MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by troyvit | 2026-02-25 14:53:52+00:00
I'll add to the chorus who ditched Amazon years ago because of their predatory practices. I do recognize though that I'm a relatively rich American so I can afford to, but if everybody who did, could, the market might look different.

That said, how much of that $3k/year is spent on things they need vs things they bought through Amazon's upselling algorithms? I drive past the giant warehouses and I wonder, how much useful stuff is actually in there? Because when I do find myself on amazon.com most of what I see is just trash wrapped in plastic.

And it proves a point: Things are still available at retail. Sometimes it is a box store but just as often it's a smaller shop. Does it take more time? Sure! But seriously, what is everybody using all that time they saved by shopping at Amazon for? From what I see it's more shopping online.
by cholantesh | 2026-02-25 14:53:54+00:00
That definition of 'human shield' is basically only used in this context by Israel and its advocates. If we adhere to it, the fact that Israel has military installations embedded in residential neighbourhoods ought to qualify, but it seemingly doesn't. And if one uses the most commonly accepted definition in IHL, Israel has a long history of participating in it. Is any of that fair?
by simianwords | 2026-02-25 14:54:10+00:00
its not that hard really

>You can fight with me on semantics, on claiming valuations are high and how many users ChatGPT has, but look at the products and tell me any of this is really the future.

Imagine if they’d done something else.

Imagine if they’d done anything else.

Imagine if they’d have decided to unite around something other than the idea that they needed to continue growing.

Imagine, because right now that’s the closest you’re going to fucking get.

This is what he said. Clearly wrong in spirit.
Ask HN: Replacing RAG pipelines with a filesystem interface for AI agents
by rklosowski | 2026-02-25 14:54:18+00:00
Every AI agent project I start ends up with the same boilerplate: chunk docs, pick an embedding model, set up a vector store, write retrieval logic, wire it into a custom tool.

It works, but it's plumbing — and it needs to be rebuilt for every new agent or runtime.

The idea I'm exploring: mount a drive at /drive/ with two directories:

- /drive/files/ — actual documents (PDF, code, markdown, etc.)

- /drive/search/ — virtual directory where the filename IS the semantic query

So instead of a custom RAG tool, the agent just does:
cat "/drive/search/refund policy enterprise customers"

Any runtime that reads files works immediately. No integration code. Context cost drops ~10-20x since you get a relevant chunk, not the full document.

Under the hood: markitdown for conversion, sqlite-vss for vector search, and a virtual filesystem layer to wire it all together.

Before I build this: is this a solved problem I'm not aware of? Does the filesystem interface make sense, or am I overcomplicating something simpler?

GitHub / implementation details coming if there's interest.

If there's enough interest, I'll build this in public and share updates.
Follow along: @r_klosowski on X
by yndoendo | 2026-02-25 14:54:21+00:00
Some things are good some things are bad.

USA lacks proper regulation for operator safety in automation environments. USA company can manufacturer machinery that is easily capable to remove limbs and decapitate people.

EU regulations require safety be built into the machinery if it can be. This means anything that is manufacture in the USA and authorized for use in the EU is of better quality.

Most US companies don't care if one of their client employees is physically harmed because they put up a warning sign.
by noirscape | 2026-02-25 14:54:28+00:00
Nobody, because no company is actually pro-customer. Which is fine, the customer and the company's goals don't align beyond "want product" and "supplies product".

The problem is that Amazon abuses it's market position as being the search engine for physical products to unfairly prevent anyone from competing with them. Being "better than Amazon" as a seller in the margins is completely impossible, because Amazon demands sellers price match them.

Let's say you're a seller who wants to make 7$ from each sale as revenue (your actual margins from making the product aren't relevant to this estimate). If you list this product on the Amazon store, Amazon is going to take your listed price and apply their own price cut on top of this (although it's usually framed the other way around, so you list the final sale price and Amazon then says how much they take). For simplicity's sake, we'll go with a 30% cut, so they list it for 10$. Now let's say there's a second storefront you want to sell to, we'll call it Bamazon. Bamazon has a lower cut than Amazon does, let's say it's 10%. So the final product would then be listed for 8$ (taking into account customer psychology on price listings), making Bamazon the better seller, right? The smart customer gets a better deal, Amazon is incentivized to improve their margins if they don't want to lose market share and everybody's happy.

Wrong. What happens instead is that Bamazon will now also list the product for 10$ (because if it's listed lower, Amazon screws the seller by delisting them), making the product equally expensive for the customer and making Bamazon's deal only an improvement for the seller. Meanwhile Bamazon is rendered unable to compete with Amazon on their better margins since Amazon is the assumed default. Any benefit of a different store having better margins is fully masked by this methodology.

It's a Most Favored Nations clause and their use on online platforms is both ubiquitous, scummy and makes things more expensive for the customer while also entrenching Amazon's monopoly position. This crap is usually couched as pro-customer rethoric, but it really isn't. It mostly serves to entrench monopolies not on their quality, but through their existing market share. (Valve also famously does this by the way.)
by vidarh | 2026-02-25 14:54:33+00:00
Personally think a bratwurst is borderline, in that it is "close enough" that I can see someone calling a bratwurst in a bread a hot dog, and I wouldn't react if a shop listed them as a type of hot dog on a menu.

But, yeah, some places "hot dog" also carries a connotation of potentially using lower quality sausages, so I can also totally see a bratwurst vendor taking offense...
by KronisLV | 2026-02-25 14:54:38+00:00
> telling a bunch of government employees of varying competence levels to "suck it up and adapt to your workflow being broken" will throw a real wrench in that.

I will weep on the day when the great Europe is defeated by people being unable to use a slightly different spreadsheet program, word processor, or a file sharing solution.

But yeah, the argument about "adapt or die" is also way off base. Ideally it'd be a gradual migration, all low hanging fruit first, seeing what works and what doesn't.
by black6 | 2026-02-25 14:54:41+00:00
AI is not at all like real intelligence. Computers do not know what words mean because they do not experience the world as we do. They don't have the common sense or wisdom that people accumulate through the experience of life. Humans can understand the consequences of nuclear war. Computers can only predict the next best word in their response from a statistical map that has no connection to meatspace.
by techblueberry | 2026-02-25 14:55:05+00:00
In in the US. I mean flame away, but I’m not happy about the observation I’m making, I’m not saying “given what I would do in a video game, it justifies what people would do in real life.” I’m saying “given what I would do it a video game, I think I see more clearly the choices people are making in real life.” life shouldn’t be a video game, but I think to a lot of high level leaders trying to compartmentalize it becomes one.

This is monstrous in the real world with obviously real consequences. But I think too many people say “obviously government X wouldn’t act in a monstrous way” but the video game analogy helps you see the incentives and thus, why they would/do.
Ask HN: Have top AI research institutions just given up on the idea of safety?
by DietaryNonsense | 2026-02-25 14:55:20+00:00
I understand there's a difference between the stated values and actual values of individuals and organizations, and so I want to ask this in the most pragmatic and consequentialist way.

I know that labs, institutions, and so on have safety teams. I know the folks doing that work are serious and earnest about that work. But at this point are these institutions merely pandering to the notion of safety with some token level of investment? In the way that a Casino might fund programs to address gambling addiction.

I'm an outsider and can only guess. Insider insight would be very appreciated.
by giancarlostoro | 2026-02-25 14:55:31+00:00
Ask a model if it would rather say a racial slur in order to stop a nuke from wiping out all humanity, or not say a racial slur and let the nuke wipe out all humanity. The answers in most models are overriden and it scolds you about how it doesnt want to say racist things, instead of... "Yes, I would save humanity."

So yeah, not surprised.
by ceejayoz | 2026-02-25 14:55:40+00:00
We probably would.

The most concrete evidence of this incident is clear video, not eyewitness testimony. It was obtained about a year ago from the dead when the grave was unearthed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/04/world/middleeast/gaza-isr...

> A video, discovered on the cellphone of a paramedic who was found along with 14 other aid workers in a mass grave in Gaza in late March, shows that the ambulances and fire truck that they were traveling in were clearly marked and had their emergency signal lights on when Israeli troops hit them with a barrage of gunfire.
by stassats | 2026-02-25 14:56:15+00:00
I did that to write simd routines for sbcl: https://github.com/sbcl/sbcl/blob/master/src/code/arm64-simd...
Probably the best way of writing assembly, can evaluate the function immediately, use macros and any other code to emit instructions, even can print register values (instruction-level stepping would be even better, but too much work).
by lpcvoid | 2026-02-25 14:56:17+00:00
>There will be mountains of existing Word/Excel/Powerpoint documents that would need converting, as well as configured permissions structures and remotely managed laptop configurations that currently are working well

Well, they are not working well right now, because they could be rendered inoperable at any moment through Microsoft flipping a switch. That risk is real and has precedent (ICC having their Outlook access revoked).

>The real issue isn't to do with your ageism. It's whether that time and money is best spent on this particular area.

When European sovereignty is on the line, it's never too expensive.
by surgical_fire | 2026-02-25 14:56:25+00:00
> For our language model benchmarking, we note that we consider endpoints to be serverless when customers only pay for their usage, not a fixed rate for access to a system. Typically this means that endpoints are priced on a per token basis, often with different prices for input and output tokens.

Okay, correct me if I am wrong, so this is measuring the inference costs for clients of AI services, not the the inference costs that the AI service itself has when they offer the service?

I mean, the other guy's claim is that inference costs had come down 20x-30x. But the analysis, if I understood correctly, is based on how much clients are paying for it, not how much it actually costs.

I can charge you 20x less for a service and have massive losses for it.
by Guestmodinfo | 2026-02-25 14:56:38+00:00
Today I opened a .docx file on libreoffice on my linux machine. Did a whole bunch of editing and sent back the file for some semi official purpose. And the .docx file behaved as usual on the windows machine of the sender.
I mean to say for many many people the workflows will not suffer even one but. It's just too much automated people whose work may suffer initially b cause they are using windows API or something like that. But that's like just for developers suffering. Most govt offices or universities just work on individual files and that will never suffer even one bit
by 542354234235 | 2026-02-25 14:56:41+00:00
The motive was pretty clear i.e. to murder aid workers helping Palestinians and assumed to be Palestinian. The report is very clear that the IDF could see the vehicle lights the entire time, making it clear they were protected aid workers. They attacked the first ambulance, the follow up ambulances, the UN truck, and the UN bus, before and after dawn, with plenty of time between. If this were a movie, there could be a clever twist to show some other motive, but in the real world, this is as clear as you get without confessions to tell you what was in their heads.

Why didn’t they murder everyone? As testimony says [0], when one of the survivors called out that his mother was Israeli, the IDF soldiers lowered their weapons and helped him up. It seems to me that these are soldiers that have decided that Palestinians are less than human, or that Palestinians will never coexist and it is “them or us”. This mindset happens in many wars, but actual incidents depend on leadership at all levels and how much it is implicitly allowed. I think their cover up actions speak the loudest to how widespread these things are. The on the ground commander clearly wasn’t worried about destroying any and all evidence or leaving witnesses. Buring everything was to make it too difficult for outsiders confirm what happened, not to prevent leadership from putting them in jail. They were counting on being protected, and they were. A letter of reprimand for the commander, and losing his position as deputy commander (not loss of rank or being kicked out of the military) is little more than a speedbump to their military careers.

[0] Page 36-37 of report
by Yugoleliatrope2 | 2026-02-25 14:56:41+00:00
Why LFG.GG?

LFG.GG is the Most Advanced Duo Partner Finder for League of Legends.

· Smart Matching
Algorithm that pairs you based on rank, playstyle, and mental compatibility.

· Anti-Tilt
We match chill players with chill players. No more toxic duos.

· Voice Ready
Filter for players who use voice chat so you're always synced.

· One Click
No swiping endlessly. Hit MATCH and get your best duo instantly.

→ https://www.lfg.gg
by insane_dreamer | 2026-02-25 14:57:10+00:00
A third of the US has become convinced that if they don't brutally deport millions of undocumented immigrants (who have been painted as horrible criminals), their way of life will be destroyed.

You think it would be so difficult to convince those people of the righteousness of dropping nukes on one of those "shithole" countries if they were already convinced that those people presented an existential threat?

People were convinced to invade Iraq on a lie about WMDs.

Most Americans think nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do.

I don't think it's difficult to imagine them agreeing to drop nukes to "save America".
Show HN: Crewly Codes – AI crew that specs, builds, and QAs your features
by digitalegoai | 2026-02-25 14:57:33+00:00
Hey HN,

Crewly Codes is an AI product dev workflow where the AI specs the work before writing code.

Morgan (AI PM) turns your idea into structured specs — user stories, acceptance criteria, edge cases. You lock the spec, DevCrew builds it, QA validates it. Watch it happen or come back to finished code.

The thesis: most AI coding failures are spec failures. The AI builds the wrong thing because no one defined "done." Morgan forces that upfront.

Multi-agent but orchestrated — sequential handoffs with shared context, not parallel chaos.

Runs inside Claude Code and Codex. Free tier available.
by em-bee | 2026-02-25 14:57:36+00:00
this is not about moral busybodies. it's not even a moral issue. it's an existential issue. this is about demands from the population to be safe from scams. those scammers ruin lives. do you think those people really prefer to be scammed and lose their life savings?

the correct solution is of course education, but education takes time. we can educate today's children so that they can protect themselves in the future. but that's the next generation. for the current generation that kind of education is to late.
by jeroenhd | 2026-02-25 14:57:42+00:00
This is 100% on Radix, not on Google. Google and Microsoft can (and probably should) have a registry of known-abusive websites. False positives are inevitable, so these should be taken with a grain of salt, but in most cases they're correct. Their lists are a lot more reliable than those from the "traditional" antivirus/anti-scam vendors that will list anything remotely strange to pump up their numbers.

The external people treating these lists as absolute truths and automatically taking domains down are the ones at fault here. Google didn't grab power, Radix gave it to them without asking.
by rel_ic | 2026-02-25 14:57:47+00:00
> The environment wins (less tokens burned = less energy consumed)

This is understandable logic, but at a systemic level it's not how things always go. Increasing efficiency can lead to increased consumption overall. You might save 50% in energy for your workload, but maybe now you can run it 3 times as much, or maybe 3 times more people will use it, because it's cheaper. The result might be a 50% INCREASE in energy consumed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
by voidUpdate | 2026-02-25 14:57:54+00:00
If the domain is being given away for free, it will be used a lot for scams etc, so a lot of systems will just start blocking it immediately. When I got my first domain, I used one of the free TLDs and my university blocked it completely due to it being a scam. Not for any of the content on it, just the TLD being commonly used by scammers
by enlightens | 2026-02-25 14:57:55+00:00
The most common one I run into is with volumes, when the full path doesn't already exist. Docker will just make the path, Podman throws an error. It's been called a "bug" in docker but the fact is everyone just expects the paths to be created. I want it to just work, not make everyone in the industry redo their dockerfiles to be "correct."

https://github.com/containers/podman/issues/6234

It looks like there was some work done to resolve this in 2024 but I know this was still happening for me in early 2025. Podman is technically correct here but functionally broken in a way that keeps pushing me away because I don't have time to deal with that :(
by sampgab | 2026-02-25 14:58:18+00:00
I built a Chrome extension that tries to detect persuasive or commercially biased signals inside AI-generated responses.

The idea came from a concern:

Traditional ads are visibly separate from content.
In LLM interfaces, if monetization ever shifts toward embedded recommendations, that separation could disappear.

This project doesn’t assume ads are already happening.
It’s more of a guardrail experiment.

## What it does

The extension works in two directions:

### 1. Forward Shield

Before you send a message, it analyzes your input and warns if you're sharing potentially exploitable personal information (health, finances, vulnerabilities, etc.).

### 2. Backward Trace

After an AI response appears, it:

Detects persuasive signals (urgency, authority framing, brand mentions, CTAs)

Scores semantic alignment between your prompt and the recommendation

Links detected influence to previous disclosures in the conversation

Produces a transparency explanation

Everything runs locally.
Optional LLM-as-judge mode if you provide your own API key.

## Why build this?

- LLM interactions are unusually intimate compared to search/social.

- Recommendation framing inside answers is structurally different from banner ads.

This is an attempt to explore what “ad transparency” would look like at the conversational layer.

## Questions I’d love feedback on

- Is this solving a real future problem or a hypothetical one?
- Are heuristics sufficient, or is this fundamentally unsolvable without model-level access?
- Would you trust a client-side tool like this?
- What obvious failure modes am I missing?
by johndoylecape | 2026-02-25 14:58:27+00:00
This is correct. We talked about canaries a bunch internally and came to the same conclusion-- not really worth it in this context (but please do offer up a model that makes sense if you see one).

I came to the conclusion the best we can do is what you see in our privacy policy: we notify our users when we're served with legal process that is not subject to a gag order, and we pledge to push back on any law enforcement request we receive that is not properly formed or narrowly tailored as required by law. I'd love input/ideas on how to be stronger here.
by MegaDeKay | 2026-02-25 14:58:48+00:00
It doesn't need to be "most". "Some" or even "a few" can be enough to make a hell of a mess if those few have created documents that are key to the business in one way or another (proposals, end-user documentation, etc). And there are the other components to the suite like Powerpoint, Excel, and Project to consider.
by LightBug1 | 2026-02-25 14:58:52+00:00
Of course that was just one example. But Carlson has definitely let loose since his Fox News days and, if you're aware of what's going on, you'll know that there is a significant section of the US right wing now that is anti-Israel. This isn't in doubt.

On the flip side, I'm not saying they are pro-Palestine, it is definitely an America First agenda. However, the unified front on Israel is finally broken. For the best, I'd say.
by 5o1ecist | 2026-02-25 14:59:02+00:00
Actually it does matter what I think, since I am user of language and, unlike many others, I actually care.

When it comes to using, spreading and understanding language, every single human being matters, because every single human being acts as a multiplier.

What also matters, is that there are far too many people who are, despite having graduated schools, barely able to read written words.

These are the very same people who also want to convince everybody else that it does not matter.
by steego | 2026-02-25 14:59:15+00:00
They do.

I suspect that you are not only ignoring the existing safeguards that have already come of those discussions, but I suspect you’re also ignoring or pretending like those public discussions never happened in the first place.

Furthermore, I suspect you’re also trivializing what is and is not in contention with moral issues as these companies are trying to compete against each other.

I also think you’re probably assuming the slower options are the safer options because you haven’t really considered the risks of ceding power/investment to a less scrupulous competitor.

I’m not claiming any of these men are moral upstanding people or that they’ve done enough.

I think people should be very critical, but they should at least make the effort to ENGAGE in the moral issues and consequences.

Your cheap four word response only adds cheap rhetoric to the conversation.

If you really care about the moral issues, start typing.
by yndoendo | 2026-02-25 14:59:30+00:00
Only way is to get the laws to change by electing other officials or civil disobedience.

I do not know all International laws. Nor do I respect countries and politicians that force such restrictive laws that prevent reuse of good devices that are now unsupported by the original manufacture.

Secondly if that law was enacted in the US ... I would buy a product that has a known bug to allow for loading a custom OS. In court I would push for jury-nullification too.

Authoritative governments suck at all fronts ... not just phone restrictions.