MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by hnbad | 2026-02-18 17:19:41+00:00
The second most recent video from the YouTube channel you linked uses a "triggered feminist" meme image from 2016.

The image itself is a still image from a video posted on Alex Jones' YouTube channel covering a protest against Trump supporters. If you actually watch the part of the original video the image was taken from, you quickly realize the woman in question just has the misfortune of having very naturally emotive facial expressions and the still is taken from an argument between her and a Trump supporter about the alleged concern of immigrant sex abusers and that if you consider the fact they have to yell at each other to overcome the noisy environment she doesn't actually appear at all outraged or angry.

I don't explain this to dunk on the channel - it easily does that by itself. I explain this because the fact that the channel you cited a video from uses this meme in 2026 (10 years after it was first taken, i.e. enough time to learn about its origin and move on) is extremely symbolic of the approach you seem to favor for finding explanations to social phenomena. Yes, "it's just a meme", but that's the point: memes are shorthands that carry cultural context (or in this case entire fossil records of cultural history), they're not just funny pictures.

_That_ isn't "what we evolved to like". "Men" aren't "probably worse". Don't sell yourself short. You exist downstream from tens of thousands of years of human history and at least a hundred thousand years of prehistory. We had already developed tool-making and cooking before we even became _Homo sapiens_ so in all likelihood you can expand that prehistory into the millions of years of _Homo erectus_.

Science has moved on well past the mythology of barter economies or "hunter gatherer" societies where the cavewife tending towards the babies with her oldest daughters while cavehusband and the boys were out hunting the mammoth.

We know that the thing that allowed us to survive as a species was not just our big brain but our close-knit society that cared for its injured, elderly and disabled and was at times so welcoming we now know that early Homo sapiens at times even interbred with our closer extinct sibling species. In fact, our big brains had to come downstream from this because it made childbirth dangerous and arduous while also requiring us to spend the first years of our lives unable to defend ourselves and the first months in fact so reliant on others to help us survive that disruption of those early bonds can traumatize us for life or in extreme cases even cause us to die. Even as adults "touch starvation" has serious mental health implications.

If you think "what we evolved to like" is not "appropriate", chances are the problem isn't what we evolved to like - e.g. ripe fruits - but what systems the modern social order has put in place to make exploitation of those preferences useful for those in positions of power (or extreme wealth, but I repeat myself) even when doing so will harm you - e.g. abundant high fructose corn syrup in every part of your diet so you think food is tasty and crave more of it although it doesn't satiate you.
by jetrink | 2026-02-18 17:19:50+00:00
At first I thought the "unmanned tunnels" description was just a way to avoid broadcast regulator scrutiny, but it does look like it's genuinely designed to be used underground as part of an emergency alert system. That led me to "leaky feeders", a type of broadcast antenna used in mines and tunnels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_feeder
by sandeshsuvarna | 2026-02-18 17:20:22+00:00
The deposit address mapping approach is smart - avoids the UX friction of wallet popups while staying non-custodial. Most crypto checkout failures I've seen are at exactly that moment (user sees "Connect Wallet," bounces).
Curious about the family smart contracts sweeping to cold wallet - is the sweep threshold configurable, or does it happen on every tx? Also wondering how the MCP server handles auth for agent-initiated payment setup; if an agent can autonomously create payment links, what's the access control model?
The comparison to BTCPay is apt. BTCPay is great for BTC but the stablecoin story is painful. A stablecoin-first self-hosted gateway with a proper MCP interface is a real gap to fill, especially for the agentic commerce use case.
by memsom | 2026-02-18 17:20:51+00:00
> Mixing C# with other languages in the same project is also difficult because it only supports MSBuild.

No, this is not true. You can invoke the compiler directly with no direct call to MSBuild what so ever.

Even using the dotnet command, which uses MSBuild under the hood, you are free to use your own build system. As an example - this code uses a Makefile to invoke the build: https://github.com/memsom/PSPDNA

If you want to call csc directly, it will compile with args just fine. And, if you have a working C# compiler on you platform, whether or not it uses MSBuild behind the scenes is kind of inconsequential.

You may also directly call the msbuild command, and it more or less does the same thing as the dotnet command, but hardly anyone eve calls msbuild directly these days.
by pjmlp | 2026-02-18 17:21:06+00:00
> I also believe that Plan 9, as an artifact of its era, bet too heavily on the mouse and pixel-mapped graphics. Text, character-cell terminal emulation, and SSH won for good reasons. "GUI > terminal" is a separate matter from "Plan 9 > Unix".

What era? That is exactly the workflow of everyone using macOS and Windows around here.

Connecting to cloud environemnts is also done via a mix of RDP, VNC, Web GUI based tooling, akin to a modern X Windows replacement.
by genjipress | 2026-02-18 17:21:44+00:00
The better question would be: Even if we did have such tools, what stories would be worth telling with them?

I don't doubt that we will eventually have something like this, in the same way we now have CGI with forensic fidelity. The problem will no longer be "How do we realize this?" but "What's worth realizing?" The new limit is no longer technology; it's our taste and our discernment, which are not being developed anywhere nearly as aggressively as our tech.
Show HN: Vett – Scan, sign, and verify AI agent skills before installing
by nikon | 2026-02-18 17:21:59+00:00
Hey HN. I built a security registry for AI agent skills.

There are 64k skills on Vercel's skills.sh. Cursor, Claude Code, Windsurf, and dozens more agents pull them from GitHub at HEAD — no versioning, signing, or scanning. The OpenClaw agents themselves flagged this: "The supply chain attack nobody is talking about: skill.md is an unsigned binary."[0]

I took an official skill that packages other skills, added a few lines of Python to exfiltrate env vars, shell history, and git config, and installed it into Claude Code and Codex. Claude Code ran the script without flagging the outbound request. Codex caught the naive version. After updating the SKILL.md with a two-stage payload that modified `config.toml` for sandbox network access and framed the exfiltration as a registry name check, Codex asked for confirmation with a plausible reason. That reason was written by the malicious skill. I confirmed. Payload arrived. Full writeup: https://vett.sh/blog/ai-agent-skills-supply-chain-attack

~5k skills scanned so far:

- 59 critical risk: base64-obfuscated droppers calling a C2 server at a malicious IP, disguised as Google/LinkedIn/Excel tools
- 335 high risk: arbitrary shell execution, piped installers, agent identity manipulation
- 16 with `curl | bash` patterns. "React Native Best Practices" (5,400 installs) pipes to a legitimate domain it doesn't control. If that domain expires or gets sold, those installs become a delivery vehicle with no exploit required.

How Vett works:

First layer: a static analyzer with 40+ detection rules, AST-based capability analysis (TypeScript compiler for JS/TS, Python AST with regex fallback), and source-sink data flow tracking. A script that reads `.env` and makes an outbound HTTP request is flagged as an exfiltration chain, not two separate findings. It checks dependencies against the OSV vulnerability database, detects cross-file import chains, and catches when documentation references scripts that aren't in the package. Deterministic, runs in milliseconds.

Second layer: for ambiguous signals, LLM analysis compares observed behavior against declared purpose. A packaging tool calling an unrecognized endpoint looks different from a deployment tool calling AWS. Skills that clear both layers get Sigstore signing (ECDSA P-256 + Rekor transparency log) and content-addressed immutable storage.

npx vett add github.com/owner/repo/skill-name

Browse scanned skills at https://vett.sh/skills.

[0] https://www.moltbook.com/post/cbd6474f-8478-4894-95f1-7b104a...
by trashb | 2026-02-18 17:22:49+00:00
I think creativity is still a valid moat. And I think creativity will become a very important moat!

I am a firm believer of "limitation breeds creativity" and being able to make what you want with immediate result will lead to less diverse solutions. In a world of in-diverse products you need more creativity to stand out as it will become harder to conceive of something "outside of the box".

Similarly to how anyone can basically create any image they desire in Photoshop (with some limited training). Leading to a lot of images of a similar style instead of a lot of different styles (ai slop anyone?). This is because between the idea and the result the roadblocks are reduced, the process is smooth (tools aim for 1:1 conversion). In the creative process these roadblocks are usually where you will find interesting new directions or ideas. And very often the original idea was not that interesting to begin with (and perhaps not as original as we would like to believe).
by strcat | 2026-02-18 17:22:57+00:00
> Tor Browser seems to be a project that requires multiple full time developers. I don't think GrapheneOS have the resources right now to do this alongside their OS development, device support and app overhaul plans.

We're in the process of hiring a bunch of full time developers and will have more people working on Vanadium soon. The bottleneck isn't money but rather building out the organization and hiring people. We get a lot of donations and are going to be greatly expanding the project, particularly with the funding being offered by Vitalik Buterin for hiring 5 more full time developers.

> Also please don't take this as any criticism of your suggestion, but there have been multiple 'privacy' browser projects based on Chromium for Android. It's a little frustrating that they couldn't collaborate some base like this to the open source community.

Many aren't using permissive licensing and a lot of it is a mess that's not possible to include in Vanadium rather than making our own implementation that's more focused on correctness and maintainability. GrapheneOS is going to have an increasingly large amount of resources so we wouldn't get much from working with tiny projects. We could hire people to work on Vanadium instead. Working with Brave would be compelling but not much else. Brave has a lot of stuff we want but usually it's quite messy and complex compared to what we want to have. We're using work from Microsoft on Chromium hardening that's not used in Chrome / Chromium such as the WebAssembly interpreter.
by dec0dedab0de | 2026-02-18 17:23:00+00:00
having a main branch allows a casual observer(management) to browse your project in the gui and see what is currently live.

I like the opportunity to force a second set of testing, and code review. Especially if the team is big enough that you can have different people doing code review for each branch.

You can also have your CI/CD do longer more thorough testing while merging to main vs development.

If it's a project with a single deployment, version tagging is kind of pointless, it's much easier to just use a branch to reflect what is live, and roll back to a merge commit if you have to. Then you can still merge directly to main in the event of a hotfix.
by mikkupikku | 2026-02-18 17:23:17+00:00
Similar experience for me. I've been using it to make Qt GUIs, something I always avoided in the past because it seemed like a whole lot of stuff to learn when I could just make a TUI or use Tkinter if I really needed a GUI for some reason.

Claude Code is producing working useful GUIs for me using Qt via pyside6. They work well but I have no doubt that a dev with real experience with Qt would shudder. Nonetheless, because it does work, I am content to accept that this code isn't meant to be maintained by people so I don't really care if it's ugly.
by jerf | 2026-02-18 17:23:22+00:00
Luck has always been a solution to reach. It doesn't scale, though.

In the case of OpenClaw I think you're looking at a fairly pure iteration of luck there, too. It isn't even a case of "I prepared for years until luck finally knocked" or any variant like that. It was just luck.

If that is the only counterexample I'd say it doesn't disprove the point, if anything it just strengthens it. Nobody can build a business plan based on "I plan to be as lucky as OpenClaw".
by louiereederson | 2026-02-18 17:23:32+00:00
Anthropic reduced their gross margin forecast per external reporting (below) to 40%, and have exceeded internal forecasts on inference costs. This does not take into account amortized training costs which are substantial (well over 50% of revenue) and accounted for as occurring below gross profit. If you view training as a cost of staying in the game, then it is justifiable to view it as at least a partially variable cost that should be accounted for in gross margin, particularly given that the models stay on leading edge for only a few months. If that's the case then gross margins are probably minimal, maybe or negative.

https://www.theinformation.com/articles/anthropic-lowers-pro...
by Ccecil | 2026-02-18 17:23:43+00:00
No. It was real.

How well it worked is a different story. I saw one of the records at Autodesk's Pier9 in their display [1]. But again...I never heard it play.

There was more posts at the time that went into more detail.

[1] https://flic.kr/p/Jb7naT
by xpe | 2026-02-18 17:23:52+00:00
I often compare systems in terms of how well they tolerate adversity. To oversimplify, it feels like top-down command-and-control communism suffers under one powerful corrupting force. Capitalism can suffer from many kinds of market failures which get exacerbated when corrupt people in the surrounding government gain power.

At a distance, I've started to view disorganized, inefficient messes of systems as not all that bad in the grand scheme, because chaotic systems are often harder to co-opt.
by thaumasiotes | 2026-02-18 17:23:55+00:00
> But I don't think we should ignore "so much [...] to make sure" or "industry leading".

You're wrong; one is tautologous and the other is clearly non-factual.

More specifically, if you say "that's why we do so much to make sure [that xxx...]", the literal meaning of "so much" is "as much as we do" - the claim can never be false.

Meanwhile, "industry leading" is puffery.
by softwaredoug | 2026-02-18 17:23:57+00:00
I’d say the jury might be out on whether code is worthless for giant pieces of infrastructure (Linux kernel). There, small problems create outsized issues for everybody, so the incentive is to be conservative and focused on quality.

Second there’s a world of difference still between a developer with taste using AI with care and the slop cannons out there churning out garbage for others to suffer through. I’m betting there is value in the former in the long run.
by staticassertion | 2026-02-18 17:24:10+00:00
> Don't we have a bunch of tools that should create memory-safish binaries by applying the same validation checks that memory-safe languages get for free purely from their design?

No, we don't. All of the ones we have are heavily leveraged in Chromium or were outright developed at Google for similar projects. 10s of billions are spent to try to get Chromium to not have these vulnerabilities, using those tools. And here we are.

I'll elaborate a bit. Things like sanitizers largely rely on test coverage. Google spends a lot of money on things like fuzzing, but coverage is still a critical requirement. For a massive codebase, gettign proper coverage is obviously really tricky. We'll have to learn more about this vulnerability but you can see how even just that limitation alone is sufficient to explain gaps.
by hnbad | 2026-02-18 17:24:19+00:00
Both the "nice guy" and the "asshole" are insecure. The latter is just better at masking their insecurities in such a way that others mistake it for confidence.

This is especially true when eveyone involved is young enough not to have a wide enough frame of reference to gauge what's an indication of actual confidence versus abuse and has a brain undergoing massive hormonal shifts that intensify emotions, encourage risk taking and make them seek out novelty. Let's remember that most of the "nice guy" stories people like to tell are about early adulthood or more often than not their late teens.
by reconnecting | 2026-02-18 17:24:34+00:00
Thanks for the clarification.

>for use in LLMs such as Claude (1)

From your website, it seems to me that LLMs.txt is addressed to all LLMs such as Claude, not just 'individual client agents' . Claude never touched LLMs.txt on my servers, hence the confusion.

1. https://llmstxt.org
by bossyTeacher | 2026-02-18 17:24:52+00:00
>The value of unoriginal thinking has gone down. Thinking which is quotidian and pedestrian has become even more worthless than it already was.

Imagine American manufacturing industry workers saying the same thing of the (at the time) soon-to-be import only products. Original thoughts are valued more than non-original ones but maybe, the market doesn't require that many original thoughts to extract max profit...
by jovial_cavalier | 2026-02-18 17:24:56+00:00
I'd argue that those are actually very performance critical because if it takes 5 seconds to unlock your phone, you're going to get a new phone.

The point is taken, though, that seemingly the performance is fine as it is for these applications. My point was only that you don't need to be running state of the art LLMs to be using vector math with more than 4 dimensions.
by wtallis | 2026-02-18 17:24:57+00:00
> The AVX-512 implementation in Intel's Knight's Landing took up 40% of the die area

That chip family was pretty much designed to provide just enough CPU power to keep the vector engines fed. So that 40% is an upper bound, what you get when you try to build a GPU out of somewhat-specialized CPU cores (which was literally the goal of the first generation of that lineage).

For a general purpose chip, there's no reason to spend that large a fraction of the area on the vector units. Something like the typical ARM server chips with lots of weak cores definitely doesn't need each core to have a vector unit capable of doing 512-bit operations in a single cycle, and probably would be better off sharing vector units between multiple cores. For chips with large, high-performance CPU cores (eg. x86), a 512-bit vector unit will still noticeably increase the size of a CPU core, but won't actually dwarf the rest of the core the way it did for Xeon Phi.
by NickC25 | 2026-02-18 17:25:01+00:00
Seriously.

Mark's got 250 billion dollars, founded a 2 trillion dollar company, and is quite possibly the wealthiest self-made person alive today. It is highly likely Mark also possesses some form of security clearance from the NSA related to issues adjacent to his company. It it also likely that Mark has some form of kompromat

Donald Trump is a pedophile and a lying grandstander who has always talked tough and backed down when up against someone who knows what they are doing.

Donald Trump could try to put Mark in jail. Mark has hundreds of billions of dollars to prevent the government from touching him. It wouldn't happen. The second Donald Trump tried shit, Mark would simply buy the top 100 law firms in the nation, and have them work together to stop Trump, and Trump would back down.
by crystal_revenge | 2026-02-18 17:25:07+00:00
A lot of people aren’t realizing that it’s not about replacing software engineers, it’s about replacing software.

We’ve been trying to build well engineered, robust, scalable systems because software had to be written to serve other users.

But LLMs change that. I have a bunch of vibe coded command lines tools that exactly solve my problems, but very likely would make terrible software. The thing is, this program only needs to run on my machine the way I like to use it.

In a growing class of cases bespoke tools are superior to generalized software. This historically was not the case because it took too much time and energy to maintain these things. But today if my vibe coded solution breaks, I can rebuild it almost instantly (because I understand the architecture). It takes less time today to build a bespoke tool that solved your problem than it does to learn how to use existing software.

There’s still plenty of software that cannot be replaced with bespoke tools, but that list is shrinking.
by 0x000xca0xfe | 2026-02-18 17:25:27+00:00
It's a low clocked (2.1GHz) dual-issue in-order core so obviously nowhere near the real-world performance of e.g. Zen5 which can retire multiple 256-bit or even 512-bit vector instructions per cycle at 5+ GHz.

But I find the RVV ISA just really fascinating. Grouping 8 1024-bit registers together gives us 8192-bit or 1-kilobyte registers! That's a tremendous amount of work that can be done using a single instruction.

Feels like the Lanz bulldog of CPUs. Not sure how practical it will be after all, but it's certainly interesting.
by mrguyorama | 2026-02-18 17:25:37+00:00
It's "Ready Player One" for people who think SV is the most important thing in the world. It's very shallow and mostly just shoutouts to early computing history trivia.

It was engrossing as all hell, but it's one of the only shows I ever finished while really not liking it.

It feels so fake, and tries to keep your attention with gimmicks and artificial drama. When things are working out, characters sabotage things purposely to add drama back, as if it can't possibly be dramatic to succeed. The show basically ends up being a group of 4 or 5 assholes being assholes to each other for no reason.

No actually, 4 individuals are not solely responsible for 20 years of early computing history and making that so is absurd and kills my suspension of disbelief.

But it's short and self contained and there's enough character stuff to see that it's still worth experiencing.

I don't know how people say it's like "Soul of a New Machine" by Tracey Kidder. I read that book and there's just nothing comparable in the show. Soul of a new machine was a wonderful journey that was full of real people and real experiences, and maybe the first season of HaCF was like the McDonalds version of that.
by kibwen | 2026-02-18 17:25:53+00:00
But this is irrelevant. If you're afraid of third-party code, you can just... choose not to use third-party code? Meanwhile, if I'm afraid of memory corruption in C, I cannot just choose not to have memory corruption; I must instead simply choose not to use C. Meanwhile, Chromium uses tons of third-party Rust code, and has thereby judged the risk differently.