MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by nomel | 2026-02-20 19:33:02+00:00
Yes, article title is clickbait. Partial filters don't work, but as they suggest, 100% filter of blue light (resulting in no blue light present), DO work.

You can get this with Apple's strongest filter, the color filter, in Settings > Accessibility > Display & Text Size > Color Filters, rather than night shift. Only red sub-pixels are illuminated with it. It can be added to the triple click power button accessibility shortcut.

That's what I use. I have a shortcut set to enable it when I put my AirPods in at night.
by tux1968 | 2026-02-20 19:33:13+00:00
Of course it's your phone, but the whole point of using Android is that it makes a lot of choices for you. It forces a billion things on you, and this is really no different than any of the others. Everything from UI colors, to the way every feature actually works. For instance, should you be able to text message one million people at a time? You might want to, but Android doesn't offer that feature. Do you want to install spyware on your girlfriends phone? Maybe that's your idea of complete freedom, but the fact that Google makes it harder, is a good thing, not a bad thing.

If you don't like their choices, you should be able to install other software you do like. There should be completely free options that people can choose if they desire. But the majority of people just want a working phone, that someone like Google is taking great pains to make work safely and reliably.
by lhopki01 | 2026-02-20 19:33:23+00:00
It's quite different. The House of Lords was much more powerful well into the 19th century. The monarch was hardly a powerless figure in those times. The Bill of Rights 1689 probably shifted the power more towards Parliament than before but the monarch was still very powerful. The UK system continues to evolve with notable precedents being set very recently like requiring a consultation of Parliament before embarking on military action and the limitation of prorogation powers.

The setup isn't the problem. The refusal to evolve is the problem.

I'd argue that it wasn't really the system in place. The system in place was one of states governing themselves. Before independence the states didn't really deal much with each other.
by imiric | 2026-02-20 19:33:56+00:00
> And for those who think it's just organic with all of the upvotes, HN absolutely does have a bias for authors, and it does automatically feature certain people and suppress others.

Exactly.

There are configurable settings for each account, which might be automatically or manually set—I'm not sure–, that control the initial position of a comment in threads, and how long it stays there. There might be a reward system, where comments from high-karma accounts are prioritized over others, and accounts with "strikes", e.g. direct warnings from moderators, are penalized.

The difference in upvotes that account ultimately receives, and thus the impact on the discussion, is quite stark. The more visible a comment is, i.e. the more at the top it is, the more upvotes it can collect, which in turn makes it stay at the top, and so on.

It's safe to assume that certain accounts, such as those of YC staff, mods, or alumni, or tech celebrities like simonw, are given the highest priority.

I've noticed this on my own account. Before being warned for an IMO bullshit reason, my comments started to appear near the middle, and quickly float down to the bottom, whereas before they would usually be at the top for a few minutes. The quality of what I say hasn't changed, though the account's standing, and certainly the community itself, has.

I don't mind, nor particularly care about an arbitrary number. This is a proprietary platform run by a VC firm. It would be silly to expect that they've cracked the code of online discourse, or that their goal is to keep it balanced. The discussions here are better on average than elsewhere because of the community, although that also has been declining over the years.

I still find it jarring that most people would vote on a comment depending on if they agree with it or not, instead of engaging with it intellectually, which often pushes interesting comments to the bottom. This is an unsolved problem here, as much as it is on other platforms.
by bonsai_spool | 2026-02-20 19:33:59+00:00
I think that's a fair example but it had the wrinkle that an FDA commissioner explicitly changed what the Agency's position on tobacco regulation was [1].

I don't have as much time to offer a similar assessment of the first two 'official' Major Questions Doctrine cases in the Biden administration, but neither was nearly as contentious as the FDA reversing its prior position.

For this reason, I see this decision as an argument against an agency changing course from an accepted previous (but not Congressionally defined) perspective. However, Chevron—at least according to interviews with lawmakers responding to the 'MQD' usage—ran counter to what the supposed understanding of how agency work would function. Again, I can find primary sources later.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/22/us/high-court-holds-fda-c...
by shimman | 2026-02-20 19:34:04+00:00
Have you been paying attention to what has been happening for the last year? Now is the era of con artists: break the law, pay a small vic, and you're free to scam again.

Why wouldn't investors give these people money? It's not like being an investor implies having morales, all they care about is making money whether it's legal or not and luckily for them crime not only pays but it's legal now too.
by SirensOfTitan | 2026-02-20 19:34:07+00:00
Yeah, Anthropic is inarguably in a better position, but I don’t see how they justify their fundraising unless they find some entrenched position that is difficult for competitors to replicate.

Enterprise switching costs aren’t 0, but they’re much less than most other categories, especially as models mature and become more fungible.

The best moat I can think of is a patentable technique that facilitates a huge leap that Anthropic can defend, but even then, Chinese companies could easily ignore those patents. And I don’t even know if AI companies could stick to those guns as their training is essentially theft of huge portions of copyrighted material.
by tshaddox | 2026-02-20 19:34:11+00:00
It seems to me that the open society is in a perpetual state of trying to outrun an endless sequence of problems: would-be invaders from closed societies, internal activists who would rather close down the society in the name of stability, exhaustion of resources on the planet, solar system, and so on, the inevitable asteroid impact or supernova, etc.

And the idea is that this endless sequence of problems exists regardless of how open your society is. So even if you were able to implement a perfect set of authoritarian rules to establish a stable closed society with the technology to capture all the resources from the solar system and redirect all dangerous asteroids, well crap, you still weren't innovative enough to stop the supernova from killing everyone 200 million years later.
by raw_anon_1111 | 2026-02-20 19:34:34+00:00
I have no taste with web design and haven’t touched web dev in a decade. I absolutely hate web development and usually delegate it.

On a (consulting) project I’m leading/doing the implementation, it was specifically called out that a web UI was out of scope. But after talking to them and seeing the lay of the land, they really needed a website to manage the AWS implementation and it would help me to.

I put together and ugly internal website that will only probably be used by three or four people. I vibe coded the entire website including authentication with Amazon Cognito. The only thing I personally validated was that unauthorized users couldn’t get to it and that the database user had the appropriate permissions.

That website wouldn’t have been created at all before AI. Is it pretty? Hell no, it looks like something when I wrote an internal website in 2002 in classic ASP. Did I look at a line of code? Nope
by tracker1 | 2026-02-20 19:35:15+00:00
I'm pretty sure it will vary a LOT from person to person... I remember what I see very well.. what I hear, not nearly as much. I say this as when I was commuting I'd listing to a lot of audio books and podcasts... I didn't retain much at all. But I can skim a written article and retain a lot more. Further still, if I literally copy something I see while writing it down, it's hard for me not to remember. That last bit got me through high school as I never did any homework, but always aced tests.

Everyone is definitely different in terms of how they learn best. That's not to say that listening to non-fiction is or isn't better for oneself than nothing, or even different forms of music may be different. There's nothing wrong with entertainment or factual knowledge... (See "Fat Electrician" on YouTube/Pepperbox for a lot of both.)
by BugsJustFindMe | 2026-02-20 19:35:18+00:00
> Why the hate , because of some false promise ?

Another name for "false promise" when made for capital gain is "fraud". And when the fraud is in the context of vehicular autonomy, it becomes "fraud with reckless endangerment". And when it leads to someone's death, that makes it "proximate cause to manslaughter".
by obelisk79 | 2026-02-20 19:35:36+00:00
I've been using FreeCAD for around 5 years no, and I can't ever recall running into such a problem, ever. I first started learning it during version 0.19 at the end of 2020 after years with solidworks and onshape. The user experience just sucked royally, it's far better today than back then.
by lelanthran | 2026-02-20 19:36:49+00:00
> If a new situation arises, you won't be able to make the same choice as they would.

They won't be able to, but they won't need to either - they can just continue cribbing off the original person, or if they are unable to continue cribbing off the same person, they'll find someone else to crib off.

The point is, for all these people outsourcing their thinking, they will always have someone to crib off.
by crazygringo | 2026-02-20 19:37:02+00:00
These are the kinds of articles that give science a bad name, and that make people anti-science.

You might as well try to claim hot tea doesn't help you get to sleep, or reading before bed doesn't, or whatever else you do to wind down.

I personally don't care if some narrow hypothesis about blue light and melanopsin is false. I know that low, warm, amber-tinted light in the evening slows me down in a way that low, cold, blue-tinted light does not. That's why I use different, warmer lamps at night with dimmers, and keep my devices on Night Shift and lower brightness. It works for me, and seems to mimic the lighting conditions we evolved with -- strong blue light around noon, weaker warmer light at sunset, weakest warmest light from the fire until we go to sleep. Maybe it doesn't work for everybody. That's fine. But it certainly does for me.

And maybe it's not modulated by melanopsin. Or maybe it's not about blue light, but rather the overall correlated color temperature (CCT), e.g. 2100K instead of 5700K. Who knows.

But this type of article is bad science writing. It shows why one hypothesis as to why a warmer color temperature would result in one other physiological change isn't supported. That doesn't mean "blue light filters don't work" as a universal statement. It's hubris on the part of the author to assume that this one hypothesis is the only potential mechanism by which warmer light might help with sleep.

And it's this kind of science writing that turns people off to science. I know, through lots of trial and error and experimentation, that warm light helps me fall asleep. And here comes some "AI researcher and neurotechnologist" trying to tell me I'm wrong? He says it's "aggravating" that people are "actually using Night Shift". I say it's aggravating when people like him make the elemental mistake that showing one biological mechanism doesn't have an effect, means no other mechanisms can't either.
by chickensong | 2026-02-20 19:37:30+00:00
I can't say I know much about Pittsburgh's culture, but I wonder how it would have held up over decades of insane money being pumped in and wild rent increases? SF has changed a lot over time, but it has a boom town history of being invaded by hustlers looking for money, so I guess that's something. Gay pride has persisted in SF as well, strong pockets of Asian culture, a saucy underground, etc... Tech has definitely left a mark, maybe not physical libraries and concert halls, but Long Now and the Internet Archive are doing good work to preserve culture.
by dlisboa | 2026-02-20 19:37:36+00:00
I don't see it as misleading at all. You're leaving out half the world and implying it's doing fine. Regular Facebook usage in Brazil is also non-existent and it's the 5th or so biggest Internet market. China doesn't have it. I'm not sure about India usage. So if FB isn't popular in the US, EU, China, Brazil, etc, that's an extreme amount of market loss.
by latchkey | 2026-02-20 19:38:02+00:00
i've done my best to keep it as minimal as possible. i wish i didn't even need squeeze, but there was some block that required it and it was easier to just do it as a few lines of code. i figured as long as it is all built by CI, GPL and OSS, I'll get a pass. it is the best we can do today.

try it out, let me know what you think. i promise not to hack your hackernews.
by ASalazarMX | 2026-02-20 19:38:03+00:00
I've seen many Lemmy communities die because their creators abandoned then when they didn't grow fast into thousands of members. This fast growth fixation is so pernicious, if anything web forums and Reddit showed us, is that small communities are higher quality than big ones. Communities in the thousands require a lot of moderation effort to remain high quality.

Enjoy your small circle of internet strangers sharing a common interest, you don't need to become viral.
by tacitusarc | 2026-02-20 19:38:09+00:00
Sort of a meta-observation, but consistently folks on the left have that take and then are confused when they lose.

“If only all those idiots on the right and in the center could see they should vote for the bumbling but well-intentioned candidate over the obvious liars and thieves” is an explanation that feels good to tell yourself, but also incredibly patronizing and prevents actually understanding why people vote the way they do.

I find the arrogance of the left pretty abhorrent. I also despise aspects of the right, but boy does the left rub me the wrong way.
by ethmarks | 2026-02-20 19:38:22+00:00
Because we don't know if this would scale well to high-quality frontier models. If you need to manufacture dedicated hardware for each new model, that adds a lot of expense and causes a lot of e-waste once the next model releases. In contrast, even this current iteration seems like it would be fantastic for low-grade LLM work.

For example, searching a database of tens of millions of text files. Very little "intelligence" is required, but cost and speed are very important. If you want to know something specific on Wikipedia but don't want to figure out which article to search for, you can just have an LLM read the entire English Wikipedia (7,140,211 articles) and compile a report. Doing that would be prohibitively expensive and glacially slow with standard LLM providers, but Taalas could probably do it in a few minutes or even seconds, and it would probably be pretty cheap.
by 31337Logic | 2026-02-20 19:38:23+00:00
Agreed. While marvelous to watch, there's a big difference between "look at what I can do" and "let's move through the world together". I think it's just a matter of trust. I have no problem watching these perform in a public park or whatever, and admiring the awesome feat of engineering before me... I just don't want the damn things in my house, around my kids.
by ceejayoz | 2026-02-20 19:38:26+00:00
> The appellate court decides whether to stay the injunction based on how likely they think you are to win…

If multiple appeals courts thought this case was a winner for the administration, we have an even bigger problem.

(Also, no. They might, for example, disagree on immediate irreparable harm, but not the overall merits.)

> Cases going on the emergency docket are not common.

Sure. But some of them look clearly destined for it. Including this one.
Show HN: BeadHub, Beads-based coordination for multiple coding agents
by juanre | 2026-02-20 19:38:35+00:00
When I started using Beads [1] (Steve Yegge's git-native issue tracking for agents) my agents' productivity improved a lot. It also became clear that Beads is a great scaffold for agents to coordinate around, even when working for different human minders.

So I built BeadHub, an OSS coordination layer on top of Beads. The Go CLI (bdh) wraps the beads bd client transparently: your existing beads workflows keep working, and coordination is added automatically.

- Agent-to-agent chat and mail: agents message each other ("I'm refactoring auth, hold off on the login endpoint").
- Claim detection with conflict rejection: agent A sets a task to in-progress; if agent B tries the same, bdh rejects it with a message explaining why.
- Automatic file reservations: when a file is modified, all agents know it.
- Live dashboard showing who's working on what, in real time.

The agents-chatting-with-each-other part feels almost magical. The agents negotiate task splits and API contracts, warn each other about breaking changes, and generally sort things out themselves. They also greatly improve coordination among the human team members, because the agents can handle the details in real time without involving their minders.

We use BeadHub to build BeadHub. Public dashboard: https://app.beadhub.ai/juanre/beadhub/

Try it — managed (no server setup):

brew install beads
curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/beadhub/bdh/main/install.sh | bash
bdh :init --email you@example.com --project my-project
bdh ready

Or self-host everything with Docker:

git clone https://github.com/beadhub/beadhub.git
cd beadhub && make start
# then in your repo:
bdh :init --beadhub-url http://localhost:8000 --project my-project

Everything is open source (MIT). Self-host the full stack, or use the hosted version at https://beadhub.ai — no signup required to browse the dashboard.

bdh works with any agent that can run CLI commands. We use it with Claude Code
(hooks make notifications automatic), but there's nothing Claude-specific about
the protocol.

Known limitation: agents can't be woken externally — they check for messages on
every tool call. In Claude Code, hooks trigger this automatically so latency is
seconds. Other agents may poll less frequently.

Source: https://github.com/beadhub/beadhub
CLI: https://github.com/beadhub/bdh

[1]: https://github.com/steveyegge/beads
by zephen | 2026-02-20 19:38:56+00:00
> You have the hidden inner iteration loop inside the `.extend` standard library method driving the lazy generator expression with _unspecified_ one-step-at-a-time semantics

That's why it wasn't the first thing I wrote.

> To explain what this does to a beginner, or even intermediate programmer.... oooooh boy.

As if the raku were better in that respect, lol.

> Some people program in APL/J/K/Q just fine, and they prefer their symbols.

APL originally had a lot of its own symbols with very little reuse, and clear rules. Learning the symbols was one thing, but the usage rules were minimal and simple. I'm not a major fan of too many different symbols, but I really hate reuse in any context where how things will be parsed is unclear. In the raku example, what if the elements were to be multiplied?

> Calling it "stupid" is showing your prejudice. (I don't and can't write APL but still respect it)
> Reminds me a bit of the fish anecdote told by DFW...

Yeah, for some reason, it's not OK for me to insult a language, but it's OK for you to insult a person.

But you apparently missed that the "twisty" part was about the multiple meanings. Because both those symbols are used in Python (the * in multiple contexts even) but the rules on parsing them are very simple.

perl and its successor raku are not about simple parsing. You are right to worry about the semantics of execution, but that starts with the semantics of how the language is parsed.

In any case, sure, if you want to be anal about paradigm purity, take my first example, and (1) ignore the print statement because the raku version wasn't doing that anyway, although the OP's python version was, and (2) change the accumulation.

seq = [0,1]
while len(seq) < 20:
seq = seq + [seq[-2] + seq[-1]]

But that won't get you very far in a shop that cares about pythonicity and coding standards.

And...

You can claim all you want that the original was "pure" but that's literally because it did nothing. Not only did it have no side effects, but, unless it was assigned or had something else done with it, the result was null and void.

Purity only gets you so far.
by latexr | 2026-02-20 19:39:12+00:00
> Altman has always been a very loud advocate for AI regulation.

And then the EU said “OK, let’s regulate”, and Altman said “no, not like that!”

https://www.reuters.com/technology/openai-may-leave-eu-if-re...

Note the dates. The above article was posted merely a week after yours.

Altman only cares about regulations if they can benefit him, he doesn’t do it out of some sense of morality. To these tech bros, “regulation” means “codify into law whatever I’m doing, and disallow everything else so I don’t have competition.”
by thenewnewguy | 2026-02-20 19:39:18+00:00
Yes, actually, if someone has direct scientific evidence contrary to the claim (I doubt such evidence exists for your first example as to the best of my knowledge the relationship between beans and gastrointestinal changes is well understood).

Your eyes could hurt for a variety of reasons - brightness, too long screen time, being dry for external reasons, etc. Most humans are poor at identifying the cause of one-off events: you may think it's because you turned on a blue-light filter, but it actually could be because you used your phone for an hour less.

That's why we have science to actually isolate variables and prove (or at least gather strong evidence for) things about the world, and why doctors don't (or at least shouldn't) make health-related recommendations based on vibes.
by Schmerika | 2026-02-20 19:39:28+00:00
Maybe Dems only don't have power because they don't want too much of it. It fucks with the plausible deniability.

Like, they could easily have taken down Trump, either over Jan 6th or the Epstein files. They didn't.

They could have easily gained _millions_ of votes in the 2024 election just by promising not to keep helping murder tens of thousands of children. They didn't. They could have kicked up a fuss about some rather obvious election fraud; they didn't.

They could have fought harder for SC picks on multiple occasions. They could have leaked choice Epstein files at key times. They could have held proper primaries, instead of ramming a demented roomba warmongers and then a wildly unpopular warmonger down our throats (for like the third election in a row). They didn't.

At some point you need to realize that Dems have lots of power; and they choose to use it in very curious ways. Arming genocide and protecting billionaire blackmail pedo-rings aren't things that I'm willing to look past. Yes the Republicans are even worse, but at every point where Dems had all the power needed to hold them accountable they've gone to rather extreme lengths not to do that. For decades.
by akdev1l | 2026-02-20 19:39:46+00:00
You can’t really do that long-term as Google will change code that will not match however you are not enforcing this policy

So at the very least you’d have to keep patches up to date.

Long term divergence could be enough that’s it’s just a hard fork and/or Google changes so much that the maintainer can’t keep the patches working at the same pace

I couldn’t read your link as it asks to join mastodon.social