MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by protocolture | 2026-03-12 03:34:01+00:00
"Crossbench"

The Greens voted with the LNP to change the senate voting rules, pulling the ladder up behind them. They are just a third leg of the major parties.

Wheres my Australian Motoring Enthusiast? Wheres my Shooters Farmers and Fishers rep? Even the "Libertarian" (formerly Liberal Democrats) party had the occasional flash of brilliance.

Paymen was voted in with the ALP and probably wont rate reelection.

The only halfway decent crazy crossbench we have right now is Lambo, and shes only good like 45% of the time. Lidia thorpe can be good quality but shes like Paymen, and wont be reelected solo.

Heaps of these crossbenchers are only there thanks to Climate 200 funding, which will vanish the second that bloke achieves his goals or gets bored and wanders off.

>I can’t see how this is by any reasonable definition a “rubber stamp”

Labor shops everything to the LNP or Greens, and chooses the one they can more easily bully into compliance. LNP does the same when they are in power.
by absynth | 2026-03-12 03:34:42+00:00
At this point, I've got no idea which one to buy. They should provide a configurator and be done with it.

I want this much RAM. this CPU. this GPU. this touch screen. this size.
What options?
None? what if I remove touch? ok good there's 3. and so on.

All that Pro Plus Premium nonsense is just too much marketing gibberish.
by neilv | 2026-03-12 03:34:50+00:00
> By convention, the client looks under /satellite/ by default. If that path is already taken, place a satproto_root.json file at the domain root containing { "sat_root": "my-custom-repo" } — the client checks this first.

Would a `/.well-known/` be helpful here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-known_URI
by NoPicklez | 2026-03-12 03:35:15+00:00
Well you might not, if your accessible market is 10 horses and 5 cars can fill that market need, then you're left with 5 people who aren't needed because your products don't meet the needs of 10 cars worth.

If your postal service services a population of a million people and it takes 1000 horses to do that easily, but it takes 500 cars, you don't have a need for those 500 extra people.

You can't deliver more packages if the packages aren't there to be delivered. Your product demand doesn't just magically scale up once supply meets it.
by SchemaLoad | 2026-03-12 03:35:48+00:00
Often you don't even get to the interview step. One time I had a take home that said you could either do frontend only, backend only, or full stack. I decided to pick the backend only one and complete all of the optional backend tasks to make something pretty well made.

Then they email me back and said the other candidate did the whole thing and they aren't sure if I know how to style a page now because I only completed the backend part.
by gyroscape | 2026-03-12 03:35:53+00:00
That’s exactly why we built Gyro-Claw with a dual-layer security model.

We realized that sandboxing execution (limiting what an agent can do) isn't enough if the agent carries a “god-key” in its context — the real problem becomes what the agent can access.

In Gyro-Claw we address this through a zero-trust Vault + Executor architecture:

Credential Isolation
Secrets are never placed in the LLM prompt. The agent only sees placeholders like `{{vault:GITHUB_TOKEN}}`.

Scoped Injection
A trusted Executor resolves secrets at the last millisecond before a tool call, and only for authorized tools. For example, the `http` tool can use secrets, while `shell` is blocked by default.

Identity Scoping
Secrets can be restricted by scope (e.g., `openai`, `github`), allowing an agent identity to access only the keys required for a specific task.

Combining runtime sandboxing with scoped credentials is really the only way to cover the full attack surface for agent systems.
by scuff3d | 2026-03-12 03:36:19+00:00
"I've seen many teams building distributed monoliths and spaghetti code in pursuit of the SRP."

I've worked with probably 6 or 7 different "microservice" based systems at this point, essentially all of them are just distributed monoliths. I don't think I've met a single person at my company who actually know what the hell a "microservice" is.
by ccosky | 2026-03-12 03:36:21+00:00
I tested out Atlassian Rovo last year. I tried to get it to list all of the Confluence articles I had written in 2025 so I could use that information for my performance review. It found three, regardless of how I queried it. I had actually written over sixty. I tried, but never did found a good use case for it. Too unreliable.
by bharrison | 2026-03-12 03:36:32+00:00
Calls to mind a long forgotten, and perhaps one of the most useful bash scripts I've written which addressed this issue in a very rudimentary way; Curl a url, hash the result to file, compare the current hash to the saved hash from the previous run and generate an email on diff.

My goal was to monitor the online release of tickets for the 2009 Scion Rock fest (luckily no js, or even Adobe Flash[!] in use), and it worked brilliantly to that end.

[grammar]
by andai | 2026-03-12 03:36:36+00:00
Yeah they have more "common sense", though not as much as I'd like. I used to think Opus is big, but after using it a lot, I think it should actually be a lot bigger. The difference from Sonnet to Opus is really noticeable, but the difference from Opus to human (in common sense) is also massive. I expect as the hardware improves, we'll see 3-10x bigger models become the default.

Small models are making great strides of course, and perhaps we will soon learn to distill common sense ;) but subtlety and nuance appear physically bound to parameter count...
by dragonwriter | 2026-03-12 03:36:38+00:00
> Agile itself is predicated on software being difficult to ship/expensive.

No, the opposite; it is predicated on software being cheap and easy to ship, but hard to correctly anticipate the needs for.

> It might not make sense to continue (waterfall might be better actually)

Waterfall, not agile, is predicated on software being difficult to ship/expensive.
by achenatx | 2026-03-12 03:38:23+00:00
when agile was fairly new I worked with remote developers that had 3 locations.

My specialty is software requirements and my team was brought in to do the product management. The developers had read somewhere if you were using a database to do requirements then you were doing agile wrong.

They wanted me to write post it notes in triplicate, then fedex them to all their offices.
by cornstalks | 2026-03-12 03:39:14+00:00
Anecdote time! I had Codex GPT 5.4 xhigh generate a Rust proc macro. It's pretty straightforward: use sqlparser to parse a SQL statement and extract the column names of any row-producing queries.

It generated an implementation that worked well, but I hated the ~480 lines of code. The structure and flow was just... weird. It was hard to follow and I was seriously bugged by it.

So I asked it to reimplement it with some simplifications I gave it. It dutifully executed, producing a result >600 lines long. The flow was simpler and easier to follow, but still seemed excessive for the task at hand.

So I rolled up my sleeves and started deleting code and making changes manually. A little bit later, I had it down to <230 lines with a flow that was extremely easy to read and understand.

So yeah, I can totally see many SWE-bench-passing PRs being functionally correct but still terrible code that I would not accept.
by CharlesW | 2026-03-12 03:39:22+00:00
> Pangram is a remarkably good, conservative model for detecting LLM-generated text. These detectors have a bad rep among techies, but the objections are often based on outdated assumptions or outright misconceptions.

Pot, kettle, black. "Remarkably good" drastically oversells the reliability of it and other AI detectors. It means very little that Pangram did better than other competitors in this snake-oily category in one 2025 benchmark.
by glaucon | 2026-03-12 03:39:38+00:00
The first sentence of the cited article makes clear the matter at hand is not "elimination of jury trials" but "a plan to abolish some jury trials". The proposal is an attempt to reduce the time which those who are accused must wait for trial.

FWIW the majority of all criminal cases in the UK are dealt with by either a single judge, or three judges[1]. This is hardly surprising as assembling a jury is vastly time consuming and for minor criminal matters is hard to justify.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_offence#United_Kingdom
by nobody9999 | 2026-03-12 03:39:45+00:00
>I use AI for the elements I feel are weak or unclear in the transcription. Sometimes I copy-paste a paragraph into ChatGPT or whatever, to ensure my (aging) thoughts are being communicated in a crystal clear manner. I cannot always point out why I think they are unclear or jumbled.

Your point is well taken.[0]

Personally, I take a different approach. I use a 5 minute delay for comments on HN so I can look at the post after I submit it, but before anyone else sees it.

This gives me the opportunity to read over my comment and the comment to which I've replied to make sure my prose is decent, my point is clear and any typos or other inaccuracies can be corrected.

I don't use LLMs as an editor as I've found that I'm probably a better editor than the average internet user, which is what LLMs represent.

Perhaps that's arrogant of me, but I'm much more comfortable standing by what I write when it's me writing and editing.

[0] Please note that this is most certainly not a swipe at you or anyone else who uses LLMs as an editor. I just have a different perspective which pushes me in a different direction.
by leptons | 2026-03-12 03:40:07+00:00
>So maybe JS should be more secure than any other language.

And it probably is. The sandboxing and security have been around a very long time.

If Python were the de-facto browser language, people would also blame it for "security problems", and would be just as paranoid about python running when they visit a website. I know whatever language it would be, people would still be paranoid.

I personally don't see any problem with Javascript. If someone knows how to use it, it can be very simple and powerful.

Before Javascript ever existed, I was wishing that websites had a scripting language. I didn't really care what it was, but Javascript answered my prayers rather nicely. But it wouldn't really matter what the language is, I'd still be coding for the web browser, and other people would be hating it for whatever reasons.
by Nevermark | 2026-03-12 03:40:14+00:00
Worth noting that in each well defined domain area, this can be replied recursively.

I.e. within the domain are the (O) basic structures, relations and operations.

Then (T) practical supporting algorithms, tuned for performance in specific cases, serialize, visualize, or whatever.

Then (A) the code that uses O & A to implement the details of specific solutions or manage specific processes.

Wherever there is a well defined broad class of problems with shared structure, this approach has merit.

• Minimize AT -> A, T, O or X.

• Minimize A -> T, O or X.

• Minimize T -> O or X.

• Minimize O -> X.

Where Blood Type X is... Well its just code that doesn't need to exist. Now all possible code has a blood type. And highest productivity is to increase code in X.

As they say, less (OTA), is more! (X)
by Zastinian | 2026-03-12 03:40:15+00:00
I developed Hedystia following the architectural style of Elysia, as I really appreciate its design. However, I ran into significant hurdles when connecting the frontend and backend using Eden. In a diverse team environment, maintaining synchronized type builds can be difficult, often forcing other developers to require direct API access just to work. I built Hedystia with a more professional team workflow in mind, specifically to eliminate these bottlenecks and the issues I encountered with Elysia
by mekael | 2026-03-12 03:42:22+00:00
What is everyone shifting to, and at what scale? I can see moving to breaking down tasks in separate markdown docs for a small(ish) startup, but working at a company of more then say 1k or so requires a bit more infrastructure to deal with the cross cutting concerns (compliance/legal, pm's, leadership, etc). I'm at a reasonably sized F500 and Jira is the default, despite how much all of us despise it, mainly because it ticks all of the boxes for aforementioned areas.
by linkjuice4all | 2026-03-12 03:42:58+00:00
Maybe in the past companies wouldn’t take the extra time for performance enhancements - but they’re apparently saying that AI is sooo good and speeds up work that they don’t need all of these extra people. So if their product was sped up it would enable their customers to work faster and lay off all of their extra employees (or just keep everyone and just do more stuff faster).

So are they doing this to make the product better or, as others have mentioned, they can’t innovate further and can’t grow their market so they need to cut costs.
by ryandrake | 2026-03-12 03:43:56+00:00
The price is often paid by their subordinates, and ultimately the business. I remember working under a pretty inarticulate "senior leader", and he'd send these 3-word barely understandable E-mails to his directs asking them to do something. There would be a frantic scramble of meetings and discussions trying to understand what it is he actually wanted us to do, with a lot of guesswork and arguing. Nobody wanted to tell the guy he was as understandable as a pigeon, so we usually just guessed. Sometimes guessing very wrong and wasting an enormous amount of resources.
by yellowapple | 2026-03-12 03:44:06+00:00
> you can't get out of the fact that things can be anonymous (no one can know how you voted) or verifiable (people can prove that you only voted once) but not both

Seems like the obvious solution here would be for the voting machine to generate two separate records:

- A record of the vote itself, without specifying the voter

- A record of the voter having voted, without specifying for whom/what

And of course, if the number of vote records doesn't match the number of voter records, then shenanigans have likely ensued, warranting an election fraud investigation.
by heavyset_go | 2026-03-12 03:44:26+00:00
Read Citigroup's plutonomy paper: https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/b/bc/CITIGROUP-MARCH-5-20...

The strategy for institutional investors is to invest in servicing the needs of the already rich, at the expense of investing in companies that serve working people. The former is much more profitable than the latter, and the latter is becoming less profitable over time.
by SllX | 2026-03-12 03:44:48+00:00
> Why doesn't America deal with political questions using their political process?

Since 2022 we do. But it’s through the political process of the States. This has made a lot of people very angry because a bunch of States have got it all wrong, and the exact way they got it wrong depends on your point of view on the subject, but no matter which side of the debate you’re on, some on your side most assuredly want to preempt all the States that got it all wrong with Federal law.

That Congress hasn’t come to a political consensus is the Federal political consensus.
by duskdozer | 2026-03-12 03:45:03+00:00
>And still, I really hate writing those PR descriptions. Yet you can't just leave it empty.

If you can't write a description in your own words explaining why you're doing it, why should they take the time reviewing it (which they did on the same day you posted it, btw, even if one of them wasn't pleased)? It makes it seem much less likely that you read the code yourself.
by jboy55 | 2026-03-12 03:45:36+00:00
Imagine doing AI development in waterfall. You spend weeks writing your prompt, when you think you have it perfect, only then do you submit it to the AI. Then you wait a week or so, and see what it produced, expecting it to be exactly what you wrote.

Or, do you tell it the basic functionality you want, test it out, then add feature after feature that you want, sometimes dropping them and sometimes adding new ones that you thought of as your worked.
by dang | 2026-03-12 03:45:46+00:00
I very much hope that's not true, and my guess (or desperate wish?) is that the community would pattern-match to it after a while. One dynamic I don't think has yet been given its due: while AI is training on us, we're also all getting trained on it—that is, the hivemind's pattern-matching ability is also growing. We're heading up the escalation ladder in a paattern-matching race.

But that name is hilarious!
by dragonwriter | 2026-03-12 03:45:48+00:00
> Wouldn't a "deal" theoretically benefit both sides? That one doesn't offer the hereditary peers anything they don't already have.

They don't have any expectation against losing their seats entirely when hereditary peers are ejected from the House, and, even with a sufficient number of life peers voting with them, they couldn't actually prevent such a bill from passing, only delay it. Securing a commitment of life seats is getting something they didn't have.
by JumpCrisscross | 2026-03-12 03:46:08+00:00
> when the "right" person shows up, how do we know they're the right person?

That prompts an investigation. The “right” person casts an affidavit ballot and the police and courts investigate. If the count is close, the loser usually sure to recount and verify, and any of these incidents then become political kindling. It doesn’t happen because it isn’t worth it individually and difficult to coördinate en masse.
by godelski | 2026-03-12 03:48:24+00:00
You can have software behave differently while passing the same tests.

Idk man, this is pretty easy to demonstrate. Start with a trivial example: test is that input (2,2) -> 4. Function 1 does multiplication, function 2 does exponentiation. Both functions pass the test.

Sure, simple example but illustrative examples should be simple. But add more complexity and I'll add more examples of functions where the outputs are the same for a given set of inputs. (There's a whole area of mathematics dedicated to this!) It's simple, but you also confidently claimed something that was trivial to disprove.

Your claim is true if and only if your tests have complete coverage. So, your claim is only true if you've done formal verification of your code. Which was what I said in the beginning and is what Dijkstra claimed as well.
by komali2 | 2026-03-12 03:48:26+00:00
At computex two years ago, Sensel had a couple demo ThinkPads with their trackpad on it. It felt very good, not glass but haptic, I would be very happy with it.

Didn't see them last year at computex and never found that Lenovo model again, not sure what happened with it, at the booth they said they had a partnership. I was hoping they'd link up with framework and make a module for them.
by shermantanktop | 2026-03-12 03:49:14+00:00
You’re describing reasonable misunderstandings, but they are still misunderstandings.

The cause and effect statements just don’t correspond to reality.

I guess I’m stuck on the idea that the actual facts are relevant. If the question instead is how the dance of optics and PR is going in the minds of people who don’t know enough to doubt what they read, I don’t know what to say about that.
by hbosch | 2026-03-12 03:49:27+00:00
When better standalone LLMs got "web crawling skills" integrated, it pretty much destroyed the need to ever lean on PPLX again. Perplexity is actually not a bad product, but other services like ChatGPT and Claude can do it's best thing pretty good, and do other things much better.

One thing I noticed is that whatever harness PPLX wraps around the models, the output is noticeably lower quality in aggregate. I assume some kind of token compression being used before passing your query to a given model but to my knowledge that's never been proven or confirmed?

Anyways, I get the most value out of coding and PPLX has seemingly pivoted away from that. Probably a good play to not try and compete directly with Claude Code/Codex and find a better niche, but I am not sure who or what their market is. Lovely design, however.
by ninjagoo | 2026-03-12 03:49:30+00:00
> Almost the entirety of the technology world is English-native.

I wonder if the Chinese might have to say something about that [1]: 33% of 2 million funded studies were in Chinese. I posit that as China strengthens and no longer feels the need to be admired internationally, that declining % will reverse.

Another example is of the Huawei Matebook Fold [2]. It's an interesting dual-screen PC Laptop (?) that I saw in a YouTube video from India, but the product page doesn't even come up in Google search results. Its product page is in Chinese, and the only way to find it seems to be through the wiki page [3].

[1] https://academic.oup.com/rev/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/re...

[2] https://consumer.huawei.com/cn/harmonyos-computer/matebook-f...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MateBook_Fold
by dragonwriter | 2026-03-12 03:50:19+00:00
> Only 92 of the 842 peers are hereditary currently, so it’s not really necessary to convince them to agree;

As I understand it, it was necessary (in order to pass the bill without the delay the Lords can impose) to secure a deal on the hereditary peers (not with them), because the Conservatives (the largest Lords faction) and many of the cross-benchers among the life peers, a sufficient number in total to delay the bill (the Lords can't actually block it permanently) oppose the bill, not just a group among the existing hereditary peers.
by seer | 2026-03-12 03:50:23+00:00
Thanks for clarifying - I kinda get the idea but would love to see an example for this.

I’ve mostly given up on all of the standard techniques for interviewing sadly, just because “using ai” makes a lot of them trivial, and have resorted to the good old fashioned interview, where I screen for drive, values and root cause seeking, and let people learn tech/frameworks/etc themselves.

But I was wondering, isn’t a take home question still good, if you give a more open ended and ambitious task, and let people vibe code the solution, review the result but ask for the prompt/session as well?

People will be doing that during normal work anyway, so why not test that directly?
by dang | 2026-03-12 03:50:38+00:00
That is one of those enjoyable questions that is best answered by first generalizing it.

Does the absence of a rule against X in https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html mean that it's ok to do X? Absolutely not.

It's impossible to list all the things that people shouldn't do. Fortunately we've never been tempted to walk into that internet trap.
by mekael | 2026-03-12 03:50:53+00:00
If, as a member of the c-suite, I find that a noticeable percentage of my company's workforce isn't "helping to explorer a current trend" then either they know something I don't or I haven't given them the time/methods by which to explore.

The latter is actually the more pertinent item, as I've seen several times that an initiative get rolled out by leadership, some teams have free time to play around and use it, and other teams have so much on their plate that they're barely able to keep their heads above water, let alone take on another experiment. If someone is worried about getting a project knocked out by end of month/quarter/year in order to keep their job, they're not going to mess about.

Now, that's a leadership failure, but it happens more often than not.
by ocdtrekkie | 2026-03-12 03:52:33+00:00
If you have a Pro edition license most things Windows does are a registry key away. The entire policy branch of the registry is designed to have configuration pushed down from the network like when and how to update, but you can also set all of those keys manually.

(Also, no hacking is necessary to set up a Windows Pro install with a local account, just tell it you're going to domain join it.)