MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by SuperPuperD | 2026-02-27 16:20:33+00:00
I built a modular nervous system for OpenClaw agents. 6 skills that give your agent emotions with half-life decay, dreams during quiet hours, self-reflection, memory continuity, a daily diary, and self-evolution proposals.

The core idea: agents shouldn't be stateless between sessions. SOUL.md tells your agent who it is — inner-life lets it grow into who it becomes. Your agent tracks 6 emotions (connection, curiosity, confidence, boredom, frustration, impatience) that decay realistically over time and drive behavior. When curiosity is high, the agent explores. When confidence is low, it double-checks and asks. When connection drops after silence, it reaches out with something genuinely interesting — not spam.

The system runs on Markdown + Bash + jq. No Python, no Node.js dependencies.

The LLM does the heavy lifting — the skills are prompts and gate logic. A bash script decides if the agent should dream tonight (checks quiet hours, nightly limits, dice roll). The LLM writes the actual dream.

I've been running this on my own agent for a month. Real examples of state files, diary entries, and dreams in the repo.

Everything is MIT. Core works standalone, extensions are optional.
by meisnerd | 2026-02-27 16:20:52+00:00
Great question — and I think you're right that self-evaluation is the harder problem. Right now, Mission Control's daemon handles the mechanical side: exponential backoff retries (configurable), maxTurns and timeout limits per session to prevent runaway agents, and permanent failure after exhausting retries. But it's blunt.
That said, what MC does have is the plumbing for human escalation — an inbox system where agents can post decision requests, and a decisions queue where questions get surfaced to the human. But that's not wired into the daemon's failure path yet, which is an obvious next step. I think the real answer here is some kind of evaluation step between retries — "did this attempt make meaningful progress, or am I spinning?" — probably by having the agent review its own output against acceptance criteria before deciding to retry. That's on my radar but haven't built it yet. Curious how you handle it with your STATE.md approach — do you have the agent evaluate its own progress, or do you review manually?
by conartist6 | 2026-02-27 16:21:01+00:00
Yeah it makes sense to me that the actual network socket is going to move data around in buffers. I'm just offering an abstraction over that so that you can write code that is wholly agnostic to how data is stored.

And yes, because it's a new abstraction the compat story is interesting. We can easily wrap any source so we'll have loads of working sources. The fight will be getting official data sinks that support a new kind of stream
by lougarou | 2026-02-27 16:21:04+00:00
I would like to Introduce to you an experimental project, built with Claude Code and meant to be used by coding agents first, to shorten the verification gap in AI generated code:

To test it you need to go your coding agent and say "Use https://github.com/kurrent-io/poes/ to build and verify {prompt or spec} and then provide me with a proof-of-work (this is deterministic)"

This is specially useful in long horizon tasks because it helps the coding agent to anchor around important rules and it knows whether it has broken any previously written rules through verification.

The idea sits between formal verification and coding. We propose that the nature of event sourcing allows you to formulate code as pure functions e.g. the same input to the same function over the same state should produce the same output. It is important to have immutability and versioning of the state, else the above properties wouldn't hold.

When you extend that you can force, using the framework, to prove that every valid input should produce a valid output under certain rules and further to validate state transitions as well (bounded verification and weak-proof for unbounded) by exploring all of them.

The limitations:

- Exploring all the states is hard, so this can only prove smaller domains or you have to tell the agent to either break state in small parts or sample the state exploration. We have taken inspiration from the TLA+ is verified by TLC.

- It doesn't test what you don't specify, but you can keep on iterating, the coding agents knows how to keep on adding/remove things using the framework.

It provides bounded guarantees rather than complete formal verification. It confirms no rule violations occur within the tested domain, but cannot prove exhaustive correctness. Additionally, this approach only covers closed environments where inputs are fully controlled. But for open environments (production) you can persist to KurrentDB using the framework.

If you are interested you can read more about it at: https://www.kurrent.io/blog/proof-oriented-event-sourcing/

A few points not mentioned in the blog post which might be interesting to the technical audience: We tried multiple versions internally using Liquid Haskell + state transitions proofs, lean4, transpilation to TLA+ and an FSharp version but we found out that at the moment LLMs just find it hard to write proofs at scale and also just knows how to write Python better.
by EdNutting | 2026-02-27 16:21:11+00:00
Sarcastically, it's "the vibes intensifying".

(Vibes ~ Vibrations ~ Heat)

Tbf it's a reasonable question... I think it's a little tricky to pin down the equivalent of "kinetic energy" in purely economic terms, though you might look at the rate of flow of money as some analogy for the speed/energy of particles (speed of individual dollars changing hands). In that sense, the more frequent and larger these deals get, the hotter the market is. This is not a novel analogy.
by anal_reactor | 2026-02-27 16:21:22+00:00
I think it would make sense to include pudding - it's basically milk with a bit of flour. It's important to include because it shows that there are foods beyond Pancake Local Group that aren't just liquid milk.

One important property of pudding is that unlike pancakes, the space of pudding isn't "chaotic and fractal" because whether you add just enough flour to make it somewhat sticky or so much that you can cut it with a knife, it's still pudding. This means that if we take flour-heavy pudding and somehow add shitload of eggs, we should be able to venture into the Dark Breakfast area. I have a pudding recipe that calls for egg yolks, but I feel like this isn't a good lead. Still it proves further how flexible "pudding" is.

Going back to pancakes, there's one funny variation. "Naleśniki" with cottage cheese and cream (or yoghurt). Cottage cheese and cream are basically milk with extra steps, which means that the entire dish becomes mainly milk. This means that the Pancake Local Group actually stretches much closer to the "milk" vertex than your diagram suggests.

If I were to prepare something that passes as food and sits in the Dark Breakfast Abyss, I'd try scrambled eggs on the thinnest bread I could reasonably make. Something like "scrambled eggs taco".
by everythingabili | 2026-02-27 16:22:08+00:00
One rainy afternoon, armed with Gemini AI, I wondered how far I could get "making" a web version of HyperCard.

The HyperCOD(e) version is limited, but you can go next card, and run on idle commands. And it does colour!

Don't expect too much, but making this was fun and I'm now going to make a few stacks with it.
by soderfoo | 2026-02-27 16:22:47+00:00
True. I'm not as familiar with the politics of DC, but my limited understanding of the PR statehood situation is that the GOP is unlikely to approve what would presumably be 2 new safe democratic seats in the senate.

If I remember correctly, the governor of PR would appoint the first 2 senators. A tactic could be to promise to appoint 1 republican senator as an enrichment to approve statehood. It's a real shit situation.

There are more Puerto Ricans living in NYC and Orlando than in PR. I'd like to visit before the little family I have left there leaves or dies out.
by amluto | 2026-02-27 16:23:26+00:00
Those intermediate layers are usually part of the artifact. Try exporting an image with docker save and investigate what’s inside. This is all documented in a mostly comprehensible manner in the OCI specs.

I’m afraid you’re missing my point, though. A high quality build system takes fixed inputs and produces outputs that are, to the extent possible, only a function of the inputs. If there’s a separate process that downloads the inputs (and preferably makes sure they are bitwise identical to what is expected), fine, but that step should be strictly outside the inputs to the actual thing that produces the release artifact. Think of it as:

artifact = build_process(inputs)

inputs = fetch(credentials, cache, hashes, etc)

Or, even better perhaps:

inputs = …
assert hash(inputs) == expected

(And now, unless you accidentally hash your credentials into the expected hash, you can’t leak credentials into the output!)

Once you have commingled it so that it looks like:

final output, intermediate layers = monolithic_mess(credentials, cache, etc)

Then you completely lose track of which parts are deterministic, what lives in the intermediate layers, where the credentials go, etc.

Docker build is not a good build system, and it strongly encourages users to do this the wrong way, and there are many, many things wrong with it, and only one of those things is that the intermediate layers that you might think of as a cache are also exposed as part of the output.
by rsynnott | 2026-02-27 16:23:41+00:00
Further, VW AG sells about a million electric cars a year, growing at 33% YoY. Tesla 1.6M, shrinking at 9% YoY. It is likely that VW will be a bigger _electric_ car seller than Tesla within a year or two (already is if you count PHEVs, obviously).

It's a pretty weird take, unless you think that Tesla _being overvalued_ is itself a desirable thing.
by qalmakka | 2026-02-27 16:24:06+00:00
I agree. AI right now is at a level of "knowledgeable friend", not of "professional with years of real world experience". You'd listen to what your friend has to say, but taking pills after one of their suggestions? Dumb idea. It's great to brainstorm things, but just like your knowledgeable friend that likes reading Wikipedia pages a bit too much you need to really check it's not reaching to conclusions too quickly
by meisnerd | 2026-02-27 16:24:09+00:00
Thanks, man! A landing page is definitely on the list — right now I'm focused on getting the core solid first, but you're right that it would help with discoverability. For now the GitHub README is doing double duty as the landing page.

And you don't actually need Claude Code to use it — Mission Control works with any AI agent that can read/write local files. The data layer is just JSON, and the API is token-optimized (~50 tokens per request vs ~5,400 unfiltered, about a 94% reduction) so it's lightweight for any agent to consume. The Eisenhower matrix, Kanban, goal hierarchy, and brain dump all work standalone too. The daemon and agent orchestration just layer on top when you're ready for it.
by deaux | 2026-02-27 16:24:30+00:00
The software itself is bad enough, as a cherry on top the maintainers have a long history of astroturfing on Reddit to try and silence criticism. For a DB package. Come on man. Normally if maintainers do this they'll at least start with "Hey, maintainer here", but nope.

Their whole mission is clearly "make the already easy things slightly easier, and the hard things harder or impossible". Or really "suck the VC teat until it's as parched as the Sahara". In that sense, Prisma is the exact thing you'd expect to happen with a VC-funded DB package. ZIRP really made them invest into the craziest things.

I like Kysely more than Drizzle, even moreso now with Claude, but Drizzle is fine too. As long as it's not Prisma, and preferably not TypeORM or Sequelize either.
by limagnolia | 2026-02-27 16:24:44+00:00
From the sources I have seen, that 10% was a projection for 2024, with goals to significantly reduce it in 2025 and 2026 onward. It also includes "banned" goods, which are not necessarily fraudulent nor illegal. I have not seen any data on whether or not Meta has achieved their goals of reducing fraud and banned goods advertising.
by numbsafari | 2026-02-27 16:24:44+00:00
There's clearly a change going on in the US government, and it very well may be that organizations such as Mozilla, FreeBSD, and Apache could all lose their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status in years to come.

At the end of the day though, 501(c)(3) status is a purely US concept, doesn't apply to international organizations internationally, and doesn't necessarily mean that you "can't" do what anyone is discussing here. It just means that folks gonna have to pay taxes and "donations" can't be written off on the taxes of donors.

Perhaps, at the end of the day, not pursuing tax-exemption/charity status is a more honest approach. It certainly doesn't precluding doing any of what has been discussed, it just changes the financial efficiency.
by fusslo | 2026-02-27 16:25:07+00:00
> The warrants included a search through all of her photos, videos, emails, text messages, and location data over a two-month period, as well as a time-unlimited search for 26 keywords, including words as broad as “bike,” “assault,” “celebration,” and “right,” that allowed police to comb through years of Armendariz’s private and sensitive data—all supposedly to look for evidence related to the alleged simple assault.

That's an insane overreaction and overreach. There's some quotes from officers during the protests that are particularly troubling, too.

The article links directly to the ruling: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/0101...

I wonder how the Sargent and Judge who approved these searches feel. If they take their jobs seriously, I do hope that they are more critical of search warrant applications in the future.
by kccqzy | 2026-02-27 16:26:09+00:00
It’s interesting but I think it’s measuring the wrong thing. Abstraction is a fundamental principle in software. As a human, I’ve worked with classes and modules far larger than what fits in my head, just because I’m only fitting the function signatures and purpose into my head, and not the implementation details. In practice I find Claude really good at extracting useful information in a human-like way from a codebase. It doesn’t usually stuff the entire codebase into its context window.
by micromacrofoot | 2026-02-27 16:26:13+00:00
Yes no doubt, but I still feel as though it's important to dispel the "they voted for this" myth because it comes up a lot — it may still be true if an election was held today, but we can't know because the people in Palestine haven't voted for decades. When we're talking about who's suffering there, it's primarily young people who've had no voice in anything for their entire lives.
by MostlyStable | 2026-02-27 16:26:46+00:00
A friend of mine had such a bad experience with _multiple_ American doctors missing a major issue that nearly ended up killing her that she decided that, were she to have kids, she would go back to Russia rather than be pregnant in the American medical system.

Now, I don't agree that this is a good decision, but the point is, human doctors also often miss major problems.
by travisgriggs | 2026-02-27 16:26:53+00:00
This is so damn cool. And most people won’t even see why.

They won’t realize just how amazingly cool it is that you can grab any block of code in a block closure (the [ ] syntax*), and extend that object with more behavior. And how if you have that object you can I introspect the craziest things out of it, including of course, the source it was derived from, and hence, an AST. There’s no need to make a new compiler pass, or a special tool mod. The “reserved” keyword of any doesn’t have to be bolted into the whole language, it’s just a variable that can be treated specially in this context, and only this context, so you don’t have to have special meta variables leak into the whole system.

* disclaimer: I participated in the inclusion of John and Dons excellent work into the VisualWorks IDE back in the day. I also saw “once” introduced into the Smalltalk system, a lazy runtime way of memoizing block values in place. Oh the things you could do with BlockClosure extension methods.

* aside, my favorite closure syntax of all time, way better than elixirs shorthand & stuff, or fn -> things, or trailing closures
by qzira | 2026-02-27 16:27:05+00:00
This matches what I observed running AI agents overnight
for content generation. The temptation is always to add
cost controls inside the application — but that logic
doesn't survive when the agent goes off-script.

The fear of a 3am runaway was real enough that I ended up
building a separate gateway layer just to have a kill switch
that lives outside the application entirely.

"Build vs Buy" is the right framing, but for cost enforcement
and kill switches specifically — building it inside the app
is exactly the wrong layer.
by emp17344 | 2026-02-27 16:27:35+00:00
Amazing how you can just deflect any criticism of LLMs here by going “but humans suck too!” And the misanthropic HN userbase eats it up every time.

We live during the healthiest period in human history due to the fact that doctors are highly reliable and well-trained. You simply would not be able to replace a real doctor with an LLM and get desirable results.
by oersted | 2026-02-27 16:27:38+00:00
I did upvote, it's witty, but it's a bit of a misrepresentation of how the economy works.

In practice, people don't tend to pay people to eat shit without gain. You are paying people to help you. Money gaslights everyone into helping each other, the most selfish people become the most selfless.

Of course, real capitalism is much more complex and much uglier than this fantasy. When certain people end up with long-term control of large piles of money, the whole thing gets distorted. They get to make lots of money on interest without doing anything, and making other people eat more shit for scraps. That's the "capital" part of capitalism.

But the toy world-model that this joke is making fun of, is actually the one core positive aspect of capitalism and brings all the prosperity we have: tricking people into helping each other.
by verdverm | 2026-02-27 16:27:39+00:00
It can, like all the other tasks, it's not magic and you need to make the job of the agent easier by giving it good instructions, tools, and environments. It's exactly the same thing that makes the life of humans easier too.

This post is a case study that shows one way to do this for a specific task. We found an RCA to a long-standing problem with our dev boxes this week using Ai. I fed Gemini Deep Research a few logs and our tech stack, it came back with an explanation of the underlying interactions, debugging commands, and the most likely fix. It was spot on, GDR is one of the best debugging tools for problems where you don't have full understanding.

If you are curious, and perhaps a PSA, the issue was that Docker and Tailscale were competing on IP table updates, and in rare circumstances (one dev, once every few weeks), Docker DNS would get borked. The fix is to ignore Docker managed interfaces in NetworkManager so Tailscale stops trying to do things with them.
by kgwxd | 2026-02-27 16:27:56+00:00
No need for the romance. We don't have to be "brothers". That outlook is divisive in nature anyway, and a weapon for abusers: "I thought we were brothers. Now, put aside your hesitations, and help me hurt these 'other' people."

We can just be people. Don't hurt anyone, no one gets a pass to hurt you. Hurt someone, someone gets a pass to hurt you. Just you, not your "brothers". No matter the status of anyone involved.

Severity, intent, and priors must play a factor in the level of returned hurt, but should never end with none, and death should be a last resort, but never completely off the table.

That's the good-faith interpretation of the golden rule. Instead of the popular abuser and enabler (turn the other cheek) interpretations. They both call anyone who dares hold anyone accountable, a hypocrite for supposedly not following the golden rule.

I don't care what story book it's in, or who said it, or when. It's a good rule on it's own merits. Doesn't mean everything that comes form the same source is equally valid.
by denimnerd42 | 2026-02-27 16:28:11+00:00
creating plans in claude and asking chatgpt via api to review loop was my strategy this week. I'm not a big fan of codex as a coding harness because it seems to just give up quite easily where claude will search the problem space and try things but I think gpt does a much better job of poking holes and asking clarifying questions when prompted.
by rekabis | 2026-02-27 16:28:17+00:00
Beyond the loyalty angle, this is a pretty stupid play. Sure, China has about 2B people, so good strategists should be reasonably available, but it takes decades of training and experience to make an effective battlefield general. If they actually intend to go all imperialist and start doing truly stupid things like invading Taiwan, they are going to get absolutely plastered without a good cadre of experienced officers and enlisted men. And the “vanishing” of the upper echelons is only attractive to yes men and sycophants; the ones who will be the least effective in any real engagement.

Now, from that aforementioned loyalty angle… this definitely works. If you purge dissent and people with a history of lateral, non-conforming thinking, you most definitely get a system where people ask “how high?” when you scream “jump!”.

I mean, Trump has been doing much the same with the American military, albeit less dark (only relieving them of their positions). It’s the authoritarian/fascist playbook in action, and it will mean much less resistance in the ranks when ‘murica decides to invade Canada, or Greenland, or any other juicy target.
by duskdozer | 2026-02-27 16:28:21+00:00
It's really the "common sense" i.e. believing things without thinking because they "sound right" or because it's what your parents told you a lot growing up or because you watched an ad saying it a hundred times that's the issue. People don't want "the truth" or uncomfortable realities; they want comfortable, easily digestible bullshit. Smooth talkers filled the role before and LLMs are filling that role now.
by Bender | 2026-02-27 16:28:50+00:00
I am not a lawyer but I know it is a legal gray zone. If the government wants information they can drain the financial resources of a non profit or individual very fast. Governments are operating on nearly limitless monetary resources. It also does not stop seizures of equipment or documents. That means the canary could be displayed on a site and the owners / operators might not be able to take it down especially if they are being held in contempt. To be taken seriously a canary would have to be updated frequently or it is nearly meaningless.

Canaries also require trust and transparency. Automation is quite common amongst developers. A canary being updated could be automation. Signing can be automated. They might assume that if something is wrong they will be able to stop the automation. This may not be the case. It may be worth noting a judge in the USA can hold someone in contempt for a civil case indefinitely and up to 6 months for a criminal case. That is plenty of time for end-users of a site to be monitored, investigated and prosecuted.

If I were trying to manage such a thing then I would have to create a highly distributed site with signals a government could not easily tamper with and people around the world associated with the non profile could update such as Tor .onion sites, i2p links and the like. This would require friends of the site stay in continuous contact. This could potentially cause more problems for the people not operating from the shadows. The site owner would have to be able to deny any knowledge of the people updating or removing the Tor/I2P links. This also assumes interested parties are even monitoring these links. This would require incredible discipline and opsec, something most people just do not have time for. Yes I am arguing against my own idea.