Show HN: I built a Wikipedia based AI deduction game
3 by brikym | 0 comments on Hacker News.
I haven't seen anything like this so I decided to build it in a weekend. How it works: You see a bunch of things pulled from Wikipedia displayed on cards. You ask yes or no questions to figure out which card is the secret article. The AI model has access to the image and wiki text and it's own knowledge to answer your question. Happy to have my credits burned for the day but I'll probably have to make this paid at some point so enjoy. I found it's not easy to get cheap+fast+good responses but the tech is getting there. Most of the prompts are running through Groq infra or hitting a cache keyed by a normalization of the prompt.
Hack Nux
Watch the number of websites being hacked today, one by one on a page, increasing in real time.
New ask Hacker News story: Ask HN: Is Claude Getting Worse?
Ask HN: Is Claude Getting Worse?
5 by sahli | 10 comments on Hacker News.
It feels like most Claude Code users have already noticed a quality drop in the Claude models. As a Claude Pro subscriber (Web version; I don't use Claude Code), I’ve seen a clear decline over the last couple of weeks. I can’t complete tasks in a single turn anymore. Claude often stops streaming because it hits some internal tool-call/turn limit, so I have to keep pressing “Continue.” Each continuation has to re-feed context, which quickly burns through tokens and quota. The model also makes more mistakes and fails to fully complete tasks it used to handle reliably. This is especially frustrating because Sonnet 4.6 was a real step up: it could produce long, correct code in one pass much more often. That seems basically gone now. As a paying Pro user, I honestly find myself using free alternatives like DeepSeek and Z.ai (GLM) more than Claude lately. I’ve also stopped touching Opus entirely—it’s so token-hungry that it drains my weekly quota too fast to be practical. Is Anthropic trying to limit usage or drive people away?
5 by sahli | 10 comments on Hacker News.
It feels like most Claude Code users have already noticed a quality drop in the Claude models. As a Claude Pro subscriber (Web version; I don't use Claude Code), I’ve seen a clear decline over the last couple of weeks. I can’t complete tasks in a single turn anymore. Claude often stops streaming because it hits some internal tool-call/turn limit, so I have to keep pressing “Continue.” Each continuation has to re-feed context, which quickly burns through tokens and quota. The model also makes more mistakes and fails to fully complete tasks it used to handle reliably. This is especially frustrating because Sonnet 4.6 was a real step up: it could produce long, correct code in one pass much more often. That seems basically gone now. As a paying Pro user, I honestly find myself using free alternatives like DeepSeek and Z.ai (GLM) more than Claude lately. I’ve also stopped touching Opus entirely—it’s so token-hungry that it drains my weekly quota too fast to be practical. Is Anthropic trying to limit usage or drive people away?
New ask Hacker News story: Ask HN: Easiest UX for Seniors
Ask HN: Easiest UX for Seniors
10 by khoury | 1 comments on Hacker News.
I have been running a SaaS for ~10 years used heavily by people 65+ and a lot of them are tired and frustrated about remembering the domain/path to login screen and then which email/password they used, having to go through the whole forgot-password-flow, etc. I have tried simplifying this as much as i can but I feel like there must be better options. Google sigin in is confusing for them because they get thrown into Googles horrible UX flow where they might have multiple accounts and they don't like when the website suddenly changes. In general, what is the best way to simplify the auth UX for this group of users? Is there any UI libraries out there targeting this group more specifically? Any good web examples you know of? thx
10 by khoury | 1 comments on Hacker News.
I have been running a SaaS for ~10 years used heavily by people 65+ and a lot of them are tired and frustrated about remembering the domain/path to login screen and then which email/password they used, having to go through the whole forgot-password-flow, etc. I have tried simplifying this as much as i can but I feel like there must be better options. Google sigin in is confusing for them because they get thrown into Googles horrible UX flow where they might have multiple accounts and they don't like when the website suddenly changes. In general, what is the best way to simplify the auth UX for this group of users? Is there any UI libraries out there targeting this group more specifically? Any good web examples you know of? thx
New ask Hacker News story: GitHub gave webhook secrets away in webhook call
GitHub gave webhook secrets away in webhook call
2 by time4tea | 0 comments on Hacker News.
Couldn't see this on a Web page... From an email: We're writing to let you know that between September 2025 and January 2026, webhook secrets for webhooks you are responsible for were inadvertently included in an HTTP header on webhook deliveries. This means that any system receiving webhook payloads during this window could have logged the webhook secret from the request headers. Webhook deliveries are encrypted in transit via TLS, so the header containing the secret was only accessible to the receiving endpoint in a base64-encoded format. We have no evidence to suggest your secrets were intercepted. This issue was fixed on January 26, 2026. Please read on for more information. User privacy and security are essential for maintaining trust, and we want to remain as transparent as possible about events like these. GitHub itself did not experience a compromise or data breach as a result of this event. * What happened? * On January 26, 2026, GitHub identified a bug in a new version of the webhook delivery platform where webhook secrets were included in an X-Github-Encoded-Secret HTTP header sent with webhook payloads. This header was not intended to be part of the delivery and made the webhook secret available to the receiving endpoint in a base64-encoded format. Webhook secrets are used to verify that deliveries are genuinely from GitHub, and should only be known to GitHub and the webhook owner. The bug was limited to only a subset of webhook deliveries that were feature flagged to use this new version of the webhooks platform. The bug was present between September 11, 2025, and December 10, 2025, and briefly on January 5, 2026. The bug was fixed on January 26, 2026
2 by time4tea | 0 comments on Hacker News.
Couldn't see this on a Web page... From an email: We're writing to let you know that between September 2025 and January 2026, webhook secrets for webhooks you are responsible for were inadvertently included in an HTTP header on webhook deliveries. This means that any system receiving webhook payloads during this window could have logged the webhook secret from the request headers. Webhook deliveries are encrypted in transit via TLS, so the header containing the secret was only accessible to the receiving endpoint in a base64-encoded format. We have no evidence to suggest your secrets were intercepted. This issue was fixed on January 26, 2026. Please read on for more information. User privacy and security are essential for maintaining trust, and we want to remain as transparent as possible about events like these. GitHub itself did not experience a compromise or data breach as a result of this event. * What happened? * On January 26, 2026, GitHub identified a bug in a new version of the webhook delivery platform where webhook secrets were included in an X-Github-Encoded-Secret HTTP header sent with webhook payloads. This header was not intended to be part of the delivery and made the webhook secret available to the receiving endpoint in a base64-encoded format. Webhook secrets are used to verify that deliveries are genuinely from GitHub, and should only be known to GitHub and the webhook owner. The bug was limited to only a subset of webhook deliveries that were feature flagged to use this new version of the webhooks platform. The bug was present between September 11, 2025, and December 10, 2025, and briefly on January 5, 2026. The bug was fixed on January 26, 2026