MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by hotsalad | 2026-02-28 03:31:33+00:00
If I'm reading the (L)GPL correctly (but I'm not a lawyer), this notice should be completely ignored:

Section 7 says: All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.

Section 10 says: You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.
by jdashg | 2026-02-28 03:31:38+00:00
I read Hyperion and I found it... alright, just not my thing. Maybe it is indeed a masterpiece but "that every fan of sci-fi ought to have read" oversells it. I honestly can't conscion the time to read the rest of the Cantos versus other things on my reading list. Quality does not alone compel consumption! :)
by esperent | 2026-02-28 03:31:57+00:00
For the last couple of months all the top models have been from the US. I don't expect that to last - or even if it does the gap will gradually diminish to the point that "top" is largely irrelevant outside of marketing.

But at the moment I must use a US model for the best results for complex queries. So I'm glad that there's one company I'm at least somewhat ok with supporting. I'm not even that picky. All I want is a reasonable guarantee that I'm not supporting a company who's tools are used for autonomous drone warfare in American wars, and a few other basic things like that.

I guess someone might feel moved to respond to this by pointing out all the other companies outside of AI that I should be avoiding too. Please do! I'm actively trying to be more mindful of the companies I support rather than just chasing the lowest bills. I'm in the process of migrating my company away from MS 365 to Nextcloud on Hetzner, which is going slow but well.
by somethoughts | 2026-02-28 03:32:35+00:00
While not exactly parallel, it seems slightly hypocritical that this is coming from the party of "a baker should not be forced to bake a wedding cake for a customer that they ideologically/morally disagree with."

I guess the rules are different if the customer is the government? If it's the government, then if the government doesn't get its wedding cake then the government can go so far as to prevent the baker from selling cakes entirely to any other customers.
by panick21 | 2026-02-28 03:32:41+00:00
The budget is actually not that much worse. If you adjust for inflation.

On avg NASA budget was about the same as now. But now we do more things now. But between Constellation/SLS and Orion this new Shuttle based architecture has as much money as Apollo while having done almost non of it. Before it is where Apollo ended up, it will cost much, much more then Apollo.

But even if what you said was true, a gigantic amount of infrastructure that was paid for in the 1960s is still in use today. A huge amount of fundamental research that was required is already done. That alone should make it much cheaper.

Same goes for development, Artemis is not developing any new engines, while Apollo had to develop many new engines.

> The big budget is being allocated to brutes killing people in the streets and a decadent ballroom for the emperor.

Except of course that Korea/Vietnam were much more expensive then what were are doing now.
by sarchertech | 2026-02-28 03:32:46+00:00
There could be a grand global conspiracy to push this story about how the Chinese are persecuting the Uyghurs, involving the US government, the Australian government, the United Nations, France, the UK, A Swiss journalism consortium, private companies, thousands of Chinese expats, satellite companies, newspapers, and television reports, which seems to have very little payoff because most people don't care about it at all.

Or it could be that the same government of China that less than 40 years ago admitted to killing 200 protesters and likely killed at least 2500, has severe restrictions on religious freedom, and is known for targeting family members of activists and dissidents, is also rounding up and reeducating members of a very publicly troublesome minority group.

They have a well documented history of similar tactics in Tibet over the last 75 years or so. I mean there have been over 150 Tibetans who have self immolated just in the last decade and a half as a protest against Chinese actions in Tibet. I can't think of very many acts of self-immolation protests where the target government wasn't doing something untoward, much less when there's an average of 10 per year.

Given the recent history of the Chinese government response to dissidents, and the terrorist attacks perpetuated by Uyghurs in the 2010s, I'd honestly be surprised if China didn't do something similar to what is alleged.
by devGiacomo | 2026-02-28 03:32:49+00:00
Author here. To pre-empt the obvious question: yes, you could write a shell script to check if paths exist. The value here is three things a shell script doesn't do:

1. Framework-specific pattern detection — knowing that @NgModule is stale in Angular 14+, or that ReactDOM.render() was removed in React 19, requires versioned knowledge about what's current vs. deprecated. That's not a grep.

2. The weekly CI schedule — context rot happens even when AGENTS.md hasn't changed. Your codebase evolves around a static file. A one-time check misses this entirely.

3. Cross-file consistency — if you have both AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md, they can silently contradict each other. One says `npm run test`, the other says `npm run test:unit`. Agents pick one arbitrarily.

A few things I found on real repos while building this: steipete/agent-scripts has absolute paths like ~/Projects/bird/bird in their AGENTS.md — works on one MacBook, fails silently everywhere else. The official agentsmd/agents.md spec repo says "execute the test suite (if present)" in their own AGENTS.md — they're not sure if they have tests. The sample AGENTS.md that everyone copy-pastes includes Turborepo monorepo commands that break in single-package projects.

None of this is criticism — it's just how files rot. Happy to answer questions about the design.
by lich_king | 2026-02-28 03:32:50+00:00
My lived experience with tech companies is that principles are easy when they're free - i.e., when you're telling others what to do, or taking principled stances when a competitor is not breathing down your neck.

So, with all respect, when someone tells me that the people they worked with were well-intentioned and driven by values, I take it with a grain of salt. Been there, said the same things, and then when the company needed to make tough calls, it all fell apart.

However, in this instance, it does seem that Anthropic is walking away from money. I think that, in itself, is a pretty strong signal that you might be right.
by FreakLegion | 2026-02-28 03:33:22+00:00
What you're describing isn't a pump and dump, but in any case what Jane Street did wasn't a pump and dump or what you're describing. It also had nothing to do with market making.

India's market trades options much, much more than the underlying stocks. This means that on one hand you can trade a lot of options without moving the market, and on the other you can move the market by trading comparatively few shares. Since options prices tend to be bounded by the price of the underlying, this is...a problem. For example you could buy shares to move the price up, sell calls, buy puts (aka a collar), then sell the shares to move the price back down so both calls and puts make money.

But it doesn't necessarily look like this is what Jane Street was doing. Instead they seem to have realized that stock and option prices already regularly diverged, and put the collars on to profit from corrections. In other words: arbitrage. Which, fair, can be functionally indistinguishable from market manipulation. But on paper it looks like they made prices better for everyday folks at the expense of the market makers and other institutions.

Matt Levine wrote a long Money Stuff column about this around the middle of last year.
by dmix | 2026-02-28 03:34:09+00:00
You might be missing the point then (or maybe I’m misreading it). The way I see it is the Pentagon could easily just fold within the six month period and nothing would be different because they didn’t really care about Anthropic making mass surveillance or weapon targeting easier. They can already find people to do those things, often without LLMs.

They just had this PR issue come up on their desk, management doesn’t want to deal with ‘bullshit’, they think they should be the ultimate shot callers at all times since they are the big swinging dick, so they feign this drama to assert allegiance.
by davidw | 2026-02-28 03:34:43+00:00
> I might sign up just to stay on top of a market change that I don’t have an employer paying me to learn.

This is the thing I hate most about AI. It is a huge shift in power towards big companies that have the capital to throw at it. And towards those few mega corporations that control the tech.

It's a big shift away from hobbyists, tinkerers and people exploring ideas on their own time.
by EdNutting | 2026-02-28 03:36:19+00:00
No, it’s a counterpoint on salaries… “Even the American companies” ie they wouldn’t have to open offices here, nor would they have to pay high salaries, to compete for talent if everyone they wanted was in the US or could be so easily attracted to move to the US. The point is clearly things aren’t so one-sided as people seem to think.
by economistbob | 2026-02-28 03:36:32+00:00
Yes. In my view, the negative payoff from getting locked out of a machine due to a key file mishap is more severe than the payoff of typing passwords all the time. I also use machines of various distributions and eras, and so the configurations would all differ and create hindrances.

I realize the security relevance of that, but I do not have daily images to restore from if something happens. I got locked of a key only box one time with an error after a reboot, and never want it to happen again. It felt like being robbed.
by nomel | 2026-02-28 03:36:45+00:00
I'm not sure what the solution is, but to steel man a bit, the alternative is kids have access to all the adult spaces, where they will be groomed. A website/app serving grooming content to a kid is just so incredibly unlikely compared to a kid being groomed as the result of having unrestricted access.

Since I do not see a solution, and you see identifying children as a risk, what do you see as a solution for kids being in the same spaces as adults? Do you see a reasonable implementation to separate them, that doesn't have the "we know which accounts are children" problem? Maybe there's something in between?

Also, I think it's important to understand the life of a modern child, who's in front of a screen 7.5 hours a day on average [1], with that increasingly being social media, half having unrestricted access to the internet [2].

I hate government control/nanny state, but I think 5 year olds watching gore websites, watching other children die, for fun is probably not ok (I saw this at the dentist). People are really stupid, and many parents are really shitty. What do you do? Maybe nothing is the answer?

[1] https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Fam...

[2] https://fosi.org/parental-controls-for-online-safety-are-und...
by Imnimo | 2026-02-28 03:36:46+00:00
I don't see how OpenAI employees who have signed the We Will Not Be Divided letter can continue their employment there in light of this. Surely if OpenAI had insisted upon the same things that Anthropic had, the government would not have signed this agreement. The only plausible explanation is that there is an understanding that OpenAI will not, in practice, enforce the red lines.
by mcdeltat | 2026-02-28 03:37:06+00:00
Ok I don't really care either way but to play devil's advocate, what exactly is this specific challenge of adding numbers with a transformer model demonstrating/advancing? The pushpack from people, albeit a little aggressive, does have a grain of truth. We're demonstrating that a model which uses preexisting addition instructions can add numbers? I mean yeah you can do it with arbitrarily few parameters because you don't need a machine learning model at all. Not exactly groundbreaking so I reckon the debate is fair.

Now if you said this proof of addition opens up some other interesting avenue of research, sure.
by oceanplexian | 2026-02-28 03:37:40+00:00
> But if they have to launch 10-14 times in order to get the propellant to the LEO depot in order to fuel the Lunar Starship, can we actually deliver that many launches worth of LOX and LNG to the launch pads in the timeframe needed

If only Starbase was located somewhere near abundant gas pipelines, within spitting distance of of the Texas Shale Oil boom…
by sarchertech | 2026-02-28 03:38:14+00:00
Can you imagine hundreds of journalists who would lie to promote a false story that hasn't really been all that effective and harming China (the only possible motivation for such a campaign). And not a single one of the journalists approached by the creators of this campaign leaked anything. If this really was a massive conspiracy theory, that itself is a much much bigger story than the Chinese rounding up people that most of the world don't seem to care about. One of those hundreds of journalists wouldn't have been able to resist such a scoop.

I'm guessing the next part of your conspiracy theory is that the conspiracy group is so powerful that everyone is scared to come forward. But if they are that powerful, why construct such an ineffective anti-china story? Surely such a powerful group could construct something more damaging.
by nateb2022 | 2026-02-28 03:39:12+00:00
Regarding the benchmarks, "Async iteration (8KB × 1000): ~530 GB/s vs ~35 GB/s": how do you achieve 530 GB/s throughput on an M1 Pro which has a 200GB/s memory bandwidth? The "~275 GB/s" figure for chained transforms has the same problem.

I suspect the benchmarks, if not most of this project, suffer from poor quality control on vibecoded implementations.
by djha-skin | 2026-02-28 03:39:16+00:00
If you're a Mac or Windows user, I mean, fine.

This is just not going to be a thing on Linux.

Are there app stores on Linux? Yes, that's what FlatHub and Snap supposed to be.

So what, should Canonical just block Ubuntu downloads to anyone in the state of California? No security researcher is going to download an operating system that asks them their age for example. I feel like it draws a red line for me also.

This law is so completely insane. It sounds like it was written by some Apple fanboy to whom there is no other operating system other than Apple. The very state that spawned GNU and BSD is the same state that is not only demanding your data but enshrining its use in spyware in law.
by jodrellblank | 2026-02-28 03:39:34+00:00
> "I don't think LLMs will do something like that, it'll just output 10 people's worth of Stuff that will need some use."

This is why I said "isn’t the usual “LLMs aren’t going to be AGI”", but you still went straight for "LLMs aren't AGI", which was not in question.

AGI is what OpenAI says they are going for. That's the goal of all this trillion dollar investment, not to output 1000 screenplays a day, but to takeover the world, basically. What would infinite PhDs discover if they could hold all of Arxive in their 'heads' at once and see patterns in every experiment that's ever been done? What could they engineer and manufacture if they could 'concentrate' on millions of steps of a manufacturing process at once without getting fatigued or bored? What ideas could they test if they could be PhD level in a dozen subjects all at once?
by Lerc | 2026-02-28 03:40:44+00:00
>I imagine getting things to be polysemantic in a way that does not interfere would lead to sublinear scaling.

True, but with even smarter humans, you could exploit the interactions for additional calculations.

While it sounds a bit silly, it is one of the hypotheses behind a fast takeoff. An AI that is sufficiently smart could design a network better than a trained one and could make something much smarter than itself on the same hardware. The question then becomes if that new smarter one can do an even better job. I suspect diminishing returns, but then again I am insufficiently smart.
by dang | 2026-02-28 03:40:45+00:00
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
by vineyardmike | 2026-02-28 03:40:57+00:00
The law defines a user as a child running software on a general purpose computer.

> “User” means a child that is the primary user of the device.

It’s definitely more vague that necessary, but I’d imagine courts would readily find automated software deployment by an adult or corporation does not constitute a child using the device. Especially if done for servers or a fleet. Because then it’s pretty obvious that a child is not the primary user of the computer nor the software. Even if that software is a server that involves childish activities (eg game servers).

But I’d imagine that Linux package managers associated with a desktop operating system provider would fall under this law. And that raises questions about the software distributed by said package managers.
by nyoronic | 2026-02-28 03:41:07+00:00
I'm not sure I see it to be honest? Yes, they are both guys that bother others, but their motives are different.

"Mr. W" is a personification of the wind that can't help his existence flinging things, but finds a new purpose.

The "Enshittificator" is a person modifying consumer products more directly, and it ends badly, but he's happy about it.

Going in I was expecting scene-for-scene similarities, but it wasn't that close.
by zephen | 2026-02-28 03:41:55+00:00
Meh. Not sure why knife dealers would be assumed to be more moral than firearms dealers. See, e.g. Delana v. CED Sales (Missouri)

> the bad PR (see the "found out" and "direct to consumer" part) would make you a hugely unprofitable customer.

That... Doesn't happen.

Boycotts by people who weren't going to buy your product anyway are immaterial to business. The inevitable lawsuits are costly, but are generally thought of as good publicity, because they keep the business name in the news.
by rvz | 2026-02-28 03:42:00+00:00
Not a surprise here, that letter was a trap for OpenAI employees who filled it out with their names on it. [0]

The ones that did might as well leave. But there was no open letter when the first military contract was signed. [1] Now there is one?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47176170

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/17/openai-mi...
by thaumasiotes | 2026-02-28 03:42:00+00:00
> For a while, I mistakenly thought that “Germanic” meant related to German specifically.

...it does. That's why the form of the word is "Germanic". That's what it means.

There are different levels at which you can be related to something. In this case the contrast is between Indo-European languages related to German and Indo-European languages not related to German (except through the shared ancestor called proto-Indo-European).

> German and Spanish make this distinction explicit (Deutsch/Germanisch and Alemán/Germánica).

I suspect the reason for that is that the first of each of those pairs is the native word and the second is borrowed from the English linguistic terminology.
by panick21 | 2026-02-28 03:42:29+00:00
This complete nonsense. The Apollo team was much, much, much, much larger then any V2 team. And mostly Americans.

And their testing procedures were actually very high quality. You don't just accidentally land on the moon and return. That doesn't just happen 'somehow'. That is truly idiotic level analysis.

> Each F1 rocket engine was hand tuned by drilling holes into the "plate" so it would not cause the combustion mixture to vibrate the engine into smithereens.

And that this works was established with lots of both experimental testing and lots of theoretical work.

So much so that F1 is one of the most reliable engines ever used in space flight history.

> Such an approach would never be tolerated today by NASA.

Except of course that the RS-25 engine used by NASA today is known to be less safe then F-1. Having had more failures and generally causing more minor operational problems.

It seems you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. In fact, NASA own analysis before they were forced to pick SLS by congress indicated that a updated version of F-1 (still relying on the analysis of those people in the 1960s) would be a much better rocket.

Apollo worked because engineers from the top to the bottom made smart engineering focused decisions taking responsibility for their part of the stack, and close working together in teams on a shared goal while having very solid testing procedures for everything.
by stinkbeetle | 2026-02-28 03:42:39+00:00
Artemis is nowhere near schedule, had vast cost blowouts, and it's a commercial dead end though. It's incredibly expensive boutique warmed-over 50 year old technology.

NASA absolutely should learn from SpaceX, they were the company that liberated US astronaut's access to space from Russian rockets after NASA had lost that capability. And they have brought down the cost of payload to orbit enormously, and they have been finding viable commercial non-government markets for space. They've been launching around 90% of global mass to orbit. An order of magnitude more than all other corporations and governments in the world combined.

All other serious commercial space companies have taken lessons from SpaceX, so has the Chinese space program. To suggest NASA should not learn from SpaceX is just astounding. That's the kind of think you'd only hear from western government bureaucrats.
by treetalker | 2026-02-28 03:42:40+00:00
>> And when the rabbi noticed that the servant had grown so large that he could no longer reach its forehead and erase the letter, he came up with the trick of commanding the golem to take off its boots, assuming that when the golem bent over, he could erase the letter from its forehead. And so it was, but when the golem returned and turned into clay, all its weight fell on the rabbi and crushed him.