MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
Show HN: I built a 0-CPU desktop app to track LLM limits,Python/DjangoPyWebView
by Viper117 | 2026-02-28 01:16:42+00:00
Hey HN, tracking limits across 20 Gemini/Opus accounts was getting tedious, but I refused to build a heavy Electron app just to run a countdown clock. I built Antigravity-Model-Reset-Timer
using a 'Target Timestamp' approach: the Django backend calculates the absolute future UTC time and saves it to a local MongoDB. You can kill the app, and the JS engine just compares the DB time to the OS clock on next load. Zero zombie processes. It’s under 10 files. Looking for feedback on the PyWebView implementation and contributors to help add Anthropic/Google API webhooks.

Become a contributor to this open source project!
https://github.com/PeterJFrancoIII/Antigravity-Model-Reset-T...
by mrandish | 2026-02-28 01:17:06+00:00
> "Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War..."

While I agree with Anthropic's position on this regardless, the original contract wording does matter in terms of making either the government look even more unreasonable or Anthropic look a little less reasonable.

The issue is a subtle ambiguity in Dario's statement: "...have never been included in our contracts" because it leaves two possibilities: 1. those two conditions were explicitly mentioned and disallowed in the contract, or 2. they weren't in the contract itself - and are disallowed by Anthropic's Terms of Service and complying with the ToS is a condition in the contract (which would be typical).

If that's the case, then it matters if the ToS disallowed those two uses at the time the original contract was signed, or if the ToS was revised since signing. Anthropic is still 100% in the right if the ToS disallowed these uses at the time of signing and the ToS was an explicit condition of the contract, since contracts often loop in the ToS as a condition while not precluding the ToS being updated.

However, if the ToS was updated after contract signing and Anthropic added or expanded the wording of those two provisions, then the DoD, IMHO, has a tiny shred of justification to complain and stop using Anthropic. Of course, going much further and banning the entire US government (and contractors) from using Anthropic for any use, including all the ones where these two provisions don't matter - is egregiously punitive and shitty.

While the contract wording itself may be subject to NDA, it would be helpful if Anthropic's statements could be a bit more precise. For example, if Dario had said "have always been disallowed in our contracts" this ambiguity wouldn't exist.
by this-is-why | 2026-02-28 01:17:12+00:00
Welcome to reality. HN likes to pretend politics is something you can just look away from and ignore. That’s a mighty big privilege, which makes sense since HN skews cis-white-het-male. That’s not a lie. It is easy to ignore this when it doesn’t touch them. But now it DOES touch them, and you’ve just discovered what every oppressed group in history has to live with: politics doesn’t just go away if you ignore it.
Super Editor – Atomic file editor with automatic backups (Python and Go)
by larryste | 2026-02-28 01:18:42+00:00
I built this after getting frustrated with unsafe file operations in automation workflows.

Key features:
• Atomic writes (no partial/corrupted files)
• Automatic ZIP backups before every change
• Regex and AST-based text replacement
• 1,050 automated tests with 100% pass rate
• Dual implementation (Python + Go, Go is 20x faster)

Use cases:
• CI/CD pipelines that modify config files
• Automated refactoring scripts
• Any workflow where file corruption would be catastrophic

PyPI: https://pypi.org/project/super-editor/
GitHub: https://github.com/larryste1/super-editor
Would love feedback from the HN community!
by kvinogradov | 2026-02-28 01:19:46+00:00
There are areas where we experiment and take risks: raising the first-ever endowment for open source, making it very lean and digital-first, relying on bottom-up funding and governance instead of large corporate donors, etc.

But all other areas should be as low-risk as possible — like accounting, legal, and investment management of a community endowment fund. We are exploring a few ideas on how to grow the fund faster than the market without increasing its risk profile, but they are complementary to a very conservative core strategy.

Besides OSE, I am a full-time VC — that's the area where investors are bold and invest in off-norm opportunities, but it lies on the totally opposite side of the investment risk spectrum. And directly mixing them does not seem like a good idea.
by SllX | 2026-02-28 01:19:48+00:00
How about we stop screwing around and let becoming a legislator become an attractive & competitive job and just hold our noses at the little things that make politicians as a class generally unattractive people? Like not limitless, not with total impunity, but instead of trying to micromanage our way to perfection every fucking step of the way, we accept that politicians are going to politic.
by redwall_hp | 2026-02-28 01:20:00+00:00
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

[...]

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

[...]

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

[...]

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

— The Declaration of Independence https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip...

People threw tea in Boston Harbor over less than the tariffs.
by stingraycharles | 2026-02-28 01:20:07+00:00
From what i understand, Palentir using Claude during the capturing of Maduro is the reason all this started, as Anthropic did not agree their systems were used that way. [1]

Obviously Palentir and others need time to migrate off Anthropic’s products. The way i read it is that Anthropic made a serious miscalculation by joining the DoD contracts last year, you can’t have these kind of moral standards and at the same time have Palentir as a customer. The lack of foresight is interesting.

1 https://www.axios.com/2026/02/15/claude-pentagon-anthropic-c...
by me-vs-cat | 2026-02-28 01:20:07+00:00
> The cops that pull them over always treat them in the softest and most deferential way imaginable.

Without denying I have seen preferential treatment first-hand, you might take a step back and imagine...

You're dealing with someone who entered a career known for its machismo, where they received training on how to use physical violence, including training on shooting a weapon that could quite possibly be with them. This person has been drinking or is flat-out drunk, and it's only a matter of minutes before they realize how screwed they're about to be.

Treating them softly is what you SHOULD do.

We should be asking whether we are content to find ourselves in a world where that soft approach is considered the noteworthy exception.
by vadimen | 2026-02-28 01:20:33+00:00
A lot of people tried, some bought Mac Minis, some bought VPS but thir service allows you to go even further. You actually install it with just 1 click and wait ~2 minutes maximum while it's setup and running. But the best part is that you don't even need to to add your Claude of OpenAI key because you have Kimi K2.5 already added inside. Just try it and you'll see.
by PostOnce | 2026-02-28 01:20:47+00:00
My take is that none of the AI companies really care (companies can't care), they just realize that if they go down that road, public opinion will be so vehemently against AI in all forms that it will be regulated out of viability by the electorate.

Also, if AI exists, AI will be used for war. The AI company employees are kidding themselves if they think otherwise, and yet they are still building it (as opposed to resigning and working on something else), because in the end, money is the only true God in this world.
by cosmic_cheese | 2026-02-28 01:21:21+00:00
I don’t agree. It’s still ultimately up to the parent to keep an eye on what their kids are up to, talk to them and prepare them to handle ugly things (which they will encounter at some point whether you prepare them for it or not, no matter how hard you try to keep them in a bubble), and if they feel necessary impose restrictions on a household basis.

Even if I did agree, the implementations being rolled out present far more danger to adults than requiring an ID to enter a physical establishment ever could. Internet ID systems are rife for political abuse for example, and requiring age attestation at the OS level endangers general purpose computing, adds yet more hoops for free open source OS projects to jump through, and risks making FOSS OSes illegal to use for those who need an escape hatch from their commercial counterparts the most.
by nelox | 2026-02-28 01:21:36+00:00
I actually use assistive voice transcription as I am unable to type well with a keyboard.

[Edit: update]

I use assistive voice transcription because I'm unable to type well with a keyboard. But I'd point out that "you must be an AI" has become the new way to dismiss an argument without engaging with it. It's the modern equivalent of "you're just copy-pasting talking points", it lets you discard everything someone said without addressing a single word of it.

The fact that my sentences "thread together" is not evidence of anything other than coherent thinking. And speed of response says more about the tools someone uses than whether a human is behind them. Plenty of people use dictation, accessibility tools, or just happen to type fast.

^^^ This took me 30 seconds to speak aloud.
by fwipsy | 2026-02-28 01:22:14+00:00
This is an interesting perspective, but I think the fallout from sticking to his guns here is probably greater than the public blowback he would receive from serving the DoD. Without this specific sticking point, the public would know that Anthropic was serving the DoD, but not what specifically the model was being used for, and it would be difficult to prove it wasn't something relatively innocuous.
by nilkn | 2026-02-28 01:23:12+00:00
You're confused because you're taking everything the people involved are saying literally and trusting everything plainly at face value. The existence of the contradiction you're pointing out should be evidence that you need to think a level deeper, i.e., that you need to look at actions more than words. There's an incredibly easy resolution of the contradiction that is troubling you, and it's already been pointed out clearly above.
by dgently7 | 2026-02-28 01:24:06+00:00
awesome glad you liked it. id love to try it out again if you implement any of them. idk what else to call the black squares so "enemy" felt right for the board fights back vibe.

another nice thing i thought of with enemy block types idea is that you don't need to look anywhere but the board if you get rid of powerups that you just have so your whole interface gets simpler. if you still needed powerups you could have them show up as normal pieces in the chain of pieces.

it def starts to veer into more of a classic tetris how far can you go vibe than maybe the puzzle thing you are going for, but maybe its actually two games. puzzle mode is as now but starts with a fixed set or
fixed progression of enemys. you finish the puzzle when you defeat them all. winning then is time or rows cleared or minimum number of pieces even. infinite mode is more like the current. or classic tetris, how far can you go while new enemies spawn in of increasing number and difficulty. winning is how many enemies you clear + lines + time
by infamouscow | 2026-02-28 01:24:30+00:00
The argument "we need AI because China" is principally a national security argument, but it has been used as a motte-and-bailey for commercial use of AI.

This motte-and-bailey argument is finally dead, thanks entirely to the supreme arrogance of a few AI companies that think they're going to beat the US government on this.

These nerds really have no idea who they're dealing with. The executive branch can categorize AI technology as equivalent to nuclear weapons technology.
by yellowstuff | 2026-02-28 01:24:47+00:00
You make a valid point. Dario suggests that DoD wants to have the capacity to do domestic surveillance and autonomous killing. Sean Parnell said the DoD doesn't want those capacities. These statements are in conflict. Them talking past each other is one possibility. Without much evidence except the track record of the Trump administration, I think it is much more likely that Sean Parnell is lying.
by randycupertino | 2026-02-28 01:25:46+00:00
> The workplace misconduct report details allegations that Callender sent late-night texts to subordinates, including one message reading, “Showered yet? Just playing.” In another message, he reportedly wrote, “I’ll believe it when I smell it.”

> Other allegations made in the misconduct investigation included repeated comments on an employee’s appearance and personal life. Investigators found that Callender told her a dress “fit nicely,” suggested multiple times that they should get married and asked her whether she was dressing up to impress someone “on the side” or make her partner jealous. He’d asked if she had ever “been with” an African American man.

> The report also found that he told the same employee that there was a rumor that they were having an affair and “helped spread this rumor by disclosing it to other personnel.” He also had sent this employee inappropriate photos, including one centered on his clothed lap and another photo of a woman in a bikini, the report said.
by dryarzeg | 2026-02-28 01:25:54+00:00
They've already been using Signal - which is "commercial" app, meaning it's not meant to be used like that - for top-secret (or at least highly sensitive) military communications during the military strikes on Yemen. If that was fake, I apologise, I was deceived. I wouldn't be surprised if things turned out that way again, to be honest. That's something to be expected, actually (IMO).
by vharuck | 2026-02-28 01:25:55+00:00
>A tweet is not a legally binding statement.

In the recent Supreme Court hearing over the firing of Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve, the administration is acting like Truth Social posts are official notices.

>Several justices have noted the unusual nature of the case before it, which began with a post by Trump on his social media platform, Truth Social, that said he would fire Cook.

>Jackson wondered why that would be considered sufficient notice: “How is it that we can assume that she’s on social media?”

https://apnews.com/live/supreme-court-lisa-cook-federal-rese...
by gck1 | 2026-02-28 01:27:02+00:00
I don't understand the line as well. So its no to domestic surveillance, but all other countries are a fair game? How is this an ethical stand? What sort of mental gymnastics allow Anthropic to classify this as an ethical stance?

To me all of this reads like "we don't trust our models enough yet to not cause domestic havoc, all other is fine, and we don't trust our models enough yet to not vibe-kill people". Key word being "yet".
by eduction | 2026-02-28 01:27:33+00:00
This will likely be deeply unpopular but: Good!

The place to set policies on the use of hammers and police enforcement is not at the counter of the hardware store. “You want a hammer but don’t have a contractors license? Are you in a training program? Oh you just want to hang framed art - can I see your lease, does it allow hammering metal into the walls?”

We govern these things through laws and a democratic process. Police enforce the laws.

I don’t want some overconfident Silicon Valley engineering firm telling me how to use my digital tools, and you shouldn’t either.

Whatever you think of this administration, our military should not have to ask contractors permission for their operations.

To stop mass surveillance and autonomous lethality, pass laws. Asking unelected tech executives to do this is asking for trouble. They have no business doing it.
by throw310822 | 2026-02-28 01:28:01+00:00
From the statement:

"Secretary Hegseth has implied this designation would restrict anyone who does business with the military from doing business with Anthropic. The Secretary does not have the statutory authority to back up this statement. Legally, a supply chain risk designation under 10 USC 3252 can only extend to the use of Claude as part of Department of War contracts—it cannot affect how contractors use Claude to serve other customers.

In practice, this means:

If you are an individual customer or hold a commercial contract with Anthropic, your access to Claude—through our API, claude.ai, or any of our products—is completely unaffected.
If you are a Department of War contractor, this designation—if formally adopted—would only affect your use of Claude on Department of War contract work. Your use for any other purpose is unaffected."
by cyberax | 2026-02-28 01:28:08+00:00
Well, ask your state to fix the issue. Perhaps elect better politicians? The states where I lived all have online booking.

And their websites are well-designed and functional. There are customer support emails and phone numbers.

> Say nothing of the fact that if I tried to pay it, Comcast would be able to take my money no problem.

About that... A couple of years ago I got locked out of AT&T because I forgot to update my credit card. And I couldn't log in because it required a (you guessed it) one-time SMS password. Their "pay your bill" needed a bill number, for which I needed to log into their website.

Their fix? Visit the store.

> Imagine the consequences if I did that with government.

A couple of years ago I accidentally overpaid the IRS (I paid the capital gains tax twice, as it was already deducted during the sale by the broker) to the tune of $10k. A year later, they sent a letter asking me for clarifications. I called them, and they sent me a refund check.

> The government would take a check, ACH or charge me $5 to use a buggy 3rd party CC processing service.

And what's wrong with a check or ACH?
by bko | 2026-02-28 01:28:09+00:00
Quoting Palmer Luckey on X:

> Do you believe in democracy? Should our military be regulated by our elected leaders, or corporate executives? Seemingly innocuous terms from the latter like "You cannot target innocent civilians" are actually moral minefields that lever differences of cultural tradition into massive control.

> Who is a civilian and not? What makes them innocent or not? What does it mean for them to be a "target" vs collateral damage? Existing policy and law has very clear answers for these questions, but unelected corporations managing profits and PR will often have a very different answer.

> Imagine if a missile company tried to enforce the above policy, that their product cannot be used to target innocent civilians, that they can shut off access if elected leaders decide to break those terms. Sounds, good, right? Not really - in addition to the value judgement problems I list above, you also have to account for questions like:

> -What level of information, classified and otherwise, does the corporation receive that would allow them to make these determinations? How much leverage would they have to demand more?

> -What if an elected President merely threatens a dictator with using our weapons in a certain way, ala Madman Theory/MAD? Is the threat seen as empty because the dictator knows the corporate executives will cut off the military? Is the threat enough to trigger the cutoff? How might either of those determinations vary if the current corporate executive happens to like the dictator or dislike the President?

> -At what level of confidence does the cutoff trigger, both in writing and in reality?

> The fact that this is a debate over AI does not change the underlying calculus. The same problems apply to definitions and use of ethically fraught but important capabilities like surveillance systems or autonomous weapons. It is easy to say "But they will have cutouts to operate with autonomous systems for defensive use!", but you immediately get into the same issues and more - what is autonomous? What is defensive? What about defending an asset during an offensive action, or parking a carrier group off the coast of a nation that considers us to be offensive?

> At the end of the day, you have to believe that the American experiment is still ongoing, that people have the right to elect and unelect the authorities making these decisions, that our imperfect constitutional republic is still good enough to run a country without outsourcing the real levers of power to billionaires and corpos and their shadow advisors. I still believe.

> And that is why "bro just agree the AI won't be involved in autonomous weapons or mass surveillance why can't you agree it is so simple please bro" is an untenable position that the United States cannot possibly accept.

https://x.com/PalmerLuckey/status/2027500334999081294
by SllX | 2026-02-28 01:28:23+00:00
If someone can still keep getting people to vote for them, that’s not really an issue.

We elect the way we do and empower the way we do because it empowers voters to choose on a regular recurring basis who is going to provide oversight that way. When you start screwing around with the basis tenets of electoral democracy, you distort and pervert the value of an actual legislative seat and undermine the value of holding people directly responsible through elections.

Another good example is the ballot proposition system. Some things must go before voters—which is another separate wrong which would be righted—but apart from those, the ballot proposition also presents legislators an opportunity to outsource decision-making risk to voters where instead of having to take a chance of being wrong on a piece of legislation with a roll call vote, they can pass the risk off to State voters. If people voted on the issue directly, they’re not as empowered to hold the people who only put it on the ballot rather than making the decision as someone whose job is to make & pass legislation.

You want legislators to be empowered to serve their role in society so that they are also taking real risks every time they take a stand on an issue that risks pissing off their constituents.
by piskov | 2026-02-28 01:28:34+00:00
Funny to see Google names in there.

Anyhoo, did the likes of change.org ever lead to something fruitful?

The companies will cave in, like they always do. You don’t fuck with power.

You can personally stop participating [1, 2] though.

https://geohot.github.io//blog/jekyll/update/2026/01/17/thre...

https://geohot.github.io//blog/jekyll/update/2026/01/18/how-...

—

3rd party observation: funny how it’s completely ok to surveil the entire world for Anthropic/OpenAI (like they do with their reports on Chinese exactly how, when, and where with all the chat transcripts, zero privacy whatsoever) but boy oh boy shit hits the fan when the same treatment could (will) be applied home.

—

3rd party observation #2: it is hilarious how US is so much like Russia but with a great deal of delay.

Cancel culture is basically early Soviet Union in the beginning of 20th century. Stuff like Anthropic is what was going on with Yandex and what have you.