy to influence and scam and we can't let you handle your money,... But somehow we can rely on you using sane judgment when voting in elections. Or should we strip election rights too?

We rely on polite fictions around the abilities of the average person. The contradictions sometimes surface but there is no simple way to resolve it without revising some assumptions.
by brodouevencode | 2026-02-25 16:20:50+00:00
Not a supporter of him, but fairly conservative, in a very red, very pro-Trump area. Really wouldn't even consider myself a Republican. But until someone decent on the Democrat side comes along I'll probably hold my nose and vote red, and I can honestly say I've never voted for Trump.

Trump appeals to a large swath of the disenfranchised. Mostly white (though quite a few black and latino - at least in my area), blue collar, conservative, Christian, mostly middle class. In the mid to late 00s the Democratic party had built a minority coalition with support from upper middle class white people. And it worked pretty well for about a decade. But they took it too far. I think Obama is largely to blame for this - his 2012 campaign was seen as being based entirely on denigrating middle class white people (not my words - the sense I've gotten talking to neighbors and from listening to talk radio). Then it compounded with Hillary's run in 2016. "A basket of deplorables" and so on. So all those middle class white people - they got fed up with constantly being called racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic colonizers. They got angry. Trump was the response to all that.

The other thing you should know is that Trump is an insult comic - same beats, same tenor. You probably don't think he's funny but if you talk about him he's going to come back and insult you in the worst ways possible (which can be funny if you like insult comedy and aren't the target). Not presidential AT ALL, and most on the left don't know how to handle that. But the disenfranchised he's catering to - they are eating it up. Thus he's built an army of diehard supporters. He's saying the things they like to hear, making fun of the people who have made fun of them, coloring the landscape with the right things (a decent economy in his first term, highly patriotic themes like renaming DoD to DoW, hating on the left, etc). THEN you had the insanity of draconian and unscientific COVID responses, BLM riots, trans issues, safe spaces and micro-aggressions, and a Democrat president that was sadly and effectively a dementia patient. The response to the first Trump term by the left was not healthy. All they had to do was not go insane, but they did, and now you get him again.

All that to say that his base is going to back him up. If Trump says that there were fake electors his base is going to believe him. He could say (and has) just about anything and a large MAGA contingent will happily follow along. Not only do they feel represented by him but the left has acted so foolishly in response they feel justified in doubling down on that support.
by triceratops | 2026-02-25 16:20:56+00:00
> Humans can understand the consequences of nuclear war

And I'm asking why. Nearly no human alive has experienced nuclear war. The nuclear taboo is strongly represented in any source an AI would have consumed. We know about the nuclear taboo because we've been told over and over.

> Computers can only predict the next best word in their response from a statistical map that has no connection to meatspace

This argument is at least 2 years old. The statistical map came from human experiences in meatspace. It wasn't generated randomly. It has at least some connection to the real world.

Just because how something works seems simple, doesn't mean what it does is simple.
by simonw | 2026-02-25 16:21:25+00:00
I stand by what I originally wrote: the example was simple enough for ChatGPT and Claude do implement reasonably well.

They didn't implement it well enough for people not to pick them apart though, which is a distraction from the concept I'm trying to demonstrate.

This is honestly the biggest challenge in writing about this stuff, especially if you're doing it in public. Any example is an opportunity for people to find flaws which they might use to undermine the larger point I'm trying to communicate.

I have a visible changelog on each chapter now so people can follow how I evolve them over time. I'll try to find the right balance in terms of illustrative examples. My first attempt at linking directly to the first working transcripts I got clearly isn't it.
by mksglu | 2026-02-25 16:21:54+00:00
Context Mode doesn't replace your other MCP servers — it sits alongside them. Your Context7, Playwright, GitHub servers all stay installed and work normally. The hook intercepts output-heavy tool calls (like WebFetch, curl) and redirects them through the sandbox. For example, instead of WebFetch dumping 56KB of raw HTML into context, the hook blocks it and tells the model to use fetch_and_index instead — which fetches the same URL but indexes it in a local SQLite DB, returning only a 3KB summary.

Your other MCP servers still run. Context Mode just gives the model a more context-efficient way to process their results when the output would be large.
by loeg | 2026-02-25 16:21:57+00:00
> No. Making false claims about Jews is just lying about Jews. ...

If you say so. The important thing is that true facts are not antisemitic.

> What you are claiming it that Hamas is [evil]

Yes. We have eyes! Hamas is evil. It's not anti-ism to observe that evil actors are evil. I'm also anti-Stalin and anti-Hitler and anti-Mao; these things are not at all like antisemitism.
by dematz | 2026-02-25 16:22:03+00:00
One pattern I've noticed recently is sort of formulaic comments that look okish on their own, maybe a bit abstract/vague/bland, and not taking a particular side on good/bad in the way people like to do, but really obviously AI when you look at the account history and they're all the same formula:

>this is [summary]

>not just x, it's y

>punchy ending, maybe question

Once you know it's AI it's very obvious they told it to use normal dashes instead of em dashes, type in lowercase, etc., but it's still weirdly formal and formulaic.

For example from https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=snowhale

"this is the underreported second-order risk. Micron, Samsung, SK Hynix all allocated HBM capacity based on hyperscaler capex projections. NAND fabs are similarly committed. a 57% reduction in projected OpenAI spend (.4T -> B) doesn't just affect NVIDIA orders -- it ripples into the memory suppliers who shifted capacity to HBM and away from commodity DRAM/NAND. if multiple hyperscalers revise down simultaneously you get a situation similar to the 2019 crypto ASIC overhang: companies tooled up for demand that evaporated. not predicting that, but the purchasing commitments question is real."
by jzb | 2026-02-25 16:22:11+00:00
The article didn’t say it was wrong by my reading: it reported that it’s happening.

That said: “benefits US companies” != good public policy for the US as a whole. It’s explicitly trying to interfere in how other countries govern themselves for the benefit of shareholders, not because it’s necessarily good policy.

It’s also something we wouldn’t necessarily appreciate if done to us by our allies. If we have any actual allies left given all of Trump’s tariffs and threats against other countries.
by disgruntledphd2 | 2026-02-25 16:22:25+00:00
I mean, the easy thing to do is revoke US-EU data transfers. The ECJ is definitely going to do it anyway, and it provides a lot of leverage. If you keep it gone for long enough, then the Mag7 are basically forced to store data in the EU, and respect the laws.

As a bonus, it would nuke the markets, causing the US administration to backpedal on whatever. (Obviously I'd prefer not to nuke the markets, but something needs to happen to push back against the US).

This would only happen in a world where the US has entirely abandoned Ukraine though (i.e. no intelligence sharing).
by davidguetta | 2026-02-25 16:22:28+00:00
This is a very fair answer but missing some points.

I do personally believe that grok is a less biased against too many PC answers but you may disagree.

"All the existing texts on the founding fathers are filled with 250 years of bias, propaganda, and agenda pushing from all sorts of authors."

not sure of the point is tho ? Mine is that gemini was biaised so hard that it was generating diverse founding fathers which is factually untrue.

The fact that history has a pro-american values when written by americans is also true but it has nothing to do really with the argument: if an IA is able to see through such propaganda and provide a balanced view on it as a human would this is enough

In fact, i just asked grok "is the american founding constitution inhernetly good" and it gave me an aswer way more balanced than most american would i believe:

"The U.S. Constitution, drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1788, is a foundational document that has shaped American governance and influenced democracies worldwide. Asking if it's "inherently good" (assuming that's what you meant by "inhernetly") invites a philosophical debate: "Inherent" implies something intrinsic and unchanging, independent of context, interpretation, or outcomes. Goodness, in this case, could mean moral, effective, just, or beneficial to society. From a truth-seeking perspective, I'll break this down non-partisanly, drawing on historical facts, strengths, criticisms, and evolving views. Spoiler: It's not inherently anything—it's a human creation with profound virtues but also deep flaws, and its "goodness" depends on how it's applied and amended."

[can't paste everything so here's the conclusion]

"Is It Inherently Good? A Balanced VerdictNo document is "inherently" good or bad—goodness is contextual and subjective. The Constitution isn't divine or eternal; it's a pragmatic compromise by flawed humans (55 delegates, all white men, many slaveowners). It has proven remarkably resilient and improvable, outlasting many governments, but it's not perfect or immune to abuse. Its goodness lies in its capacity for self-correction: 27 amendments have fixed some issues, though others (like wealth inequality or climate inaction) persist due to gridlock.If you're measuring by outcomes, the U.S. has achieved extraordinary things under it, but at great human cost—think Civil War, civil rights struggles, and ongoing divides. Philosophically, as Grok, I'd say tools like this are as good as the people wielding them. If "inherently good" means it embodies universal moral truths, partially yes (liberty, equality under law). But if it means flawless or unbiased, absolutely not.What aspect of the Constitution are you most curious about—its history, specific clauses, or modern reforms? That could help refine this."

So it's definetely seeing through any form of propaganda you desribe