MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by OkayPhysicist | 2026-02-23 19:27:04+00:00
The number one feature of modern microwaves that I appreciate is the humidity sensor. Figure out if your microwave has one, and it opens up a whole world of better solutions.

Know the popcorn button? Ever wondered why every popcorn manufacturer tells you not to use it, or, if you don't make a habit of taking orders from a paper bag, why it works on some microwaves, but fails miserably on others, either burning the popcorn to a crisp or, more often, leaving half the kernels unpopped? Humidity sensor. In microwaves with a humidity sensor, the microwave runs until the humidity stops rising, (which means the kernels stopped popping) then stops (well, actually mine sets ~30 second timer, then stops). This produces perfect popcorn every time. Doesn't matter the brand of popcorn, it just works.

Unfortunately, because this feature was so great, it got imitated on every microwave, regardless of whether it has a humidity sensor or not. On those microwaves, it just sets a flat timer, which cannot adapt to variations in popcorn. Since popcorn manufacturers have no idea which camp your microwave falls into, and can't assume you have any idea either, they just tell people to neglect a fantastic feature.
Early Access to a todo app that syncs to Notion
by luis_journey | 2026-02-23 19:27:07+00:00
Hello everyone,

I built an app called Cross over the last few months. And it is finally in beta now and available for you to try on Android. Cross is a todo/tasks app that syncs to Notion. If you first want to know more about Cross, you can check out my Threads account: https://www.threads.com/@cross.task You can get early access here: https://pageflow.notion.site/30f93fc8858b80068cb1c9a01b30c951?pvs=105
by leptons | 2026-02-23 19:27:10+00:00
"it helps cancer patients" is vastly different than "it cures cancer" which is what OP claimed he heard. And yes, it does help cancer patients as well as anyone else in pain. And the smoke is far less harmful than cigarette smoke, it has no additives at all (when grown in a controlled environment without pesticides). And you don't even need to smoke it, it can be ingested in an edible/pill, making most of the arguments against ingesting marijuana completely bogus.
by levkk | 2026-02-23 19:27:20+00:00
It can be silent, but usually it's loud and confusing because people do something like this (Rails example):

user = User.create(email: "test@test.com")
SendWelcomeEmail.perform_later(user.id)

And the job code fetches the row like so:

user = User.find(id)

This blows up because `find` throws an error if the record isn't there. Job queues typically use replicas for reads. This is a common gotcha: code that runs async expects the data to be there after creation.

There can be others, of course, especially in fintech where you have an atomic ledger, but people are usually pretty conscious about this and send those type of queries to the primary.

In general though, I completely agree, this is leaky and an unsolved problem. You can have performance or accuracy, but not both, and most solutions skew towards performance and make applications handle the lack of accuracy.
by malshe | 2026-02-23 19:27:46+00:00
> A competent developer working with Claude Code or Codex could now replicate the core functionality of a mid-market SaaS product in weeks. Not perfectly or with every edge case handled, but well enough that the CIO reviewing a $500k annual renewal started asking the question “what if we just built this ourselves?”

This has been repeated ad nauseam in the media without any bearing to reality. I'm not a software developer but one has to just use any enterprise grade software to develop an appreciation for how difficult it is to maintain it. And that's just from a user's perspective.
by Almondsetat | 2026-02-23 19:27:54+00:00
>I would not be where I am without it

First of all, you cannot know that, since plenty of people before you learnt that stuff from libraries.

>So you would deny children the greatest source of knowledge in the history?

Yes, because other sources of knowledge exist and are much more appropriate for children. It is also the greatest source of despicable stuff in history. When you turn 18, have fun exploring the world wide web.
by carlosjobim | 2026-02-23 19:27:59+00:00
If you don't crowd your menu, then you can just have the text links below the website logo, with flex-direction: row and justify-content: center

It'll take up less than half of a smart phone screen, and customers don't need to bother with any burger menu.

The phone web should only have two functions: Poke and scroll. For most normal websites that is.
by devonkelley | 2026-02-23 19:28:09+00:00
The real issue with "just reviewing code" is that code review skill degrades when you stop writing. I've watched it happen. The people who are best at catching subtle bugs are the ones writing code daily. Pull them into pure review mode for 6 months and they start missing things, not because they got dumber, but because the pattern recognition atrophies without the feedback loop of writing, running, and debugging yourself.
by ninkendo | 2026-02-23 19:28:16+00:00
I don’t think GP is moving the goalposts at all, rather I think a lot of people are willfully misrepresenting GP’s point.

Rust-to-rust code should be able to be dynamically linked with an ABI that has better safety guarantees than the C ABI. That’s the point. You can’t even express an Option<T> via the C ABI, let alone the myriad of other things rust has that are put together to make it a safe language.

You can look to Swift for prior art on how this can be done: https://faultlore.com/blah/swift-abi/

It would be very hard to accomplish. Apple was extremely motivated to make Swift have a resilient/stable ABI, because they wanted to author system frameworks in swift and have third parties use them in swift code (including globally updating said frameworks without any apps needing to recompile.) They wanted these frameworks to feel like idiomatic swift code too, not just be a bunch of pointers and manual allocation. There’s a good argument that (1) Rust doesn’t consider this an important enough feature and (2) they don’t have enough resources to accomplish it even if they did. But if you could wave a magic wand and make it “done”, it would be huge for rust adoption.
by quesera | 2026-02-23 19:28:35+00:00
I think it's more than overlap -- they are the same thing.

I.e. AFAICT, all compound words that defy literal interpretation are idioms. And it's that simple.

The argument then becomes that idioms should be in the dictionary. Some of them are of course, but idioms and slang are a) fast-moving, and b) often dismissed by the sorts of people who edit dictionaries.
by sjaiisba | 2026-02-23 19:28:37+00:00
Only a personal anecdote, but the humans I know that have used it are all aware of how buggy it is. It feels like it was made in 2 weeks.

Which gets back to the outsourcing argument: it’s always been cheap to make buggy code. If we were able to solve this, outsourcing would have been ubiquitous. Maybe LLMs change the calculus here too?
by ben_w | 2026-02-23 19:28:44+00:00
Last-leg in a target-rich environment is OK, "automated drones doing all that on command overseas and maybe even domestically" is a way for a government to shoot itself in the face. Do bits here and there, not end-to-end, because… well, there's decent grounds to suspect the people in those boats who were killed (AFAICT unlawfully) weren't even shipping drugs.
by lokar | 2026-02-23 19:29:23+00:00
I’m not sure if you are serious, it if you are….

Congress has the authority to spend money, not the president. The way they do this is by telling the president how much to spend on what. It would mostly be impractical for them to detail every expense. So, they give more general directions and limits, and also impose requirements for how the president (or his deputies) go about it. This includes many many specific procurement procedures.
by devonkelley | 2026-02-23 19:29:24+00:00
The add/remove churn is the thing nobody talks about enough. We track net lines changed vs gross lines changed as a ratio and it's genuinely horrifying sometimes. An agent will touch 400 lines to net 30 lines of actual progress. And the worst part is the removed code was often fine, the agent just decided to refactor something it didn't need to touch while it was in there. Shorter, tighter loops with clearer scope boundaries have helped us more than any orchestration improvement.
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 | 2026-02-23 19:29:44+00:00
"In cases when regulators demand real enforcement rather than symbolic rules, platforms run into a basic technical problem. The only way to prove that someone is old enough to use a site is to collect personal data about who they are."

These so-called "platforms" already collect data about who people are in order to facilitate online advertising. But there is no way for the user to control where that data may end up or how it may be used. The third party can use the data for any purpose and share it with anyone. Whether they claim they do or don't do something with the data is besides the point, their internal actions cannot be verified and there are no enforceable restrictions in the event someone discovers what they are doing (at which point it may be too late for the user anyway)

"Tech" journalists and "tech bros" routinely claim these "platforms" know more about people than their own families, friends and colleagues

That's not "privacy"

Let's be real. No one is achieving or maintaining internet "privacy" by using these "platforms", third party intermediaries (middlemen) with a surveillance "business model", to communicate over the internet

On the contrary, internet "privacy" has been diminishing with each passing year that people continue to use them

The so-called "platforms" have led to vast repositories of data about people that are used every day by entities who would otherwise not be legally authorised or technically capable of gathering such surveillance data. Most "platform" users are totally unaware of this. The prospect of "age verification" may be the wake up call

"Age verification" could potentially make these "platforms" suck to a point that people might stop using them. For example, it might be impossible to implement without setting off users' alarm bells. In effect, it might raise more awareness of how the vast quantity of data about people these unregulated/underregulated third parties collect "under the radar" could be shared with or used by other entities. Collecting ID is above the radar and may force people to think twice

The "platforms" don't care about "privacy" except to control it. Their "business model" relies on defeating "privacy", reshaping the notion into one where privacy from the "platform" does not exist

Internet "privacy" and mass data collection about people via "platforms" are not compatible goals

"... our founders displayed a fondness for hyperbolic vilification of those who disagreed with them. In almost every meeting, they would unleash a one-word imprecation to sum up any and all who stood in the way of their master plans.

"Bastards!" Larry would exclaim when a blogger raised concerns about user privacy."

- Douglas Edwards, Google employee number 59, from 2011 book "I'm feeling lucky"

If a user decides to stop using a third party "platform" intermediary (middleman) that engages in data collection, surveillance and ad services, for example, because they wish to avoid "age verification", then persons interested in "internet privacy" might argue this is progress
by Wobbles42 | 2026-02-23 19:30:14+00:00
"Steam" is very definitely the gas phase of water. Water vapor is too. If we are talking about chemistry they are essentially synonyms.

If we are talking engineering, the term steam generally implies water vapor that is at or above the saturation temperature.

In every day usage they are usually drawing a distinction between visible and invisible water vapor, usually caused by the presence of liquid droplets, with "steam" being essentially "fog", but hotter.
by Terr_ | 2026-02-23 19:30:16+00:00
> the less users bother questioning it

This makes me think of checklists. We have decades of experience in uncountable areas showing that checklists reminding users to question the universe improve outcomes: Is the chemical mixture at the temperature indicated by the chart? Did you get confirmation from Air Traffic Control? Are you about to amputate the correct limb? Is this really the file you want to permanently erase?

Yet our human brains are usually primed to skip steps, take shortcuts, and see what we expect rather than what's really there. It's surprisingly hard to keep doing the work both consistently and to notice deviations.

> lower rates of fact-checking and reasoning challenges

Now here we are with LLMs, geared to produce a flood of output which strikes at our weak-point, the ability to do intentional review in a deep and sustained way. We've automated the stuff that wasn't as-hard and putting an even greater amount of pressure on the remaining bottleneck.

Rather than the old definition involving customer interaction and ads, I fear the new "attention economy" is going to be managing the scarce resource of human inspection and validation.
by rkagerer | 2026-02-23 19:30:20+00:00
There are small suppliers in Hong Kong who sell refurb enterprise drives at less-exorbitant prices. I've had good luck with this over the years. I stuck with reliable, well-known models like the 4TB HGST, 16TB Seagate Exos (X16), etc.

I used to get them with a year or so of warranty remaining, though last order I got units that must have been from a bulk OEM purchase and weren't warrantied through the manufacturer.

Regardless, I've had good luck this way and failure rates have been within expectations. I started with a few different suppliers to mix inventory in case one source turned out to be a dud, then eventually consolidated on a single supplier who does a great job and has consistently delivered good drives. This method has worked for me for over a decade. Definitely easier than flying around countries, and in my case cheaper than if I'd physically gone to the US like this guy.
by 0_____0 | 2026-02-23 19:30:34+00:00
Basically not.

Biggest risk is that a beam steering element stops while the emitters are running. Basically impossible with a phased array emitter like the article discusses.

And you'd probably have to be staring into the laser at close range while it was doing that.

The laser beams usually aren't tiny points like your laser pointer. Several centimeters across is more typical, especially at typical road distances. Your pupil is very small in comparison.

The optical hazard calculations are a very early part of the design of a LIDAR system, and all of this does get considered. Or should anyway.

Biggest risks are for people involved in R&D, where beams may be static and very close to personnel.
by jsheard | 2026-02-23 19:30:47+00:00
They're trying to kidnap what Anthropic has rightfully stolen!

Jokes and complete lack of sympathy aside, it does complicate the narrative that these small labs are always on the heels of the big labs for pennies on the dollar, if they rely on distilling the big labs models. That means there still has to be big bucks coming from somewhere.
by anticlickwise | 2026-02-23 19:30:48+00:00
I’m a solo maker and I built this after repeatedly running into the same problem in planning sessions. No matter what framework we used: RICE, ICE, voting, scoring, nothing actually got removed. Everything had a solid justification. The roadmap just kept growing.

It wasn’t a prioritization problem. It was a subtraction problem. So I tried reversing the rule. Instead of asking people to vote on what to keep, I made everyone cut three items. You couldn’t move forward until something was actually removed.

The tone of the conversation changed immediately. It forced real trade-offs instead of polite agreement. I turned that exercise into a small web tool called Less Is More. It’s intentionally simple, no accounts, no scoring system, no analytics. Just structured subtraction. I’m curious how others here handle “priority inflation.” Do you enforce caps? Time box initiatives? Something else?

Would appreciate honest feedback: https://www.cognu.app/less-is-more
by muyuu | 2026-02-23 19:30:53+00:00
people really believe this coordinated push across jurisdictions is about kids and verifying their age? this excuse to try to end pseudonimity on the web is as old as the mainstream internet itself

to a lot of people it never sat well that people could just go online and say whatever they want, and communicate with each other unsupervised at large scale, and be effectively untargetable while doing so - that model of the internet was only allowed because it happened under the radar and those uncomfortable with it have been fighting it since they got the memo
by ljm | 2026-02-23 19:31:08+00:00
Depends on what the context is, at least for me.

The cognitive load on a code review tends to be higher when its submitted by someone who hasn't been onboarded well enough and it doesn't matter if they used an AI or not. A lot of the mistakes are trivial or they don't align with status quo so the code review turns into a way of explaining how things should be.

This is in contrast to reviewing the code of someone who has built up their own context (most likely on the back of those previous reviews, by learning). The feedback is much more constructive and gets into other details, because you can trust the author to understand what you're getting at and they're not just gonna copy/paste your reply into a prompt and be like "make this make sense."

It's just offloading the burden to me because I have the knowledge in my head. I know at least one or two people who will end up being forever-juniors because of this and they can't be talked out of it because their colleague is the LLM now.
by devonkelley | 2026-02-23 19:31:10+00:00
Single agent with good context management beats a sloppy multi-agent setup every time, I agree. But you hit a wall around 100-120k tokens of accumulated context where the model starts losing the thread. It'll forget a constraint from early in the conversation or subtly contradict a decision it made 50 tool calls ago. That's when you need to split, not because the architecture is elegant, but because the model literally can't hold it all anymore. The question is whether you split into a pre-planned graph or let the agent decide when to split. Both have real tradeoffs.
by embedding-shape | 2026-02-23 19:31:11+00:00
> I incorporated OpenMeteo into a project recently and got frustrated with their aggressive rate limiting

Which one? They seem to do 600 calls / min, 5.000 calls / hour, 10.000 calls / day, 300.000 calls / month, how many times do you need to look up the weather for personal use? Fine, maybe you want 3 different locations, you can still call each of those sufficiently with those rate limits, no?
by zahlman | 2026-02-23 19:31:20+00:00
IMX, it's really saying something if the "original article" from 404 Media is the non-clickbait version.

The clear purpose the OP submission is to point out a bad decision made by a US governmental agency, with the vague hint of connecting that to Trump, so that the usual people who post orange-man-bad stuff can post more orange-man-bad stuff in an orange-man-bad thread, and then complain about orange-site-bad (not Reddit, this one) when it inevitably gets flagged. That it involves an AI tied to Elon Musk is just icing on the cake.

The ill intent is evidenced by how far afield the comments have gone; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47127172 for example is now dead, but it's clear when something is simply a culture war thread, and it's clear who dominates culture war threads when they're posted on HN.

Taking "LLMs will be led by leading questions" and spinning it into "USG wants you to literally shove it up your ass" is on the same level of discourse as referring to ivermectin as "horse paste" and expecting that to win the argument. It shouldn't be tolerated here.

Imagine if it had instead been the government of, say, Germany. How many people here would still care about the story? How many would view the story in fundamentally the same way?
by runako | 2026-02-23 19:31:27+00:00
> If it’s analyzes my ID 100% client side I can fake any info I want. If my ID goes to a server,

amplifying your point, there is effectively no way for the layperson to make this distinction. And because the app needs to send data over an encrypted channel, it would be difficult at best for a sophisticated person to determine whether their info is being sent over the wire.
by hamdingers | 2026-02-23 19:31:44+00:00
If a company made a car that could be driving itself generating revenue around the clock, they'd have to charge a pretty high price to justify selling it to you.

I know this sounds dystopian to some, but car ownership is a burden and I'm looking forward to a world where I can make an unoccupied car show up with my phone when I need it, and completely forget about it when I don't.
by AnthonyMouse | 2026-02-23 19:31:54+00:00
> Prefer privacy-preserving decoupled age-verification services, where the service validates minimum age and presents a cryptographic token to the entity requiring age validation.

This is the wrong implementation.

You require sites hosting adult content to send a header indicating what kind of content it is. Then the device can do what it wants with that information. A parent can then configure their child's device not to display it, without needing anybody to have an ID or expecting every government and lowest bidder to be able to implement the associated security correctly.

It doesn't matter what kind of cryptography you invent. They either won't use it to begin with or will shamelessly and with no accountability violate the invariants taken as hard requirements in your theoretical proof. If you have to show your ID to the lowest bidder, you're pwned, so use the system that doesn't have that.
Ask HN: How do you know if AI agents will choose your tool?
by dmpyatyi | 2026-02-23 19:32:01+00:00
YC recently put out a video about the agent economy - the idea that
agents are becoming autonomous economic actors, choosing tools and
services without human input.

It got me thinking: how do you actually optimize for agent discovery?
With humans you can do SEO, copywriting, word of mouth. But an agent
just looks at available tools in context and picks one based on the
description, schema, examples.

Has anyone experimented with this? Does better documentation
measurably increase how often agents call your tool? Does the
wording of your tool description matter across different models
(ZLM vs Claude vs Gemini)?