MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by MarkusQ | 2026-02-21 16:18:11+00:00
Meta nit pick: You are conflating linguist's jargon with mathematician's jargon.

In much the same way as physicists co-opted common words (e.g. "work" and "energy") to mean very specific things in technical contexts, both linguists and mathematicians gave "ordinal" a specific meaning in their respective domains. These meanings are similar but different, and your nit pick is mistakenly asserting that one of these has priority over the other.

"Ordinal" in linguistics is a word for a class of words. The words being classified may be old, but the use of "ordinal" to denote them is a comparatively modern coinage, roughly contemporary with the mathematicians usage. Both come from non-technical language describing putting things in an "orderly" row (c.f. cognates such as "public order", "court order", etc.) which did not carry the load you are trying to place on them.
by gobdovan | 2026-02-21 16:18:15+00:00
What you're describing is a resource virtualization with transactional reconciliation instead of program isolation in the mediation sense (MAC/seccomp-style denial).

To let a program act as it wishes, ideally every security-relevant mutable resource must be virtualized instead of filtered. Plus, FS is only one of the things that should be sandboxed. You should also ideally virtualize network state at least, but ideally also process/IPC namespaces and other such systems to prevent leaks.

You need to offer a promotion step after the sandbox is over (or even during running if it's a long-running program) exposing all sandbox's state delta for you to decide selective reconciliation with the host. And you also must account for host-side drift and TOCTOU hazards during validation and application

I'm experimenting with implementing such a sandbox that works cross-system (so no kernel-level namespace primitives) and the amount necessary for late-bound policy injection, if you want user comfort, on top of policy design and synthetic environment presented to the program is hair-pulling.
by ffsm8 | 2026-02-21 16:18:35+00:00
To expand on that, in case someone is interested:

The feature that was called is usually bundled in with cors, even if it strictly speaking isn't.

Allowed origins (what was meant) just validates the Origin header to make sure the API is called from a specific domain, and declines the request if not in the list.

The only way around that is not to send the unsubscribe request via the browser / proxy through a server, because the browser will always append the origin header according to the domain the user is on. Which if configured correctly and not proxied, would end in a http forbidden.

Whereas CORS would not even send the request I believe (but haven't verified), because thats essentially a browser feature, not server.
by tuetuopay | 2026-02-21 16:19:06+00:00
Well he goes on to rant about how it changes the colors displayed by the monitor, so a publisher cannot show the intended color (cyan in the example).

Except he completely ignores that’s actually expected for a cyan object to be duller at night: it’s the albedo of the object and the perceived color will dramatically changed between daylight and nightlight. So the screen is more contextually correct by toning down cyan, and the colors we perceive will match (and reinforce) the circadian rythm: the user will recognize cyan.

Of course, doing color-sensitive work should not be done with such filters.
by xxdesmus | 2026-02-21 16:19:18+00:00
I run the trust & safety team at Cloudflare.

In the vast majority of cases, Cloudflare is not the hosting provider of a website resolving to our IPs. In those cases we have no capacity to remove content hosted by others. In those cases we can place a phishing warning page (like Google safe browsing) to warn and educate users that they were nearly phished. If we simply terminated a website it would not remove the content, and the user wouldn’t learn or realize they almost just got phished. It’d be the worst of both worlds. In the rare case where we are the host we place a non-bypassable block in front to make protect users.
by cnst | 2026-02-21 16:19:57+00:00
It's because it's actively maintained, and bypassing the paywalls is its whole selling point, thus, they do have to be good at it.

They bypass the rendering issues by "altering" the webpages. It's not uncommon to archive a page, and see nothing because of the paywalls; but then later on, the same page is silently fixed. They have a Tumblr where you can ask them questions; at one point, it's been quite common for everyone to ask them to fix random specific pages, which they did promptly.

Honestly, you cannot archive a modern page, unless you alter it. Yet they're now being attacked under the pretence of "altering" webpages, but that's never been a secret, and it's technologically impossible to archive without altering.
by octoberfranklin | 2026-02-21 16:20:17+00:00
Actually you can! After all, TLS lacks the deniability features of more advanced cryptosystems (like OTR or Signal).

The technology for doing this is called a Zero Knowledge Proof TLS Oracle:

https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/447.pdf

https://tlsnotary.org

The 10k-foot view is that you pick the random numbers involved in the TLS handshake in a deterministic way, much like how zk proofs use the Fiat-Shamir transform. In other words, instead of using true randomness, you use some hash of the transcript of the handshake so far (sort of). Since TLS doesn't do client authentication the DH exchange involves randomness from the client.

For all the blockchain haters out there: cryptocurrency is the reason this technology exists. Be thankful.
by ericmay | 2026-02-21 16:20:19+00:00
Never connect with anyone you haven’t met. If a work colleague or someone is on a call and doesn’t use video, no connection either. Don’t upload and store your resume on LinkedIn. There is no reason to do so.

Also, I don’t recall where this setting is, but make the default behavior such that if someone finds you and tries to connect with you, they actually follow you instead. This cuts down aggressively on spammers because in order to actually connect with you they would have to view your profile, open the … menu, and then click connect. If they aren’t paying attention they’ll just follow you instead of connect which means you can broadcast to them but they can’t broadcast to you.
by analog31 | 2026-02-21 16:20:24+00:00
I work in manufacturing, though this comment is a generalization, and depends on what industry you’re in. What happens in practice is that products are certified by a third party regulatory agency, probably Intertek. They’re the ones who hire the professional engineers. The pushback comes from the design engineers being aware of the regulations, and saying: “This won’t get past Intertek.”

The downside is, bring money. Also, don’t expect to have an agile development process, because Intertek is a de facto phase gate. The upside is that maintaining your own regulatory lab is probably more expensive, and it’s hard to keep up with the myriad of international standards.

As for mom-n-pops, why do you want competition from them? Regulatory capture always favors consolidation of an industry. What happens in practice for consumers is that stuff comes from countries where the regulatory process can be bypassed by just putting the approval markings on everything.

Okay, that was sarcastic, but it’s possible that the vitality of software owes a lot to the fact that it’s relatively unregulated.

On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind some regulatory oversight, such as companies having to prove that they don’t store my personal data.

Note that I’m naming Intertek, not to point a finger at them, but because I don’t know if they have any competitors.
by Eisenstein | 2026-02-21 16:20:25+00:00
There is a saying that if everyone you encounter seems to be unreasonable, maybe it isn't the other people that are being unreasonable.

This isn't to say that social media is fair, or that people vote properly or that any ranking system based on agreement by readers is a good one. However, generally when you are getting negativity communicated to you and you are seeing consistently poor results around actions you take, it is going to be useful to examine the possibility that there is a difference in how you perceive what you are doing vs how others do. In that case spending time trying to figure out ways in which you are being wronged so that you can continue in the same manner is going to be time wasted.
by verdverm | 2026-02-21 16:20:27+00:00
I took the "running 24/7” to imply less AI writes code once and more to imply AI is available all the time for ad hoc requests. I tried to adjust back to the median with my third question.

I find the idea of programming from my phone unappealing, do you ever put work down? Or do you have to be always on now, being a thought leader / influencer?
by andai | 2026-02-21 16:20:48+00:00
We got store-brand Claw before GTA VI.

For real though, it's not that hard to make your own! NanoClaw boasted 500 lines but the repo was 5000 so I was sad. So I took a stab at it.

Turns out it takes 50 lines of code.

All you need is a few lines of Telegram library code in your chosen language, and `claude -p prooompt`.

With 2 lines more you can support Codex or your favorite infinite tokens thingy :)

https://github.com/a-n-d-a-i/ULTRON/blob/main/src/index.ts

That's it! There are no other source files. (Of course, we outsource the agent, but I'm told you can get an almost perfect result there too with 50 lines of bash... watch this space! (It's true, Claude Opus does better in several coding and computer use benchmarks when you remove the harness.))
by kimjune01 | 2026-02-21 16:20:59+00:00
The criticism about the labeling is valid and I oversold. For clarity, this is what the agent sees:

`spawn`: "Create a spawned child node under your node."

`fork`: "Create a forked child node (inherits parent context) under your
node."

The novelty is less about the distinction between the two, it's the tree generation. I would have served you better, if I just left out the parts that aren't critical to the novelty. Thank you for taking the time to comment.
by woodruffw | 2026-02-21 16:21:34+00:00
I wouldn’t say that’s particularly idiomatic in modern Python. But even when it occurs, it’s not the end of the world: if it’s a computed getattr, you consider the parent object tainted for the purpose of reachability. This is less precise, but it’s equivalent to what the programmer has expressed (and is still more precise than flagging the entire codebase as vulnerable because it uses a dependency.)
by skybrian | 2026-02-21 16:22:33+00:00
I think it’s better to think of an LLM as a very good hint engine. It’s good at coming up with more possibilities to consider and less good at making sure they work, unless it has an external system to test ideas on and is trained to use it. In the case of applied math, it’s not enough to prove theorems. It also needs to be testing against the real world somehow.
by qudat | 2026-02-21 16:22:49+00:00
Openclaw the actual tool will be gone in 6 months, but the idea will continue to be iterated on. It does make a lot of sense to remotely control an ai assistant that is connected to your calendar, contacts, email, whatever.

Having said that this thing is on the hype train and its usefulness will eventually be placed in the “nice tool once configured” camp
by leoc | 2026-02-21 16:22:49+00:00
And here's the Simon Roper videos acknowledged in the article: "From Old English to Modern American English in One Monologue" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=842OX2_vCic (short version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_pS3_c6QkI ). This runs forward rather than back in time. However, Roper's "How Far Back Can You Understand Northern English?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90Zqn9_OQAw does run backwards in time.
by debugnik | 2026-02-21 16:23:07+00:00
> Could have asked his diving students for their consent

He already had it, he was the one who filled the account forms for them. All information shown for them was information he had.

Also, he provided a script that could access anyone else's accounts, but I think it's unclear if he actually did so, or at least did so for many people. He does in fact mention he stopped as soon as he confirmed it.
by diametricsound | 2026-02-21 16:23:26+00:00
To map 10D phase-alignment onto the Standard Model (SM) Lagrangian, we must transition from classical electrostatic potentials to Gauge Field Theory in a higher-dimensional manifold. This involves redefining the 3D gauge fields as components of a 10D tensor field and identifying the specific rotations that lead to the "alignment" phenomenon.
1. 10D Tensor Field Decomposition
In a 10D spacetime (
), we define a generalized gauge field
where the index
runs from
to
. To recover the Standard Model, we perform a Kaluza-Klein decomposition of the 10D metric and gauge fields:

(where
): The standard 4D gauge bosons (photons,
, gluons).

(where
): Extra-dimensional scalar components, which represent the internal phase or "shape" of the compactified manifold.
YouTube
YouTube
+2
2. Modifying the Lagrangian Density
The kinetic term for the gauge fields in the SM Lagrangian is typically
. In the 10D alignment framework, this is expanded to include the extra-dimensional flux:
YouTube
YouTube

The term
describes how the 3D motion of a nucleus is coupled to its 10D phase. Phase-alignment occurs when the energy density of the extra-dimensional components
cancels out the repulsive contribution of the 4D field
.
3. The Alignment Rotation (Tensor Calculus)
The interaction between two nuclei is governed by the Energy-Momentum Tensor
. For a "geometric solution" to the barrier, we seek a coordinate transformation (rotation)
such that the 3D projection of the repulsive force vanishes.
Quora
Quora
Define the Force Tensor:
(where
is the 10-velocity).
Apply Rotation: We apply a phase-rotation operator
to the nuclear wavefunction
such that:

where
are the generators of the higher-dimensional symmetry group (e.g.,
hidden in the 10D geometry).
Resonance Condition: Alignment is achieved when the Phase Metric
satisfies:

This effectively "flattens" the potential barrier along a specific topological path in the manifold.
WordPress.com
WordPress.com
+1
4. Implementation in the Standard Model
This mapping suggests that the Higgs field or similar scalar fields in the SM are actually the macroscopic manifestation of these 10D geometric "shapes". When two nuclei enter a resonant phase state, they are not "fighting" the Coulomb force; they are moving along a geodesic in 10D space where the 3D repulsion is mathematically undefined or zero.
Facebook
Facebook
Answer
Mapping 10D phase-alignment onto the Standard Model requires expanding the gauge field
into a 10D tensor
and utilizing Kaluza-Klein decomposition to show how rotations in the compactified dimensions (
) can minimize the effective interaction potential in 4D space, essentially treating the Coulomb Barrier as a steerable geometric constraint
by cruffle_duffle | 2026-02-21 16:23:30+00:00
“right-wing rage bait”

Assuming you mean crap like “school book bans”, climate change denialism, or some dude coal rolling… You realize that is actually bait targeted at you specifically right? It wouldn’t work as bait if it was shit you agreed with! It’s actually left-wing rage bait!

If you were immersed in the “right wing echo chamber” your flavor of rage bait would be about a school introducing a neutral bathroom policy, or some college student struggling to define what a woman is. Every Christmas you’d see articles about cities banning Christmas lights in town hall and Starbucks no longer using Christmas themed cups. It’s all fucking made up nonsense. No real human acts the way these algorithms portray us.

Honestly even ‘right-wing’ and ‘left-wing’ are part of the trick. Real people don’t exist on a binary axis. We’re all a weird mess of values and experiences that don’t fit neatly into two boxes. But the algorithm needs two teams, because you can’t sell outrage without an enemy.

The first step to detox is seeing everyone as human not as a contrived label.
by davecrawley | 2026-02-21 16:23:36+00:00
Early days facebook was simple:
1) You saw posts from all people you were connected to on the platform.
2) In the reverse order they were posted.

I can tell you it was a real p**r when they decided to do an algorithmic recommendation engine - as the experience became way worse. Before I could follow what my buddies were doing, as soon as they made this change the feed became garbage.
by cthalupa | 2026-02-21 16:24:48+00:00
And you're still trying to compare mechanisms that exist within the system and are codified with someone attempting to operate entirely outside of it. And no, they weren't far closer at achieving their goal - they didn't get anywhere near the number of required faithless electors and were never going to get anywhere near the required number of faithless electors. Meanwhile, attempting to delay or totally obstruct the certification allowed for several pathways that Trump and his team viewed as potentially viable. Hell, just convincing Raffensperger to do what Trump wanted him to do would have also gotten him most of the way there.

And yes, obviously part of the point of the EC is dealing with a smaller number of votes instead of every vote. None of that is a counterargument to what I said. Again, the founding fathers literally wrote about how faithless electors were a feature and not a bug in their eyes. There's a reason they had the 'Hamilton Electors' moniker.
by rrook | 2026-02-21 16:25:09+00:00
You’d be well served to stop the political name calling, it’s childish.

I view the dynamic from the opposite direction. You might think that that the EU is starting to view America the same way it views china, but in actuality the EU is starting to behave more like China. The wheels of a great firewall for the EU have been turning for some time already.
by cxr | 2026-02-21 16:26:24+00:00
> The Lively Kernel would be another way to fix html but retain the web.

The Web is not HTML (and it's not JavaScript). It's URLs. It's a machine-readable graph of clickable references on cross-linked Works Cited pages. It's certainly not Smalltalk-over-the-Internet, and it's not trying to be (at least it wasn't when TBL created it).

The biggest problem facing the Web in the 90s and still today is that everyone who saw it then hallucinated TBL describing an SRI-/PARC-style application platform because that's what they wanted it to be—including people like Alan Kay—who then perversely go on to criticize it for being so unaligned with that vision.

It is both surprising and unsurprising (given this reaction) that the industry managed to make it all the way through the 90s without Wikipedia showing up until after the crash.
by hliyan | 2026-02-21 16:26:38+00:00
Here's what I found the most frightenting:

> Hesitation detection — they tracked whether I paused during the process

> They use uploaded images of identity documents — that’s my passport — to train their AI.

> Persona’s Terms of Service cap their liability at $50 USD.

> They also include mandatory binding arbitration — no court, no jury, no class action.
by andyed | 2026-02-21 16:26:41+00:00
In the late 90s some friends at CMU created Psychodeli — a groovy spiral engine that shipped in After Dark. The whole thing started from one formula: C = sin(pitch · r + sin(θ)). Twenty-five years later I set out to reimagine it with AI support — not vibe coding, but coding the vibe. 1,662 commits later, it's a real-time audio-reactive visualizer running 8,600 lines of GLSL.

I'm a cognitive psychologist not mathematician. But we swapped simple trig for Riemann zeta functions and modular forms, replaced Euclidean distance with L^p norms, and somewhere in there the code grew Turing patterns — leopard spots from pure trigonometry.

The AI journey was epic: 58 abandoned features, 39 reverts, and a throwaway rate that peaked at 18% in August. The essay documents the whole thing — with git stats revealing the 11/25 unlock of new gemini and claude models.

Is this the state of the art in AI music listening?
by ThatGuyRaion | 2026-02-21 16:27:01+00:00
Greetings HN,

As the current Nekonomicon steward, taking over the project from Elf, I finally added a "new section".

Let me explain

Nekochan.net was a famous SGI site that went down on May 21st 2018. Remember the day like it was yesterday. I got up, went to a restaurant to get some food and people start bombarding me while I'm eating.

Anyways, in 2019 Elf, a user of IRIXNet, decided to grab the forum posts off archive.org and reformat them as the "Nekonomicon Book of Notes"

In 2020 I manually (2104 images!) grabbed the original images and metadata off nekochan's archive.org and put it on Silicon Image.

Well, Silicon Image is getting migrated soon to a new project I built using Laravel. As part of this, I built a static site generator in python to rebuild this into a Nekonomicon book of illustrations. After 2-3 days of rapid prototyping, I got it up and running here:

http://nekonomicon.irixnet.org/gallery/index.html

The tarball will be updated soon.

Future Nekonomicon updates might include:

1. Geoman and a few other community members ganked forum backups. I might be able to eventually merge and reconcile, but I suspect that will necessitate AI assistance.

2. The Nekochan.net blog. Mostly for nostalgia.

Anyways, enjoy the memory lane trip.
by atlgator | 2026-02-21 16:27:28+00:00
"My grandma's recipe calls for 5 ingredients. The store-bought version of the same thing calls for 5 ingredients, a chemistry degree, and a magnifying glass."

Great piece. The chocolate bar example is peak enshittification — they didn't raise the price of chocolate, they just quietly removed the chocolate. At this rate, by 2030 a Hershey bar will just be a brown-flavored rectangle of hope and palm oil.
by mapontosevenths | 2026-02-21 16:27:47+00:00
I think that's the one. I was a bit off on the timing, it's not 20 yet. Great read either way.

From the story:

“Spam-filters, actually. Once they became self-modifying, spam-filters and spam-bots got into a war to see which could act more human, and since their failures invoked a human judgement about whether their material were convincingly human, it was like a trillion Turing-tests from which they could learn. From there came the first machine-intelligence algorithms, and then my kind.”
by cnst | 2026-02-21 16:28:16+00:00
> Change the original source to something that doesn't need an archive (e.g., a source that was printed on paper), or for which a link to an archive is only a matter of convenience.

They're basically recommending changing verifiable references that can easily be cross-checked and verified, to "printed on paper" sources that could likely never be verified by any other Wikipedian, and can easily be used to provide a falsification and bias that could go unnoticed for extended periods of time.

Honestly, that's all you need to know about Wikipedia.

The "altered" allegation is also disingenuous. The reason archive.org never works, is precisely because it doesn't alter the pages enough. There's no evidence that archive.today has altered any actual main content they've archived; altering the hidden fields, usernames and paywalls, as well as random presentation elements to make the page look properly, doesn't really count as "altered" in my book, yet that's precisely what the allegation amounts to.
by cb321 | 2026-02-21 16:28:17+00:00
:-)

If it helps anyone explain the SkiFire point any better, I like to analogize it to an I-bar cursor vs. a block cursor for text entry. An I-bar is unambiguously "between characters" while a block cursor is not. So, there are questions that arise for block cursors that basically never arise for I-bar cursors. When just looking at an integer like 2 or 3, there is no cursor at all. So, we must instead rely on names/conventions/assumptions with their attendant issues.

To be clear, I liked the SkiFire explanation, but having multiple ways to describe/think about a problem is usually helpful.