MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by shiroiuma | 2026-02-04 04:22:53+00:00
>"This is how its always been" is one of the banes of my existence. It explains why we're here, but not how to do better.

This is true, but it's also very useful in assigning blame (or avoiding assigning it improperly).

So for all the people who complain about all the people who didn't vote, and try to blame them for Trump's election, we can just point to the historical record for voting in US presidential elections. The truth is: the turnout was not unusually low. In fact, it was somewhat high, historically speaking (though not as high as in 2020, which was a record; you'd have to back to the 50s or early 60s to see a higher turnout, and that was in a time when Black people weren't allowed to vote in many places).

So instead of blaming non-voters, blame can be assigned properly to those who DID vote. Because the factors that have prevented many people from voting in past elections were still a factor in the most recent election.

>We could do like Australia and mandate required voting.

Right, and how do you enforce this when people aren't allowed to take time off from work to vote? Also, looking at the state of Australian politics, I don't see mandatory voting as a worthwhile fix.

>A national holiday for elections has been mentioned countless times.

Lots of people have to work on national holidays. How do they vote? Society doesn't stop needing police, firefighters, or hospital workers on national holidays. And most stores (like grocery stores) are still open, so their workers are required to go to work too.

More importantly, why do you think the GOP would ever agree to any measures to increase voter participation?
by functionmouse | 2026-02-04 04:23:33+00:00
I believe we are seeing an analog resurgence because computers are becoming less and less useful with time due to enshittification, and things aren't getting better any time soon. Sure, computers -can- do more than ever, but they don't want you to - every cent of Microsoft, Google, TikTok, Metabookstagram etc's R&D over the past decades has been towards reducing user agency so that behavior can be corralled into more profitable patterns for the owners. Eventually that's all normal people find themselves doing on computers anymore, and they realize they're working someone else's clock, and disconnect. Those who don't disconnect will drown in it and become socially irrelevant - you won't see them. What you SEE will be the analog resurgence because those who are not partaking in said resurgence will be invisible. You don't "see" people spending $15/day on app backgammon. You don't "see" people spending 6 hours straight on TikTok - people act these kinds of ways in private.

You will "see" the analog resurgence, but you may not "see" the complete picture, in this way.
by mhh__ | 2026-02-04 04:23:44+00:00
I think the grok incident/s were distasteful but I can't honestly think of a reason to ban grok and not any other AI product or even photoshop.

I barely use it these days and think adding it to twitter is pretty meh but I view this as regulators exploiting an open goal to attack the infrastructure itself rather than grok e.g. prune-juice drinking sandal wearers in britain (many of whom are now government backbenchers) absolutely despise twitter and want to ban it ever since their team lost control. Similar vibe across the rest of europe.

They have (astutely, if they realise it at least) found one of the last vaguely open/mainstream spaces for dissenting thought and are thus almost definitely plotting to shut it down. Reddit is completely captured. The right is surging dialectically at the moment but it is genuinely reliant on twitter. The centre-left is basically dead so it doesn't get the same value from bluesky / their parts of twitter.
by Der_Einzige | 2026-02-04 04:23:49+00:00
btw - OpenEvidence is also the name that competitive debaters used for their giant archive of policy debate, LD debate, and (small amounts of) PF debate evidence. That project has been going on for decades now.

We turned that into a proper, ready-for-use-in-AI dataset and contributed it to the mainstream AI community under the name OpenDebateEvidence. Presented at NeurIPS 2024 Dataset and Benchmark track.

https://neurips.cc/virtual/2024/poster/97854

https://huggingface.co/datasets/Yusuf5/OpenCaselist
by SilverElfin | 2026-02-04 04:24:25+00:00
A lot of people like making fun of Comac but it’s viable. China can have its domestic airlines but and operate these planes. They’ll learn and iterate. Sure they have to buy avionics and engines from others today. But it’s only a matter of time. A country that can figure out AI and fission and rockets and robots will definitely get there. At that point I am not sure how the labor costs Boeing and Airbus face can compete.
Ask HN: Tech Debt War Stories
by erubini_fg | 2026-02-04 04:25:58+00:00
What is the common thread among tech debt-crippled companies you've worked in? Not enough man hours to pay it down, difficulty to align engineering's willingness to pay it down with product's focus on new features, or something else? How can it be that, in the age of AI code gen, we haven't yet managed to solve this once and for all?
by hmry | 2026-02-04 04:26:15+00:00
Not everything is made from wires and transistors. And that's why these things are usually not measured in powers of 2:

- magnetic media

- optical media

- radio waves

- time

There's good reasons for having power-of-2 sectors (they need to get loaded into RAM), but there's really no compelling reason to have a power-of-2 number of sectors. If you can fit 397 sectors, only putting in 256 is wasteful.
by antonvs | 2026-02-04 04:26:49+00:00
> Why is starlink possible and other computations are not?

Aside from the point others have made that 50 MW is small in the context of hyperscalers, if you want to do things like SOTA LLM training, you can't feasibly do it with large numbers of small devices.

Density is key because of latency - you need the nodes to be in close physical proximity to communicate with each other at very high speeds.

For training an LLM, you're ideally going to want individual satellites with power delivery on the order of at least about 20 MW, and that's just for training previous-generation SOTA models. That's nearly 5,000 times more power than a single current Starlink satellite, and nearly 300 times that of the ISS.

You'd need radiator areas in the range of tens of thousands of square meters to handle that. Is it theoretically technically possible? Sure. But it's a long-term project, the kind of thing that Musk will say takes "5 years" that will actually take many decades. And making it economically viable is another story - the OP article points out other issues with that, such as handling hardware upgrades. Starlink's current model relies on many cheap satellites - the equation changes when each one is going to be very, very expensive, large, and difficult to deploy.
by aboardRat4 | 2026-02-04 04:27:13+00:00
>Under the Administrative Procedure Act, government agencies must produce legalistic bureaucratic reasons for their actions; they may not act capriciously to suit the whims of political leaders or transient desires for a change.

Well, this is sort of against the spirit of the US constitution, at least as explained in the Federalist. I might even call it an abuse of the Legislative system.

I'm not speaking very confidently here, but by the spirit of it, the Congress should not do this much of micro-management of the Executive.

Surely the Congress should pass the laws which _prevent_ the Executive from doing stupid things, in particular collecting too much taxes, but it shouldn't really tell the Executive "do this, in this particular way".

To be honest, I suspect that the actual _reason_ every administration tries to undo as much of the actions of the previous administration as they can is because due to the amount of limits imposed on them by the Congress they they cannot do much else. Fighting the Congress is much harder than fighting the previous administration.

I seriously suspect that if the amount of regulation is decreased, it will actually be beneficial to long-term policy stability, because instead of fighting the decisions of the previous administration the current one would be busy with it's own projects.
by ChrisArchitect | 2026-02-04 04:27:28+00:00
Submitted page updated since intially discussed here

Title is: Adobe Animate maintenance mode FAQs

>>>

Last updated on Feb 4, 2026

We are not discontinuing or removing access to Adobe Animate. Animate will continue to be available for both current and new customers, and we will ensure you continue to have access to your content. There is no longer a deadline or date by which Animate will no longer be available.
by krinchan | 2026-02-04 04:28:25+00:00
No, Claude Code reads the CLAUDE.md in the root of your project. It's case sensitive so it has to be exactly that, too. Github Copilot reads from .github/copilot-instructions.md and supposedly AGENTS.md. Anigravity reads AGENTS.md and pulls subagents and the like from a .agents directory. This is probably why you have to remind it to re-read it so much, the harness isn't loading it for you.
by oa335 | 2026-02-04 04:28:28+00:00
I feel like AI has given me the opportunity to think MORE, not less. I’m doing so much less mindless work, spending most of my efforts critically analyzing the code and making larger scale architectural decisions.

The author says “ Even though the AI almost certainly won't come up with a 100% satisfying solution, the 70% solution it achieves usually hits the “good enough” mark.”

The key is to keep pushing until it gets to the 100% mark. That last 30% takes multiples longer than the first 70%, but that is where the satisfaction lies for me.
by vulcan01 | 2026-02-04 04:29:04+00:00
> harder to hit

press x to doubt

> on 21 February 2008, the US Navy destroyed USA-193 in Operation Burnt Frost, using a ship-fired RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 about 247 km (153 mi) above the Pacific Ocean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon
by wat10000 | 2026-02-04 04:29:09+00:00
I don’t think a no-fly list should exist. Either a person has committed a crime and should be prosecuted, or not. It doesn’t make sense to me to say, you’re too dangerous to be allowed on a plane but not dangerous enough to put in jail.

Catching wanted criminals would be nice, but that’s not considered sufficient justification in other places. Requiring an ID to enter the grocery store would help catch wanted criminals too, but few think that would be wise.

I don’t think kids flying when they shouldn’t be is an actual problem. You’d still need a ticket, which costs a substantial amount of money.
by jamesfinlayson | 2026-02-04 04:29:10+00:00
> Every time I’ve talked to someone who has worked on Xcode they’ve expressed the opinion that Xcode is best-in-class and they simply don’t understand why people disagree.

Wow.

I won't say Xcode is anywhere near the worst IDE I've ever used (Eclipse) but I wouldn't say it's anywhere near best in class either.
Show HN: Nod – A protocol for agent-to-agent security handshakes
by mraml | 2026-02-04 04:30:10+00:00
I’ve been thinking about the supply-chain risks in autonomous agent networks. When Agent A hires Agent B to perform a task, how does it verify the other agent's safety boundaries without a human in the loop?

I’m using nod (https://github.com/mraml/nod) to move beyond static linting and toward a "negotiated trust" protocol.

Instead of just checking for code quality, agents can use nod to perform a kind of cryptographic handshake:

The "Host" agent generates a custom rules.yaml (a contract) defining its redlines (e.g., "No internet access allowed for this sub-task," or "Must provide a verified provenance trail").

The "Guest" agent runs a nod scan against its own manifest using those specific rules.

The Guest returns a signed compliance report.

This turns security into a programmable primitive. Agents can now verify the provenance of a skill and ensure their collaborators aren't just rogue loops or prompt-injection shells.

I've shared a rule set here that focuses on three core pillars:

Provenance Trails: Verifying the identity and audit trail of a skill.

Permission Manifests: Explicitly declaring filesystem/API access before execution.

Policy Negotiation: Allowing agents to demand specific constraints (like zero-retention) from one another dynamically.

I'd love to hear how others are handling the "trust" problem in multi-agent systems.

Repo: https://github.com/mraml/nod
by pdonis | 2026-02-04 04:31:06+00:00
> if you don’t lodge them with the land title registry, they don’t legally exist as far as land titles go.

As I pointed out in another post downthread, that is also the case in US jurisdictions that record deeds: if the deed transferring ownership isn't recorded with the county clerk, the transfer doesn't legally exist.

The difference, at least in many US jurisdictions, as I pointed out in that other post, is that in those US jurisdictions the county clerk does not guarantee that the deed is final, any other legal challenges notwithstanding. For example, I think someone else upthread gave the example of someone making a will in a different state that left property to their children instead of their spouse. When that person dies, yes, whoever is supposed to inherit the property would need to record a transfer deed in the county where the property is located to effect the transfer. But their legal right to do so depends on a will executed in a different state.

In many US jurisdictions, the county clerk is not responsible for checking to see if the person recording the transfer deed has the legal right to do so; that's up to other parties involved. But under the Torrens system you describe, it seems like the government land registry would have to do such a check in order to make the guarantee it makes. But how can it? It doesn't control or have access to things like wills in other jurisdictions that determine who has the legal right to take title to a property.
by Fire-Dragon-DoL | 2026-02-04 04:32:33+00:00
I haven't reduced my thinking! Today I asked AI to debug an issue. It came with a solution that it was clearly correct, but it didn't explain why the code was in that state. I kept steering AI (which just wanted to fix) toward figuring out the why and it digged through git and github issue at some point,in a very cool way.
And finally it pulled out something that made sense. It was defensive programming introduced to fix an issue somewhere else, which was also in turn fixed, so useless.

At that point an idea popped in my mind and I decided to look for similar patterns in the codebase, related to the change, found 3. 1 was a non bug, two were latent bugs.

Shipped a fix plus 2 fixes for bugs yet to be discovered.
by porcoda | 2026-02-04 04:32:37+00:00
> At the end of the day, I am a Builder. I like building things. The faster I build, the better.

This I can’t relate to. For me it’s “the better I build, the better”. Building poor code fast isn’t good: it’s just creating debt to deal with in the future, or admitting I’ll toss out the quickly built thing since it won’t have longevity. When quality comes into play (not just “passed the tests”, but is something maintainable, extensible, etc), it’s hard to not employ the Thinker side along with the Builder. They aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.

Then again, I work on things that are expected to last quite a while and aren’t disposable MVPs or side projects. I suppose if you don’t have that longevity mindset it’s easy to slip into Build-not-Think mode.
by Bukhmanizer | 2026-02-04 04:33:41+00:00
This seems absurdly naive to me with the path big tech has taken in the last 5 years. There’s literally infinite upside and almost no downside to constraining the ecosystem for the big players.

You don’t think that eventually Google/OpenAI are going to go to the government and say, “it’s really dangerous to have all these foreign/unreglated models being used everywhere could you please get rid of them?”. Suddenly they have an oligopoly on the market.
by notepad0x90 | 2026-02-04 04:33:50+00:00
really? they didn't have machining in the 1700s. how about a good'ol musket? or a bit more modern: a gatling gun. I always thought those were made under coarse conditions. I mean, people just need something that makes a spark against gun powder,goes boom and shoots really fast projectiles. If a shotgun is possible, then an automatic shotgun doesn't feel like it's a stretch. I would think the firing mechanisms might not be tolerant of amateur techniques, but the reloading and trigger parts at least might be. I'm also not a gunsmith, no idea what I'm talking about for the record.
by nekitamo | 2026-02-04 04:35:41+00:00
This is a common problem for people trying to run the GPT-oss models themselves. Reposting my comment here:

GPT-oss-120B was also completely failing for me, until someone on reddit pointed out that you need to pass back in the reasoning tokens when generating a response. One way to do this is described here:

https://openrouter.ai/docs/guides/best-practices/reasoning-t...

Once I did that it started functioning extremely well, and it's the main model I use for my homemade agents.

Many LLM libraries/services/frontends don't pass these reasoning tokens back to the model correctly, which is why people complain about this model so much. It also highlights the importance of rolling these things yourself and understanding what's going on under the hood, because there's so many broken implementations floating around.
by davidzweig | 2026-02-04 04:35:51+00:00
Language REACTOR

REMOTE mostly, but I travel often (Europe, Asia) and it's good to work in person time to time.

We make software for learning languages. The focus is on making tools, rather than content. But actually, the line between code and content is blurring with LLMs.

I am the main coder on the project and I'm looking for a coding partner to help spread the load and allow more ambitious scope. Project is solid financially.

Most of the codebase is fairly decent Typescript. Backend knowledge a plus.

I need someone with sound judgement and taste that can plan and execute independently, but that also can communicate and coordinate complex changes well. Ingenuity and resourcefulness.

I use Claude/Cursor extensively.

I'm quite interested to hear from you if you have a project that overlaps in scope with Language Reactor.

dioco@dioco.io
by notepad0x90 | 2026-02-04 04:35:55+00:00
Fair enough. But I go back to my point that you can share source code without hosting a repository and a version control system. version control systems are intended to facilitate collaboration on code, and their exposure implies the intended audience that would perform such collaboration. Making it private shows that collaboration isn't a public affair. You can have a public repo that only hosts releases, or just host releases on your website.
by jernestomg | 2026-02-04 04:36:11+00:00
I'm with you, thinking about architecture is generally still a big part of my mental effort. But for me most architectural problems are solve in short periods of thought and a lot of iteration. Maybe its an skill issue, but not now nor in the pre-LLM era I've been able to pre-solve all the architecture with pure thinking.

That said architectural problems have been also been less difficult, just for the simple fact that research and prototyping has become faster and cheaper.
by pinkmuffinere | 2026-02-04 04:36:51+00:00
I would not advise jumping to mass production for your first deliveries, i think your story would have had less stress and more lower risk of failure of the first n (maybe 10?) units was bespoke, made lovingly by hand in a machine shop somewhere. I don’t think this is unusual advice, it matches the ethos of the lean startup, and pg’s “do things that don’t scale”.

We made our first hardware by hand, i believe we did 15 units. I remember my cofounder broke down because he couldn’t take the pressure of receiving fifteen orders and now we had to make FIFTEEN by hand, lol. But we were able to figure out SO MANY issues before mass production. And of course even then many slipped through
by ggm | 2026-02-04 04:37:55+00:00
There's a reason the Martin B57 which NASA crash landed recently was not made by English-Electric despite being a Canberra Bomber, and the Harrier Jumpjet is known in america as the McDonnell Douglas AV-8B. National-Strategic concerns dictate production happen on-shore, and has done for a very long time.

Comac will make better and better aircraft. It won't stop Airbus or Boeing being viable companies any more than it will stop Bombardier, or Embraer. All airlines make political compromises. Wings are assembled inside one economy, so the aircraft can be sold inside that economy. Or, engines are maintained inside that economy. Or, a new JV is spun up which blends both economies interests somehow.

If you look under the covers, Bombardier has had many acquisitions, sell-offs, "manufactured under licence" in it's time. Not bad for a snomobile company!

Aircraft are not bought solely on price, despite what people might say about fleet bidding. operating costs might be a stronger reason than initial fleet acquisition cost. Or cost of compliance. Or pilot re-training. or, in the post MAX crash era, reputation.

(not in the industry, don't drive an aircraft for a living)
by hannasanarion | 2026-02-04 04:38:55+00:00
People keep saying this but it's simply untrue. AI inference is profitable. Openai and Anthropic have 40-60% gross margins. If they stopped training and building out future capacity they would already be raking in cash.

They're losing money now because they're making massive bets on future capacity needs. If those bets are wrong, they're going to be in very big trouble when demand levels off lower than expected. But that's not the same as demand being zero.
by pclmulqdq | 2026-02-04 04:40:24+00:00
> putting 1KW of solar on land - $2K, putting it into orbit on Starship (current ground-based heavy solar panels, 40kg for 4m2 of 1KW in space) - anywhere between $400 and $4K.

What starship? The fantasy rocket Musk has been promising for 10 years or the real one that has thus far delivered only one banana worth of payload into orbit?
by plutomeetsyou | 2026-02-04 04:40:50+00:00
Location: Seattle, WA

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies: Python (PyData), Java, PostgreSQL, Linux, Bash, Tableau, R, Causal Inference(A/B Testing), Statistical Modeling, AWS, Spark.

Email: gavinqu1 [at] gmail.com

Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o0kxpqVKt8EbIfWEpsje7vo2Hy1...

---

Hi, I'm Gavin and I am looking for analytics and developer roles, I'm willing to learn new technologies and adapt quickly to different industries. Looking forward to connecting with great founders and startups who can utilize my background in economics research and data science.
by holysoles | 2026-02-04 04:41:08+00:00
I very much think its possible to use LLMs as a tool in this way. However a lot of folks are not. I see people, both personally and professionally, give it a problem and expect it to both design and implement a solution, then hold it as a gold standard.

I find the best uses, for at least my self, are smaller parts of my workflow where I'm not going to learn anything from doing it:
- build one to throw away: give me a quick prototype to get stakeholder feedback
- straightforward helper functions: I have the design and parameters planned, just need an implementation that I can review
- tab-completion code-gen
- If I want leads for looking into something (libraries, tools) and Googling isn't cutting it
by simonebrunozzi | 2026-02-04 04:41:26+00:00
Perhaps next time read the whole article?

> Finally, can it be flown legally? Most of the trajectory can pass over the oceans, but skipping land completely would take too much of a detour, and likely be incompatible with prevailing winds. Although the political climate may be hostile, it is still legal to fly civil craft over other countries.