MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by kortex | 2026-02-06 05:19:59+00:00
Hooo boy where do I begin? Dependency deadlocks are the big one - you try to share resource attributes (eg ARN) from one stack to another. You remove the consumer and go to deploy again. The producer sees no more dependency so it prunes the export. But it can't delete the export, cause the consumer still needs it. You can't deploy the consumer, because the producer has to deploy first sequentially. And if you can't delete the consumer (eg your company mandates a CI pipeline deploy for everything) you gotta go bug Ops on slack, wait for someone who has the right perms to delete it, then redeploy.

You can't actually read real values from Parameters/exports (you get a token placeholder) so you can't store JSON then read it back and decode (unless in same stack, which is almost pointless). You can do some hacks with Fn:: though.

Deploying certain resources that have names specified (vs generated) often breaks because it has to create the new resource before destroying the old one, which it can't, because the name conflicts (it's the same name...cause it's the same construct).

It's wildly powerful though, which is great. But we have basically had to create our own internal library to solve what should be non-problems in an IaC system.

Would be hilarious if my coworker stumbled upon this. I know he reads hn and this has been my absolute crusade this quarter.
by mrbeep | 2026-02-06 05:20:27+00:00
Nice setup! If you ever want to add Telegram alongside WhatsApp, check out tgcli - it's a pure Rust Telegram CLI (no TDLib, no C/C++ deps).

https://github.com/dgrr/tgcli

It does sync, messages, send, search (FTS5), stickers, forum topics, and has socket IPC for automation. Install via cargo or homebrew. Seems like it'd fit nicely into what you're building.
by idiotsecant | 2026-02-06 05:20:45+00:00
It's like you're allergic to subtlety. Yes, saving untold numbers of children from malaria is a good thing. You can do bad things and good things and while everyone else is arguing about morality, the thing that matters is the end effect. Did Bill Gate's time on earth result in a better world when he's gone or a worse one? I won't pretend to know enough about his life to answer that, but he has prevented a lot of really, really brutal suffering.
by mitchjj | 2026-02-06 05:21:20+00:00
Hello mate, Head of Brand and Design at BK here. Thanks for the feedback, genuinely; the homepage experiment has been divisive, in a great way. Some folk love it, some folk hate it, some just can't be bothered with it. All fair.

Glad that the classic site hit the mark, but a lot work to do to make that clearer than it is; we're working on the next iteration that will sunset the CLI homepage into an easter egg.

Happy to take more critique, either on the execution or the rabbit hole.
by lubujackson | 2026-02-06 05:21:34+00:00
I appreciate the detailed response and I certainly haven't studied this, but part of the reason I made the measurement/construction comparison is because information is not equally important, but the errors are more or less equally distributed. And the biggest issue is the lack of ability to know if something is an error in the first place, failure is only defined by the difference between our intent and the result. Code is how we communicate our intent most precisely.
by insane_dreamer | 2026-02-06 05:24:44+00:00
I think the solution is to ban social media networks from being ad-based and force them to be subscription based.

Once you're a subscriber, there's no incentive to get you to increase your engagement (beyond the threshold that makes it interesting and useful to you so you continue to subscribe) because unlike an ad-based network you're not generating more revenue the more you use it (in fact, you're increasing costs)
by fourteenminutes | 2026-02-06 05:25:21+00:00
As a (very happy) RWX customer:

- Intermediate tasks are cached in a docker-like manner (content-addressed by filesystem and environment). Tasks in a CI pipeline build on previous ones by applying the filesystem of dependent tasks (AFAIU via overlayfs), so you don't execute the same task twice. The most prominent example of this is a feature branch that is up-to-date with main passes CI on main as soon as it's merged, as every task on main is a cache-hit with the CI execution on the feature branch.

- Failures: the UI surfaces failures to the top, and because of the caching semantics, you can re-run just the failed tasks without having to re-run their dependencies.

- Debugging: they expose a breakpoint (https://www.rwx.com/docs/rwx/remote-debugging) command that stops execution during a task and allows you to shell into the remote container for debugging, so you can debug interactively rather than pushing `env` and other debugging tasks again and again. And when you do need to push to test a fix, the caching semantics again mean you skip all the setup.

There's a whole lot of other stuff. You can generate tasks to execute in a CI pipeline via any programming language of your choice, the concurrency control supports multiple modes, no need for `actions/cache` because of the caching semantics and the incremental caching feature (https://www.rwx.com/docs/rwx/tool-caches).

And I've never had a problem with the logs.
by TZubiri | 2026-02-06 05:25:35+00:00
>Is the generated code correct? The jury is still out on that one for production compilers. And then you have performance of generated code.

It's worth noting that this was developed by compiling Linux and running tests, so at least that is part of the training set and not the testing set.

But at least for linux, I'm guessing the tests are very robust and I'm guessing that will work correctly. That said, if any bugs pop up, it will show weak points in the linux tests.
by somenameforme | 2026-02-06 05:25:50+00:00
This is both technically and logically incorrect. From a technical point of view - it's just wrong. Jews were persecuted and encouraged to leave, yet never formally expelled from Germany. And as the Nazis moved towards genocide, they moved in the other direction and made it impossible for Jews to leave the country.

But from a logical point of view, it also fails, even in a parallel reality where you were right. Countries are generally deemed to have the right to kill their citizens for major violations of the law, in the pursuit of justice. But that does not mean a country has the right to just start killing their citizens on a whim. And similarly, every single country has the right to expel people who enter their country illegally or remain beyond the terms of a granted temporary stay. This does not mean a country has the right the randomly start expelling their own citizens, en masse, for no normal reason.
by jmyeet | 2026-02-06 05:26:36+00:00
A lot of the so-called "chartiy" by wealthy individuals is anything but. It's placing assets in a tax-advantaged positions where some of the proceeds gets used for "charity" (whatever that means) but they still maintain control.

For example, the typical tax structure is to put assets into a foundation. That allows the assets to grow and earn income without being taxed. The only requirement is that 5% of the asset pool has to be used on the stated goal of the foundation. That might sound good but it also includes costs like "administration" so, say, having your family as employees. There are limits to this but it's still somewhat of a slush fund.

That charity can be used for political influence. A foundation can't donate to candidates or PACs but can instead, for example, fund a think tank from which policy is created or influenced. That think tank will employ people while their party is out of the White House and otherwise nurture people who will go into the administration when their party returns to power.

Also, a large foundation such as this wields influence just by its size, by choosing what to fund and where. It can exact generous conditions from governments. Those conditions can extend to companies the foundation's benefactors have an interest in.

All of this is about influence. Governments are accountable to their people. Outsized private foundations are accountable to no one.
by nielsbot | 2026-02-06 05:27:25+00:00
The Evanston IL case is worse. They told Flock to deactivate and remove them. The cameras were re-installed and re-activated w/o permission, so the city had to come out and cover them all.

> The company took down 15 of the 18 stationary cameras by Sept. 8, only to reinstall all of them by Tuesday. This was apparently without authorization from city officials, who sent Flock a cease-and-desist order to take them back down. [1]

> Flock CEO Garrett Langley released a statement ... where he writes that “some of our public statements inadvertently provided inaccurate information” about the company’s relationship with federal law enforcement, confirming that there were “limited pilots” with agencies under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security focused on “combatting human trafficking and fentanyl distribution.” [2]

L O fucking L

[1] https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/09/25/city-covers-up-flo...

[2] https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/08/26/evanston-shuts-dow...
by lelandfe | 2026-02-06 05:27:53+00:00
> Um …duh? Get out a calculator. Consult a reference, etc. Otherwise compute the result

Article:

> This is a perfectly lovely test. But think: everything in those describe blocks had to be written by hand. The programmer first had to decide what properties they cared about... then also had to say explicitly what state they expected each field to be in. Then they had to type it all out.

The article is about not getting out the calculator.
Show HN: T87s – LLM-optimized cache invalidation with ACID consistency
by mikesol | 2026-02-06 05:28:08+00:00
As of last weekend, two of the webapps I'm working on suffered from bad caching. One had none at all, and one had stale caching logic, which was worse than none at all.

My idea was to create adaptive caching, which gives LLMs the fastest and cleanest path possible from cache to code so that they could continuously optimize cache. I have a caching subagent now that makes 2-3 PRs a day to make small cache optimizations and, in both projects, I see a hit rate of over 95%.

The name t87s is a numeronym for the oft-cited Phil Karlton quote, with a self-inflicted off-by-one error :)

The core of the idea is to decouple invalidations and cache keys by using message passing. This makes invalidation O(1) regardless of how many entries are affected.

This has a known race condition (invalidation fires between fetch and cache write, entry looks fresh forever), which the cloud adapter solves with Cloudflare Durable Objects -- a single-threaded coordinator per tenant that serializes tag reads/writes.

Entries live in KV for fast global reads and consistency is enforced through the DO. The downside is slightly slower reads, but you get atomic transactions that are usually prohibitive in caching systems & that prevent stale data in the cache plumbing itself.

10% of cache hits are silently re-fetched and compared (a verification canary). Every operation -- hits, misses, invalidations, verifications, "blast radius" as Opus likes to call it (I've started saying this IRL and talking like an LLM...) -- is logged to SQLite in the Analytics DO, queryable via raw SQL through an API endpoint. That's what my subagent uses. It queries miss rates, stale-verification frequency, and invalidation behavior, then traces problems back to the tag schema in the codebase and opens PRs.

There are TS and Python clients that are free to use with Redis and perform well. The adaptive caching is paid with a free tier. Cache long and prosper :)
by barrell | 2026-02-06 05:28:13+00:00
> It’s very plausible (and increasingly likely) that OpenAI/Anthropic are profitable on a per-token marginal basis

Can you provide some numbers/sources please? Any reporting I’ve seen shows that frontier labs are spending ~2x on inference than they are making.

Also making the same query on a smaller provider (aka mistral) will cost the same amount as on a larger provider (aka gpt-5-mini) despite the query taking 10-100x longer on OpenAI.

I can only imagine that is OpenAI subsidizing the spend. GPUs cost by the second for inference. Either that or OpenAI hasn’t figured out how to scale but I find that much less likely
by dreamteam1 | 2026-02-06 05:28:14+00:00
tc is probably the best console runner there is and I agree, it made CI not suck. It is also possible to make it very fast, with a bit of engineering and by hosting it on your own hardware. Unfortunately it’s as legacy as Jenkins today. And in contrast to Jenkins it’s not open source or free, many parts of it, like the scheduler/orchestrator, is not pluggable.

But I don’t know about competent people, reading their release notes always got me thinking ”how can anyone write code where these bugs are even possible?”. But I guess that’s why many companies just write nonsense release notes today, to hide their incompetence ;)
by seanmcdirmid | 2026-02-06 05:29:11+00:00
Sounds fun! Asset creation...at least in terms of story content, should be the one area where LLMs would really shine, especially if it can somehow extend into logic and gameplay. Couple that with the ways of generating art assets (hard with an LLM, but it can do something at least), that would be cool. I hope to see these games in the future, although they might be labelled as slop unless done really well.
by aulin | 2026-02-06 05:29:54+00:00
Admit I didn't follow the announcements but isn't that a matter of UI? Doesn't seem something that should be baked in the model but in the tooling around it and the instructions you give them. E.g. I've been playing with with GitHub copilot CLI (that despite the bad fame is absolutely amazing) and the same model completely changes its behavior with the prompt. You can have it answer a question promptly or send it on a multi-hour multi-agent exploration writing detailed specs with a single prompt. Or you can have it stop midway for clarification. It all depends on the instructions. Also this is particularly interesting with GitHub billing model as each prompt counts 1 request no matter how many tokens it burns.
by jrflowers | 2026-02-06 05:30:40+00:00
> Why do they say all of this fluff when everyone knows it’s not exactly true yet.

There isn’t an incentive not to lie when people will read a lie, understand it to be a lie, and then characterize the lie as “not true yet”. Like if your audience has already invented a term to excuse your lies before you start talking, you categorically do not need to tell the truth.

If people judged OpenAI/Sam Altman’s statements under the premise that they are either true or untrue and that there’s no third thing I imagine that we wouldn’t hear as much about OpenAI.
by duped | 2026-02-06 05:31:21+00:00
> Thus, to perform an edit there, if your goal is to avoid a click by truncating with a non-zero sample value, you need to add/assign a value of zero to a sample.

No, you (the editor, not an algorithm) look at the waveform and see where the amplitude begins to significantly oscillate and place the edit at a reasonable point, like where the signal is near the noise floor and at a point where it crosses zero. There's no zero stuffing.

This kind of thing isn't computed, a human being is looking at the waveform and listening back to choose where to drop the edit point. You don't always get it pop-free but it's much better than an arbitrary point as the sample is rising.

I mean, you could use an algorithm for this. It would be a pair of averaging filters with like a VAD, but with lookahead, picking an arbitrary point some position before activity is detected (peak - noise_floor > threshold)) which could be where avg(x[n-N..n]) ~= noise_floor && sign(x[n]) != (sign(x[n-1]).
by travisgriggs | 2026-02-06 05:31:28+00:00
A C Compiler seems like one of the more straightforward things to have done. Reading this gives me the same vibe as when a magician does a frequently done trick (saw someone in half, etc).

I'd be more interested in letting it have a go at some some of the other "less trodden" paths of computing. Some of the things that would "wow me more":

- Build a BEAM alternative, perhaps in an embedded space

- Build a Smalltalk VM, perhaps in an embedded space, or in WASM

These things are documented at some level, but still require a bit of original thinking to execute and pull off. That would wow me more.
by pinnochio | 2026-02-06 05:31:40+00:00
> Who are you to suggest they are less happy than otherwise?

Who are you to assume they always are? Once again, you're just dismissing the problems away.

> They took that decision voluntarily.

As if nobody in the history of the world took a deal that turned out to be bad for them. A voluntary choice does not inherently imply that the choice made them better off.

Regardless, you've completely ignored the last sentence of my original reply, but I'll try to spell it out for you. The neocolonialist objection does not boil down to, take these women's jobs away and make people in the corporation's home country do it. It is primarily a critique of the society that benefits from or depends on labor its own members consider unacceptable or beneath them. It is inherently exploitative by that society's own standards, and retaining such an economy is either unsustainable or incentivizes the perpetuation of the conditions which allow it to exploit. In other words, the US has a vested interest in making sure some people are always poor and desperate enough to do the jobs it doesn't want to do.
by cruffle_duffle | 2026-02-06 05:32:31+00:00
That is so annoying too because it basically throws away all the work the subagent did.

Another thing that annoys me is the subagents never output durable findings unless you explicitly tell their parent to prompt the subagent to “write their output to a file for later reuse” (or something like that anyway)

I have no idea how but there needs to be ways to backtrack on context while somehow also maintaining the “future context”…
Show HN: Cursor Agent Factory – 5-layer architecture for AI agent systems
by wp4pw | 2026-02-06 05:32:41+00:00
We kept hitting a wall: our Cursor-based AI dev setup was strong on tools but the intention layer—the "why" and values—stayed implicit. So we made it explicit and baked it into the system.

Cursor Agent Factory is a meta-system that generates full AI agent development setups for different stacks. It's built on an axiom layer (we use "love, truth, beauty" as the root) and a 5-layer architecture: Integrity → Purpose → Principles → Methodology → Technical. Every generated project gets agents, skills, knowledge files, templates, and a .cursorrules that includes a Guardian protocol (Wu Wei–style: minimal intervention for alignment). Technical choices are derived from the layers above, not the other way around.

Quickstart (5 min):

python cli/factory_cli.py --quickstart

Longer philosophy and design: https://medium.com/@w.pogantsch/love-as-an-engineering-const...
by b1temy | 2026-02-06 05:33:20+00:00
> they should provide built-in anti-cheat support in the OS.

As much as I dislike anti-cheat in general (why incorporate it instead of just having proper moderation and/or private servers? Do you need a sketchy third-party kernel level driver to police you to make sure you're "browsing the internet properly in a way that is compliant with company XYZ's policies", or even when running other software like a photo editor, word processor, or anything else? It's _your_ software that you bought.) something similar is already happening with, e.g, Widevine bundled in browsers for DRM-ed video streaming.

I agree that having some first-party or reputable anti-cheat driver or system, is probably preferable than having different studios roll out their own anticheat drivers. (I am aware there are studio-level or common third party common anti-cheat solutions already, such as Denuvo or Vanguard. But I would prefer something better)
by toomanyrichies | 2026-02-06 05:33:30+00:00
The liberty at stake here is freedom of movement without a permanent, searchable record. There's a meaningful difference between "a person can see you in public" and "a corporation logs your plate, location, and timestamp thousands of times a month and makes it queryable." The Supreme Court moved in this direction in Carpenter v. United States, when it ruled that accessing historical location records constitutes a search even when the individual data points were shared with a third party, because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Some real-world examples of "the whole being greater than the sum of its parts":

- If your plate and another person's plate consistently show up at the same locations at the same times, that's evidence of a relationship. Now multiply that across everyone. You can map social networks, figure out who's meeting with who, identify affair partners, figure out who attends the same AA meeting every Tuesday.

- Regular trips to a mosque, a church, a union hall, a gun range, a protest staging area, a political campaign office. No single trip is meaningful, but the pattern over months tells you someone's affiliations and beliefs.

- Repeated visits to an oncology clinic, a methadone clinic, a fertility specialist, a psychiatrist's office. That's health information that would normally be protected under HIPAA if obtained through medical channels.

- When you leave for work, when you come home, what routes you take, when your house is empty. This is exactly the kind of information a stalker would want, and it's sitting in a database that (depending on the jurisdiction) may have minimal access controls.

The key point is that none of these individual observations are particularly sensitive. It's the longitudinal aggregation that transforms mundane location data into an intimate portrait of someone's life. And importantly, that portrait exists for essentially every driver, not just people under investigation.

You could argue that the 4th Amendment constrains state action, not corporate behavior. But it's not like Flock is collecting this data for some independent commercial purpose and the government occasionally subpoenas it. The product is government surveillance, just privatized. Outsourcing surveillance to a private contractor to avoid 4th Amendment scrutiny is arguably worse than the government doing it directly, because it bypasses the oversight mechanisms that keep the government in check (or at least, are supposed to do so).
by kaibee | 2026-02-06 05:34:46+00:00
> Same dynamic seems to be shaping up here. Except the AI juniors are cheap and work 24*7 and (currently) have no hope of growing into seniors.

Each individual trained model... sure. But otoh you can look at it as a very wide junior with "infinite (only limited by your budget)" willpower. Sure, three years ago they were GPT-3.5, basically useless. And now they're Opus 4.6. I wonder what the next few years will bring.
by colechristensen | 2026-02-06 05:35:03+00:00
He was an asset being managed by intelligence service officers, this is the only explanation.

A failing math teacher at a New York prep school leading to a job at Bear Stearns and then as a wealth manager for billionaires... let's say it doesn't add up unless there were other reasons than his own ambitions and organization skills.

Mossad or the Russians engineered his life.