MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by JKCalhoun | 2026-02-19 17:01:13+00:00
Agree.

In fact, ha ha, when I was a teen, I set up a window pane as level as I could with a Super-8 camera beneath pointing up. I added water to about an inch in depth (about all I could manage for the window frame) and then poured milk in to create the cloud effect.

I don't have a recollection of seeing the resulting footage, making me wonder if I bothered filming it. Perhaps from the camera point of view all I got was reflections—or perhaps the whole thing was underexposed. Regardless, it was fun to be young and experimenting like that.

My best low-budget effect (not counting the stop-motion animation I experimented with—of course) was when I set my Super-8 camera upside down on a tripod outside at night. I had a piece of glass (the same glass window frame?) and had painted the silhouette of a house in black paint. The windows of the house were left clear but with white paper backing.

The camera was set up to film the glass-painted house outside at night with the sky/trees/stars that were outside as a natural backdrop through the glass. With the camera rolling I had a small light on behind the glass that made the windows of the house appear to be on. I turned it off after the camera rolled for a few seconds. Then I briefly kicked on a very powerful light that caused a quite a flash behind the silhouetted house.

The last thing to film was a thread I had hanging behind the glass that I set on fire with a lighter. It quickly burned up the thread as the camera rolled.

When the film came back I flipped it around end for end, splicing it back into the final roll of film. The inverted camera footage was now right-side up but with the film playing in reverse.

And so the thread had become instead a flame like a meteor crashing to the ground—resulting in a bright flash. Seconds later the lights in the house come on.
by bartoszdabrows | 2026-02-19 17:01:24+00:00
I am just afraid that, to avoid cognitive decline, we will need to shift to algorithm-design textbooks instead of crosswords before bedtime (same for architecture). To keep the brain in shape. It will be like going to the gym to lift weights just so you can look muscular, even though you don't need to use those muscles as a bodyguard (probably never).
by steve_adams_86 | 2026-02-19 17:01:28+00:00
Ugh, the gears and chain don't mesh and there's no sprocket on the rear hub

But seriously, I can't believe LLMs are able to one-shot a pelican on a bicycle this well. I wouldn't have guessed this was going to emerge as a capability from LLMs 6 years ago. I see why it does now, but... It still amazes me that they're so good at some things.
by cranberryturkey | 2026-02-19 17:01:31+00:00
Interesting approach. The session amnesia problem is real — every time you start a new Claude session, you're essentially onboarding a new team member who knows nothing about your project.

Question: how do you handle conflicting decisions? If engineer A decides on approach X in a session on Monday, and engineer B decides on approach Y on Tuesday, does SageOx surface the conflict or just store both as valid context?

Also curious about the retrieval quality. The hardest part isn't capturing decisions — it's retrieving the RIGHT context at the RIGHT time. Too much context and you're back to the LLM ignoring half of it. Too little and you miss critical constraints. What's your chunking/relevance strategy?
by LoganDark | 2026-02-19 17:01:58+00:00
That space is blank for me too.

This page seems to have one halfway-functional photo for me: https://www.sharrowmarine.com/store/p/sharrow-by-veem-ds9sw

This URL may work: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/560055b1e4b017...
by FrustratedMonky | 2026-02-19 17:01:59+00:00
Inflation has gone up.

Just go shopping.

If you start quoting government statistics to defend a point, remember that the people that reported any numbers that contradicted the regime, were fired. So those are no longer trusted.

You're living in a bubble.

90% of Trump’s tariffs are paid for by American consumers and companies

https://fortune.com/2026/02/13/new-york-fed-economists-confi...
by munk-a | 2026-02-19 17:02:07+00:00
I gain comprehension through the authoring process. I've always been weaker on the side of reviewing and only really gained an understanding of new tooling added by coworkers when I get to dig in and try to use it. This is absolutely a learning style thing and I have ADHD and have known since high-school that I am more engaged in the practical and have trouble with dry lecture style teaching - I have even excelled in pretty abstract and theoretical fields but it takes trying to work through problem solving, even if those problems are abstract and hard to mechanically represent.

So I am in the same boat, AI can write some good skeleton code for different purposes so I can get running faster but with anything complex and established it serves very little benefit. I'll end up spending more time trying to understand why and how it is doing something then I'd spend just doing it myself. When AI is a magical fix button that's awesome, but even in those circumstances I'm just buying LLM-debt - if I never need to touch that code again it's fine, but if I need to revise the code then I'll need to invest more time into understanding it and cleaning it up then I initially saved.

I'm not certain how much other folks are feeling this or if it's just me and the way my brain works, but I struggle to see the great savings outside of dead simple tasks.
by sodapopcan | 2026-02-19 17:02:14+00:00
That's only because no one understood agile or XP and they've become a "no one actually does that stuff" joke to many. I have first hand experience with prototyping full features in a day or two and throwing the result away. It comes with the added benefit of getting your hands dirty and being able to make more informed decisions when doing the actual implementation. It has always been possible, just most people didn't want to do it.
by anthony_d | 2026-02-19 17:02:20+00:00
> My impression is that the vast majority of "savings" was never achieved by promised efficiency gains or elimination of pure waste, but instead simply by cutting projects, i.e. slashing some form of public service or benefit in order to save tax money. Which is obviously inferior.

That doesn’t seem inferior at all. There’s very little to be gained by doing everything the same but with less money; the only way to make an actual difference is to quit doing the stupid shit that’s expensive. That’s what 90% of the world means by efficiency, i.e. don’t do the things that don’t need done.
by flail | 2026-02-19 17:02:21+00:00
The question is not whether we like or want subscriptions, but rather whether we're used to them. And the answer is yes.

Given the choice, we'd be using Spotifys and Netflixes for free, and have ad-free Google. I don't expect that choice to be given to us.

AI tools won't change anything on that account. At best, we'll switch one subscription for another one, except that the latter will add a bill for the tokens we use.
by autoexec | 2026-02-19 17:02:26+00:00
> A lot of our taxes in this country seem like a giant waste or are grossly inefficient at best.

It's our duty to elect people who use tax dollars wisely and to vote out officials who neglect their responsibility to the people and use tax money to enrich themselves and anyone else willing to bribe them. Our government is filled with grifters because we've failed to hold them meaningfully accountable for robbing us and failing to provide the benefits we're funding.

Many of the grifters in government have been working hard to make it difficult to hold them accountable. They disenfranchise voters, they keep us afraid and our futures uncertain, they collude against efforts to reform the system they've established for their own benefit.

Government was never going to just let us have "liberty and justice for all" the job was always on "we the people" to insist on it. We can't just pay taxes and expect everything to work out. We have to use the democracy we have to force the government to work for us and not just for themselves. If we've reached a point where that's no longer possible then it's our duty to "refresh the tree of liberty" until we have a government that works for us.
by PaulDavisThe1st | 2026-02-19 17:02:49+00:00
Yep, that was my thinking as well. Two things:

1. this is being used in a method that is widely used in both the <true> and <false> contexts, which I believe means that branch prediction would not be great if it was simply the same instruction sequence in both contexts. I could be wrong about that.

2. the major benefit that I saw was not duplicating the much more substantial code in the "..." sections (before and after the constexpr) and thus making maintainance and continued evolution of the code more reliable.
by saberience | 2026-02-19 17:03:15+00:00
Benchmarks aren't everything.

Gemini consistently has the best benchmarks but the worst actual real-world results.

Every time they announce the best benchmarks I try again at using their tools and products and each time I immediately go back to Claude and Codex models because Google is just so terrible at building actual products.

They are good at research and benchmaxxing, but the day to day usage of the products and tools is horrible.

Try using Google Antigravity and you will not make it an hour before switching back to Codex or Claude Code, it's so incredibly shitty.
by IncreasePosts | 2026-02-19 17:03:43+00:00
AI made coding really enjoyable for me, for a subset of projects: Projects that I want, but don't really care about the design/implementation, or projects that has a lot of fiddly one-off configurations where it doesn't make sense to tuck in and learn all about the system if it is mostly set-it-and-forget-it. A lot of my home automation/home systems are now fully implemented by AI, because I don't really care how performant it is, or integrating all the various components, and it is very straight forward to tell if it works or if it doesn't work.
by kypro | 2026-02-19 17:04:26+00:00
My favourite code to write used to be small clean methods perhaps containing ~20 lines of logic. And I agree, it's fun coming up with ways to test that logic and seeing it pass those tests.

I'm not sure I'll ever write this kind of code again now. For months now all I've done is think about the higher level architectural decisions and prompt agents to write the actual code, which I find enjoyable, but architectural decisions are less clean and therefore for me less enjoyable. There's often a very clear good and bad way to right a method, but how you organise things at a higher level is much less binary. I rarely ever get that, "yeah, I've done a really good job there" feeling when making higher level decisions, but more of "eh, I think this is probably a good solution/compromise, given the requirements".
by matthewkayin | 2026-02-19 17:04:29+00:00
You cannot remove the toil without removing the creative work.

Just like how, in writing a story, a writer must also toil over each sentence, and should this be an emdash or a comma? and should I break the paragraph here or there? All this minutia is just as important to the final product as grand ideas and architecture are.

If you don't care about those little details, then fine. But you sacrifice some authorship of the program when you outsource those things to an agent. (And I would say, you sacrifice some quality as well).
by notnullorvoid | 2026-02-19 17:04:40+00:00
Interesting, I've found AI to be further from the goal of converting my thoughts to code than writing code myself.

English is so ambiguous that by the time I provide sufficient context to the prompt it's taken more typing than writing the code would have been. That's not even accounting for the output often needing further prompting to manipulate into what was intended, especially if I try to be light on initial context.

I like it for quick proof of concept stuff though, the details don't matter so much then.
by magneticnorth | 2026-02-19 17:04:47+00:00
This is an interesting way to think about plants and animals.

I'm finding it surprisingly hard to find sources for known age of species - is that information collected somewhere? Or is it something we often just don't know because of how sparse the fossil record is?

Wondering because of trying to look up the age of fern species I do eat (no cinnamon fern near me) and I can't find out.
by daveguy | 2026-02-19 17:04:48+00:00
> The only thing where I don’t trust it yet is when code must be copy pasted. I can’t trace if it actually cuts and pastes code, or if the LLM brain is in between. In the latter case there may be tiny errors that I’d never find, so I’m not doing that. But maybe I’m paranoid.

imo, this isn't paranoid at all, and it very likely filters through the LLM, unless you provide a tool/skill and explicit instructions. Even then you're rolling the dice, and the diff will have to be checked.
by staticassertion | 2026-02-19 17:05:26+00:00
So, this is unhelpful and makes me think very little of you. Your other post is better so I'll reply to that. I will note that I almost certainly know more than you, so any sort of "you don't know what you're talking about" will be lost on my deaf ears.

Given my experience, you should question your own position, as, empirically, I have demonstrated expertise on this topic.

The fact that you won't make points but instead simply ask questions, I think, demonstrates how weakly you're able to express your own position. You're the one advocating for reasoned discussion, perhaps you should abandon this weak socratic approach and present your arguments?

> If you have a block of unsafe, is it sufficient to inspect that block of unsafe code if a change is made to a different part of the code that is not in an unsafe block if one is seeking to avoid memory unsafety? If he has done his basic homework, he should have known the answer to that and the consequences of it.

No, and I didn't say this. Memory safety is not a strictly local property and I never claimed it was, that's merely an uncharitable and naive read of my post. I said that `grep unsafe` gives you a starting place, because any memory safety properties (barring unsound compiler issues etc) almost necessarily involve an unsafe block.

> Why do some Rust projects which do not contain a single line of unsafe, still run Miri, a tool that is designed to catch some (not all) undefined behavior and memory unsafety, and which can run 50x-200x slower than regular Rust? An example can be seen in https://zackoverflow.dev/writing/unsafe-rust-vs-zig/ , where the author used Miri to find memory unsafety in a dependency, upstreamed a fix to that dependency, and then encountered memory unsafety in a different dependency and gave up.

This is just changing the definition of "do not contain a single line of unsafe" to mean "excluding dependencies". Who ever said that you shouldn't check for unsafe in your dependencies? Not me!

Anyway, you seem quite dumb. Your inability to properly interpret a position both as you may first see it as well as the charitable interpretation, and then to present that, is a personal failing that you should reflect on. I strongly doubt I have literally anything to learn from discussing this with you but perhaps this post will be helpful for other readers.
by OkayPhysicist | 2026-02-19 17:05:38+00:00
I suspect the biggest advantage Elixir has is the relative quality of the publicly available code. Approximately no one has Elixir as their first programming language, which keeps a lot of the absolute trash-tier code that we all make when first learning to program out of the training set. If you look at languages that are often people's first (Python, JavaScript, Java), only Java has an above average score. Of those three, Java's significantly more likely to be taught in a structured learning environment, compared to kids winging it with the other two.

(And Elixir's relationship to Ruby is pretty overstated, IMO. There's definitely inspiration, but the OO-FP jump is a makes the differences pretty extreme)
by drdec | 2026-02-19 17:05:45+00:00
The trust fund is funded by the overage of collected Social Security taxes compared to Social Security payouts. It is not "tacked on" and does not use "separate government funding".

Currently there are more payouts than taxes so the trust fund is being used to make up the difference.

When the trust fund is depleted (barring any changes, this happens at some point in the next decade if I'm not mistaken) then there will be a reckoning. If no action is taken by Congress the result is that payouts will be cut by the necessary percentage to match the taxes.
by munk-a | 2026-02-19 17:05:51+00:00
It has always been my opinion (and born out by our statistics internally, when counting self-review in the form of manual testing and automated test writing) that reviewing code (to the level of catching defects) often takes more time than actually building the solution. So I have a pretty big concern that the majority of AI code generation ends up adding time to tasks than it saves because it's optimizing the cheap tasks at the expense of the costly tasks.
by SideburnsOfDoom | 2026-02-19 17:05:59+00:00
> I think this might say more about your geographic location than you think

Clearly, for instance Welwitschia (1) listed. I think this says a lot about location.

It's a fascinating plant, but it is an endangered species, endemic to the Namib desert. And as far as I know, not that commonly eaten.

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welwitschia
by hagbard_c | 2026-02-19 17:06:19+00:00
Remember the 'CHOP/CHAZ' [1] fiasco during the 'Summer of Love' in 2020 [2]? That is where you end up if there is no police. Instead of a Kumbayah around the campfire you get some warlord-like individual who proclaims himself Lord of the Domain and anyone who crosses him gets to find out why 'abolishing the police' was a bad idea.

Does this mean that the police is always right? No, of course not, that is one of the many things wrong with the 'Die Partei hat immer recht' (German for The party is always right, part of the lyrics of the national anthem of the German 'Democratic' Republic [3]) philosophy. Nobody is always right and any power is there to be abused by those willing and able to do so. That's why there is oversight of those in power which - admittedly - isn't always as effective as it should be.

[1] https://www.historylink.org/File/22870

[2] https://reasonabletv.com/podcast/chop_s_deadly_legacy__5_yea...

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_IbCMOg9YA&t=18
by PaulHoule | 2026-02-19 17:06:25+00:00
Google would really wish the only channel that worked was their ad platform, I'll tell you that.

We also don't know what you're pitching. If it's another samey AI startup seeing the subject line is like a punch in the gut. To be fair, 99% of people are trying to sell something that nobody wants to buy but once in a blue moon you see somebody's whose response rate has extra zeros on the right because they're selling something people are interested in.
by martifarre | 2026-02-19 17:06:41+00:00
I built this to test if AI agents are vulnerable to prompt injection and data exfiltration.

Bitdefender released a skill scanner for malware in agent skills. But even with clean skills, the agent itself can be manipulated if the system prompt isn't robust – a crafted message can trick it into leaking credentials or forwarding data.

You select your agent's capabilities (email, files, terminal, browser) and it runs adversarial prompts against your config. Shows what got blocked vs what went through.

Open source: https://github.com/marti-farre/temper-llm

Looking for feedback on what attack vectors to add.
by andrewflnr | 2026-02-19 17:06:45+00:00
> The real value in these tools is not the model, it is the harness... And that is the part that is easiest to replicate.

> The companies that will win long-term are the ones building open protocols and letting users bring their own model.

These seem contradictory. It sounds like you're saying that the long term winners are the ones who do the easy part. The future I see is open source harnesses talking to commodity models.
by adrian_b | 2026-02-19 17:07:10+00:00
I think that you might have confused me with the author of the article.

American companies have a pronounced preference for business-to-business products, where they can sell large quantities in bulk and at very large profit margins that would not be accepted by small businesses or individual users, who spend their own money, instead of spending the money of an anonymous employer.

If that is the only way for them to be profitable, good for them. However such policies do not deserve respect. They demonstrate the inefficiencies in the management of these companies, which prevent them from competing efficiently in markets for low-margin commodity products.

From my experience, I am pretty certain that a smaller die version of the AMD "datacenter" GPUs could be made and it could be profitable, like such GPUs were a decade ago, when AMD was still making them. However today they no longer have any incentive to do such things, as they are content with selling a smaller number of units, but with much higher margins, and they do not feel any pressure to tighten their costs.

Fortunately at least in CPUs there has been a steady progress and AMD Zen 5 has been a great leap in floating-point throughput, exceeding the performance of older GPUs.

I am not blaming vendors for not building the product that I desire, but I am disappointed that years ago they have fooled me to waste time in porting applications to their products, which I bought instead of spending money for something else, but then they have discontinued such products, with no upgrade path.

Because I am old enough to remember what happened 15 to 20 years ago, I am annoyed about the hypocrisy of some discourses of the NVIDIA CEO, which have been repeated for several years after introducing CUDA, which were more or less equivalent with promises that the goal of NVIDIA is to put a "supercomputer" on the desk of everyone, only for him to pivot completely from these claims and remove FP64 from "consumer" GPUs, in order to be able to sell "enterprise" GPUs at inflated prices. Then soon this prompted AMD to imitate the same strategy.
by horsawlarway | 2026-02-19 17:07:21+00:00
So much this.

It's absolutely amazing how hostile Google is to releasing billing options that are reasonable, controllable, or even fucking understandable.

I want to do relatively simple things like:

1. Buy shit from you

2. For a controllable amount (ex - let me pick a limit on costs)

3. Without spending literally HOURS trying to understand 17 different fucking products, all overlapping, with myriad project configs, api keys that should work, then don't actually work, even though the billing links to the same damn api key page, and says it should work.

And frankly - you can't do any of it. No controls (at best delayed alerts). No clear access. No real product differentiation pages. No guides or onboarding pages to simplify the matter. No support. SHIT LOADS of completely incorrect and outdated docs, that link to dead pages, or say incorrect things.

So I won't buy shit from them. Period.
by Eisenstein | 2026-02-19 17:07:23+00:00
They address this specifically and hand-wave it away:

Moreover, both random and all other experimentation strategies we examined require constructing a bounded experimental space, a challenge that lies beyond the scope of the current work (see Almaatouq et al., 2024, for further discussion).

I think their conclusion is still important to consider, though. It makes a point beyond the practicalities and more towards the philosophy of approach.