MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jen729w | 2026-02-24 07:53:47+00:00
You can already put op:// references in .env and read them with `op run`.

1P will conceal the value if asked to print to output.

I combine this with a 1P service account that only has access to a vault that contains my development secrets. Prod secrets are inaccessible. Reading dev secrets doesn't require my fingerprint; prod secrets does, so that'd be a red flag if it ever happened.

In the 1P web console I've removed 'read' access from my own account to the vault that contains my prod keys. So they're not even on this laptop. (I can still 'manage' which allows me to re-add 'read' access, as required. From the web console, not the local app.)

I'm sure it isn't technically 'perfect' but I feel it'd have to be a sophisticated, dedicated attack that managed to exfiltrate my prod keys.
by Someone | 2026-02-24 07:53:56+00:00
> it uses a world model that evolved over millions of years to model the environment. That's why we can get excellent 3D images from a 2D screen

That doesn’t require millions of years of evolution. We can ‘evolve’ it way faster on computers.

For an example, see https://depth-anything.github.io/.

I also think we don’t need good depth estimation to avoid collisions while walking around. The problem is scale-invariant except for the fact that deceleration is superlinear (doubling your speed more than doubles stopping distance), but at walking speed, that effect isn’t very large.

Decent depth estimation is needed for judging foot placement, but that’s at relatively close range.

At driving speed, that changes, but I think you can still get away with rough estimates.

(I’m not saying one shouldn’t use LiDAR, just arguing that we don’t know whether “LiDAR is necessary” is true. Yes, cameras cannot reproduce all aspects of human vision yet, but they also can surpass many aspects of human vision. Examples are resolution and field of view)
by godelski | 2026-02-24 07:54:44+00:00
The other thing people can do is install Firefox and use it. An uptick in user share also serves as a metric to reinforce the move. Let's be honest, most people complaining are using chrome or some flavor.

But current Firefox users could probably temporarily turn on telemetry, activate the kill switch, and turn telemetry back off. Just make sure you wait long enough to ensure the information is sent
by locknitpicker | 2026-02-24 07:54:52+00:00
> Yeah but there were a lot less ditch diggers in the world after the invention of the backhoe

As a specialization? Sure. But the ditch diggers moved since to machine operators, handymen and the like.

In the past there were sysadmins. Do we have less software engineers since sysadmins ceased to be a thing?
by dataflow | 2026-02-24 07:55:23+00:00
This analogy has a rather fatal flaw, which is that we already know people who've gotten Alzheimer's, and we also know for a fact people will continue to fall victim to it, at a pretty predictable rate. i.e. the detection has already happened! Anyone who was waiting for a potential victim to appear before researching the cure already has all the reasons they need to research it. Detecting whom exactly the next victim is going to be isn't really going to change anything as far as researching a treatment or cure goes. (Unless the person is super important or popular or rich, I guess?)

This is absolutely nothing like the asteroid example, where knowing that anybody is going to fall victim to it would itself be news of astronomical proportions. Previously there was a chance the event wouldn't happen, and now there is, so that entirely change the calculus of your priorities.

This just completely destroys the analogy. (There are other reasons it doesn't fit too, but one is enough.)
by KomoD | 2026-02-24 07:56:10+00:00
> Alternatively, I would consider getting rid of numerical ids altogether and relying on name alone. Internet Archive does it at e.g. archive.org/details/leroy-lettering-sets, but that has some serious limitations that are not hard to imagine

They don't rely on title alone, it's a separate identifier. You can set it to anything and you can't change it afterwards but you can change the title.
by redbluered | 2026-02-24 07:56:29+00:00
Cost of living for staff and lawful child to caregiver ratios. If you assume 1:4 or 1:5, that's around 100-125k per caregiver in tuition.

With reasonable overhead numbers (space, management, compliance, licensing, taxes, etc.), that's a poverty-level income for preschool teachers.

There is a strong argument for subsidies, at least in countries which have low birth rates and care about longterm social outcomes.
by vjk800 | 2026-02-24 07:56:30+00:00
Every major technological invention nowadays quickly breeds open source clones that evolve to be on par with the commercial ones on some time scale. Why hasn't this happened to Wolfram Alpha/Mathematica? I know there's Sympy, but it's so far behind Mathematica that it's not even comparable. Is the heavily mathematical nature of the tool somehow an insurmountable obstacle to the open source community?
by adebayoj | 2026-02-24 07:56:35+00:00
op here, I mostly agree with your comment! However, our model does more than this. For any chunk the model generates, it can answer: which concept, in the model's representations, was responsible for that token(s). In fact, we can answer the question: what training data caused the model to be generated too! We force this to be a constraint as part of the architecture and the loss function for our you train the model. In fact, you can get are the high level reasons for a model's answer on complex problems.
by krzat | 2026-02-24 07:56:43+00:00
Frequent music chills were an unexpected side effect of my meditation practice. It matches with their "openness to experience" conclusion.

I also found out that you can encourage chills with meditative techniques:

1. Play your song, for example Sogno di Volare.

2. Close your eyes.

3. Think about awesome things: how cool it is that humans invented airplanes and rockets and satelites.
by joe_mamba | 2026-02-24 07:56:49+00:00
>Famously, it took many years for the internet itself to show up in significant productivity gains

Yeah but productivity of software tools has had diminishing returns after a while.

Like are people more productive today when they use Outlook and Slack than they were 20 years ago when using IBM Lotus Notes and IBM Sametime? Are people more productive wwht the Excel of today than with Excel 2003/2007?

The biggest productivity gains came IMHO from increased compute power due to semiconductor advancement, so that the same tasks finished faster today than 20 years ago, but not that the SW got so much more capable since then.
by adrian_b | 2026-02-24 07:57:01+00:00
Knuth's algorithms do that because they are written in assembly language.

In assembly language you must use backwards jumps to implement loops.

However, good assembly language programmers do not use arbitrary backwards jumps, but they use only a certain number of patterns, which correspond to the various kinds of loops that are also encountered in high-level programming languages.

Many programming languages are somewhat incomplete, because they do not have all the kinds of loops that exist in other programming languages. When programming in an assembly language, a good programmer will not restrict the loops to only the kinds of loops that are available in C/C++, but the non-nested loops that are possible with arbitrary GOTO will not be used.

The best practice in assembly programming is to not use explicit backwards jumps, but to define macros for different kinds of loops, then use the macros, which make the code look exactly like in a high-level programming language.
by sshine | 2026-02-24 07:57:02+00:00
Memories inside projects are a boon: If you can assume that all your questions are related, and you instruct the engine what memories to store and how to store them (short single statements), you can get a powerful tool out of it. I use it for habit tracking. The system prompt is taking the style of Atomic Habits. It will remember exactly what habits I'm trying to add, what my preferences are for apps, when I sleep, what other goals I have unrelated to my current query.
by TeMPOraL | 2026-02-24 07:57:37+00:00
FWIW, I may be in the other camp but I strongly respect them for providing this feature. It perhaps wouldn't be necessary if the pro-AI push wasn't so ham-fisted and utterly disrespectful of users for the past years.

(Also I didn't realize how bad this push got until I visited California recently, and saw every other billboard - that's physical ad over a road - pushing some unqualified form of AI magic on me).
by chipbuster | 2026-02-24 07:58:18+00:00
On my system, under gcc 15.2.1, the two necessary factors to see the claimed speedup are:

- An optimization level of -O1 or higher
- The -ffinite-math-only flag, or any flag (e.g. -ffast-math) which implies this flag.

The benchmark uses a default value for weights which is #defin-ed as `__builtin_inf()`, and assigns this value in multiple places. This, of course, is concerning, since it gives a very obvious means by which the benchmark might be completely optimized out, though a more careful analysis would be needed to explain why the Dijkstra and (Res) functions don't also get optimized out.

For clang, the equivalent flags are

- An optimization level of Og or higher
- The -fno-honor-infinities flag, or any flag (e.g. -ffast-math) which implies this flag.

Notably, while the author enables LTO, and others have compiled with -march=native, neither flag is necessary (for me) to see the huge speedup, which on my machine peaks at over 1.2 million times.
by puzpuzpuz-hn | 2026-02-24 07:58:35+00:00
Allocation rates comparison is included. If your application writes into the map most of the time, you should go with plain map + RWMutex (or orcaman/concurrent-map). But if, for instance, you're using the map as a cache, read operations will dominate and having better read scalability becomes important. As an example, Otter cache library uses a modified variant of xsync.Map, not a plain map + RWMutex.
by locknitpicker | 2026-02-24 07:58:49+00:00
> Bootcamp grads are basically obsolete now.

I beg to differ. I know for a fact that some companies started hiring people with LLM experience, whose only expertise is spending all Copilot enterprise account tokens on their first week at the job and proceed to whine that the lack of tokens was stifling their creativity.

Say what you may about boot camps, but at least the people getting hired could do things and understand what they are doing.
by inejge | 2026-02-24 07:59:08+00:00
> I was careful to say "Good code still has a cost" and "delivering good code remains significantly more expensive than [free]" rather than the more aesthetically pleasing "Good code is expensive.

Which is nuance that will get overlooked or waved away by upper management who see the cost of hiring developers, know that developers "write code", and can compare the developer salary with a Claude/Codex/whatever subscription. If the correction comes, it will be late and at the expense of rank and file, as usual. (And don't be naive: if an LLM subscription can let you employ fewer developers, that subscription plus offshore developers will enable even more cost saving. The name of the game is cost saving, and has been for a long time.)
by bigyabai | 2026-02-24 07:59:10+00:00
It's a great option to have. Once you reach the 2-7ms frame time territory, you're approaching the CPU bottleneck for many game engines even on the fastest hardware. For newer titles like GTA VI, framegen might be the only reliable path to 120+ FPS without pinning all of your cores.

Framegen is also a good fit for low-end hardware like the Steam Deck, which can hit 30 or 45 FPS in stuff like Elden Ring but is far from the max 90hz of the OLED model's panel. For a handheld, trading a bit of 720p visual clarity for locked 90hz gameplay is a solid trade if you can get it working.
by godelski | 2026-02-24 07:59:35+00:00
Most people aren't vocal.

Most people who are vocal aren't representative of users.

Many vocal people aren't even users.

Don't get me wrong, I turn off telemetry, but you're acting like it's easy to get that information. You act like people don't scream when Firefox prompts people with surveys. You act like there isn't bias in survey takers.

If you just pretend everything is easy we'll just end up reinventing the same evils we're trying to fight today. Unfortunately most evils are created from good intentions. I hear there's an entire road paved that way
by temp8830 | 2026-02-24 07:59:38+00:00
Nobody (OK, maybe a few very special people) is saying that COVID was a hoax. What is true - and one wasn't allowed to say - was that the measures intended to prevent COVID weren't very effective and did more harm than good.

Ah yes you say, another psycho. He probably eats ivermectin for breakfast and chases it with bleach. But I ask you, after a chlorinated burp: how come Africa didn't die out? Why was the death rate pretty much the same in Florida and California? Did the EU really need to buy enough vaccine for ten-plus years?
by redbluered | 2026-02-24 07:59:49+00:00
Reality shows that the outcome are centers with a television on 24/7, or where kids are given drugs to sleep. That's not the exception but the rule. That's why inspections and licensing came in.

The longterm costs of that -- crime, mental health, etc. -- explain why subsidies make sense. Every rich country has universal public education for a good reason.

Market forces, as you point out, will drive your enterprising person making 72k out-of-business very quickly, and the market becomes a cesspool.
by red75prime | 2026-02-24 08:00:09+00:00
U: The car wash is 50m away. Should I walk or should I drive?

A: Do you need to wash your car?

U: Yep.

A: Is the car yours?

U: Yep.

A: Is your car nearby?

U: Yes.

A: Do you need to walk to your car?

U: No.

A: Do you know if the car wash is currently working?

U: Yes.

A: Does it work?

U: YES!

A: Do you have a way to pay for the wash?

U: YES!

A: On you?

U: YES!

A: Is your clothing appropriate for the occasion?

U: Argh...
by arkh | 2026-02-24 08:00:17+00:00
Every modern (and not so modern) software development method hinge on one thing: requirements are not known and even if known they'll change over time. From this you get the goal of "good" code which is "easy to change code".

Do current LLM based agents generate code which is easy to change? My gut feeling is a no at the moment. Until they do I'd argue code generated from agents is only good for prototypes. Once you can ask your agent to change a feature and be 100% sure they won't break other features then you don't care about how the code looks like.
by alisonkisk | 2026-02-24 08:00:23+00:00
There are probably hundreds of people on this site who had the same enthusiasm for math and time dedication as Terence Tao, but lacked his extreme outlier fluid intelligence, processing speed, perfect memory, and even handwriting talent(!). Terence Tao mastered calculus at an age when most future-mathemician geniuses weren't yet strong readers of chapter books.
by ChaitanyaSai | 2026-02-24 08:01:05+00:00
Fascinating read! And very interesting in the light of recent advances in AI to think about what makes this ability possible. How far can we go with increasing long-term memory and working memory? Does increasing comprehension follow with competence?

Long-term retention is is hard when encountering new symbols. He seemed quite comfortable at that age absorbing the new stuff and manipulating it. Where does that comfort come from? Is there a way to test that explicitly?
Finally, there is the ability to take the new and use it well. What about creating new shorthand? Being able to divine hidden patterns and articulate them?

Ramunujam seems to have had this.
by ddxv | 2026-02-24 08:01:18+00:00
Where are the AI features in Firefox? Looking around right now the only one I see is right click tab -> Summarize page (NEW). I googled a bit and see they have some grouping of tabs feature I've never used/seen (or want). The only other maybe AI feature I remember seeing is the odd left hand bar that is there on fresh installs and I usually remove to declutter.

Are those the features this kill switch removes or was there a deeper issue here?
by mjevans | 2026-02-24 08:01:23+00:00
That's my observation / fear as well. It makes delivering something that sort of works easy. It makes doing that well more difficult by obscuring the problem domain from the humans and expanding the standard library of tools into patterns of using said standard library. Hope they're correct for your use case.

There's also the question of the true cost of all the hardware, electricity, and potential output that's being tossed onto the pyres. We aren't getting the real Cortana from the books / games; we're getting GIR trained on the corpus of fallible human code, prompted by fallible humans.
by vintermann | 2026-02-24 08:01:58+00:00
It's not Americans doing these things. I've met plenty of Europeans with exotic identity claims, romanticizing some past culture instead of the living culture around them - Viking metal rather than folk music, to put it like that (there are also of course responsible ways to enjoy exotic metal genres).

By making it into Americans vs. Europeans you're doing a bit of what you're criticizing yourself. Yeah sure, we all agree someone walking up to you and saying they're Saxon is embarrassing, but that sweet old lady from Minnesota who's done rose painting (a national romantic fad around the time her ancestors immigrated) for 20 years is part of a living culture, which isn't simply "American", even if she has outrageous Norwegian pronounciation and otherwise isn't someone you'd like to identify with.
by alexhans | 2026-02-24 08:02:37+00:00
I am pushing for this judicious Eval [1] Driven Development where tech/non tech users use intent when coding to minimally design some known aspects and try to build simply and using common standards across the team (that should be in the context of the agent) to produce the minimal amount of human readable and clean code that would do the job. The more the building blocks they work with are simple, easy to validate and rely on the proper unit tests, integration tests, data tests the more chance that things can be "one shotted".

One huge barrier is fighting entropy. You should be wary of prototypes which create false expectations and don't help product evolution whereas tracer bullets [2] might be better if you want to quickly show something and adjust.

Testing and testability are concepts that aren't intuitive or easy until you develop a feel for them so we should be preaching feeling that pain and moving slowly and with intent and working minimally [3] when you actually want to share or maintain your coding artifact. There should be no difference between judicious human and computer code. Don't suddenly start putting What instead of why in comments or repeating everything.

Helping non tech people become builders or sharers is a challenge beyond "vibe coding" and the agent skills [4] space is fascinating for that. Like most things AI (LLM), UX matters more than almost anything else.

[1] https://ai-evals.io

[2] concept from the Pragmatic Programmer, https://www.aihero.dev/tracer-bullets

[3] https://alexhans.github.io/posts/series/evals/measure-
first-optimize-last.html

[4] https://alexhans.github.io/posts/series/evals/building-agent...
by adebayoj | 2026-02-24 08:02:39+00:00
op here. Important point, but I disagree. We see explainability/interpretability as a CORE need for AI safety. We believe you can't align/audit/debug/fix a system that you don't understand.

Just to give you some answers for what we can do:

1) We can find the training data that is causing a model to output toxic/unwanted text and correct it.
2) We know what high level concepts the model is relying on for any group of tokens it generates, hence, reducing that generation is as simple as toggling the effect of the output on that concept.

Most of the AI safety techniques fall under finetuning. Our model allows your to do this without fine-tuning. You can toggle the presence of .

For example, wouldn't you like to know why a model is being sycophantic? Or Sandbagging? Is it a particular kind of training data that is causing this? Or is it some high level part of the model's representations? For any of this, our model can tell you exactly why the model generated that output. Over the coming weeks, we'll show exactly how you can do this!
by throwaway5465 | 2026-02-24 08:02:43+00:00
Memory, notes hierarchy and filename (I tend to keep notes conceptually atomic and not just the date/time as a filename), tag search, free text search, citation backsearch; I have a bibtex library linked but that's mainly focused on maintaining references to published work- I use JabRef but IMHO that's really too heavy for what I use it for.
by shubhangigovil | 2026-02-24 08:03:21+00:00
try tapermonkey script

```
// ==UserScript==
// @name YouTube Shorts → Normal Player
// @match ://www.youtube.com/
// @run-at document-start
// ==/UserScript==

function redirectShorts() {
const match = location.pathname.match(/^\/shorts\/([a-zA-Z0-9_-]+)/);
if (match) {
location.replace(`/watch?v=${match[1]}`);
}
}

// Catch initial page load
redirectShorts();

// Catch SPA navigation early (fires before page renders)
document.addEventListener('yt-navigate-start', redirectShorts);

// Fallback
document.addEventListener('yt-navigate-finish', redirectShorts);
```
Ask HN: Agentic search vs. RAG – what's your production experience?
by yamarldfst | 2026-02-24 08:04:08+00:00
There's been a clear shift from 2023's you need RAG to 2026's agentic search outperforms RAG.

We made the switch at Cosmico when building AI-native applications with Claude Code. Agentic search gives us better accuracy but at higher cost per query.

For those running production systems:

1. What prompted your switch (or decision to stick with RAG)?
2. What broke during the transition?
3. What's your hybrid approach (if any)?

Specifically curious about code search vs. document retrieval use cases, and how you handle the latency/cost trade-offs.

Our context: building custom software with AI agents in weeks, not months. Accuracy matters more than speed for our workflow, but that's not universal.

What's working (or not working) for you?
by em-bee | 2026-02-24 08:04:31+00:00
only if the husband actually is earning enough in any particular case. each persons situation needs to be looked at individually.

given that in most cases a single salary is no longer enough the male breadwinner theory is no longer reality.

on the other hand men are more likely to find a new job so they are less impacted, which should make it more likely that they are chosen.

what the actual results are needs a look at statistics
by TheDong | 2026-02-24 08:05:17+00:00
> Once you can ask your agent to change a feature and be 100% sure they won't break other features then you don't care about how the code looks like.

That bar is unreasonably high.

Right now, if I ask a senior engineer to change a feature in a mature codebase, I only have perhaps 70% certainty they won't break other features. Tests help, but only so far.
by Micoloth | 2026-02-24 08:05:37+00:00
It’s a great question. As soneone who has been fascinated by Wolfram Aplha for a loong time (and might or might not have thought about cloning it), i think that growing up i ended up realizing that Mathematica in the real world just doesn’t… Do much?

Maybe i’m just missing something. But it looks like nobody is really using it except for some very specific math research which has grown from within that ecosystem from the beginning.

I think one of the basic problems is that the core language is just not very performant on modern cpus, so not the best tool for real-world applications.

Again- maybe i’m missing something?