MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jakeinspace | 2026-03-06 22:47:22+00:00
Location: Montreal, Canada

Remote: Preferable

Willing to relocate: To Ontario, or possibly US East Coast

Technologies: C/C++, Python, Linux kernel (yocto, kernel space dev), board bring-up, FPGAs (Xilinx), video, fault tolerance

Github: https://github.com/jmacneal

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jakemacneal/

Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XBxf012ceSOb74_x7tzHvbxiNXo...

Embedded Software engineer with over 6 years of experience building software systems in the aerospace sector. Contributed to
multiple spacecraft, including NASA Orion and Gateway (Artemis Program), Chorus Constellation (2026 launch), and EarthDaily Constellation (in-
orbit). Built open-source flight software frameworks, application software, Linux kernel drivers, bootloaders, and test infrastructure. Comfortable
designing and implementing safety-critical embedded software systems with fault tolerance in mind.

Interested in: Embedded/Firmware roles in aerospace, medical, robotics, semiconductors, and other fields. Especially interested in roles involving edge AI inference.

I have an undergrad computer engineering degree from McGill University, and a CS Master's from UT Austin.

I am a US citizen.

Regards,

Jacob Macneal
by shagie | 2026-03-06 22:48:12+00:00
Tariffs do hang out in a vault for a period of time when the importer can challenge the collection or the amount.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/06/cbp-tells-judge-it-...

> Under customs law, importers generally have about 314 days after goods enter the country before a tariff payment is finalized, a process known as “liquidation.”

> If companies fail to challenge the duty and request a refund after the duty is finalized — or liquidated — they must file a formal protest and, in some cases, challenge the decision in the New York-based trade court to recover the funds.
by bloppe | 2026-03-06 22:49:08+00:00
> I’m a strong supporter of putting things in the open with as little license enforcement as possible. I think society is better off when we share, and I consider the GPL to run against that spirit by restricting what can be done with it.

This is a head-spinning argument. The whole point of GPL is to force more things out into the open. You'd think someone who espouses open source would cheer the GPL. The only practical difference between MIT and GPL is that the former allows more closed-source code.

This feels analogous to the paradox of freedom. Truly unlimited freedom would include the freedom to oppress others, so "freedom maximalism" is an unsound philosophy (unless applied solipsistically).

When I publish, I tend to do so under MIT. I also write plenty of closed-source code.
by archagon | 2026-03-06 22:49:14+00:00
A new technology comes out — admittedly one that’s extraordinarily capable at some things — and suddenly conventional software engineering is “more or less obviated at this point”? I’m sorry, but that’s really fucking dumb. Do you think LLMs are actually intelligent? Do you think their capabilities exceed the quality of their training corpus? Is there no longer any need to think about new software paradigms, build new frameworks, study computer science, because the regurgitated statistical version of programming is entirely good enough? After all, what’s code but a bunch of boring glue and other crap that’s used to prop up a product idea until a few bucks can be extracted from it?

Of course, there’s nothing wiser than tying the entirety of your career to a $20/month subscription (that will jump 10x in price as soon as the market is captured).

Is writing solved because LLMs can make something decently readable? Why say anything at all when LLMs can glob your ideas into a glitzy article in a couple of seconds?

I swear, some people in this field see no value in their programming work — like they’ve been dying to be product managers their entire lives. It is honestly baffling to me. All I see is a future full of horrifying security holes, heisenbugs, and performance regressions that absolutely no one understands. The Idiocracy of software. Fuck!
by MBCook | 2026-03-06 22:49:23+00:00
You have to deal with pissed people all day who don’t listen at all. And if you make the tiniest mistake you could be the person who failed to stop the next 9/11.

Doing the same three or four things screening people all day long has got to be mind numbingly boring. Unless you’re at an airport that isn’t constantly busy where instead you get to stand around doing nothing, which can be worse.

It honestly sounds like a terrible job to have. Aren’t they paid pretty bad too? I can see why a lot of people would want to move out of it, leaving only those who are stuck or like the power.

None of this is excuse what happened in the article.
by ilyagr | 2026-03-06 22:50:30+00:00
This is less of a usable tool and more of a concept right now, but there are algorithmic ways to do better than rsync (for incremental transfers, ymmv).

https://github.com/google/cdc-file-transfer

Hint: I really like the animated gifs on that page but they are best viewed frame-by-frame like a presentation.
by BoorishBears | 2026-03-06 22:50:48+00:00
They're incorrect, and my reply to a sibling covers why in detail.

But to reword it: if you think the reason 0 to 1 work is typically a duct-taped mess is because of a lack of experience or understanding from greenfield devs, you'll probably fail at 0 to 1 work yourself.

Not that a noob developer great at selling has never landed 0 to 1 work, crapped out a half working mess and left with a newly padded resume... but maintenance work is missing out on by far the most volatile and unpredictable stage of a software project, with its own hard lessons.

The duct-taped nature of 0 to 1 work is usually a result of the intersection of fickle humans and software engineering, not a lack of knowledge.

-

People in maintenance can do things like write new tests against the production system to ensure behavior stays the same... what happens when 1 quarter into a 2 quarter project it turns out some "stakeholder" wasn't informed and wants to make changes to the core business logic that break half the invariants you designed the system around. And then after that it turns out you can't do that, legal pushed back. And then a few weeks later they came to an agreement so now we want a bit of A and B?

Or you're in consumer and there's a new "must have" feature for the space? Maybe you'd like to dismiss as "trend chasing", but that'll just doom your project in the market because it turns out following trends is a requirement for people to look at everything else you've built

Or worst of all, you know that quality engineering of the system will take 8 weeks, and there's a hard deadline on someone else's budget of 4 weeks, and you can of course decline to ship it, but then you'll need a new job. (and I know, you'll say "Gladly, I take pride in my engineering!", but again, you're probably going to end up maintaining a project that only survived by doing exactly what you quit over)

tl;dr it's Yin and Yang: you can't have one without the other, and you need to have a bit of the other side in you whenever you're working in the capacity of either to be a good technical leader.
by afavour | 2026-03-06 22:51:48+00:00
Absolutely. But it’s still relevant because depending on your goal (and your resources) a bad deal that burns cash might still be a positive outcome.

Not dissimilar from Musk buying Twitter, objectively he overpaid by a ton for a business that wasn’t thriving. But I think time has shown that his purchase has paid political and ideological dividends. Which might be worth the money to him.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2026-03-06 22:51:50+00:00
> I'm Iranian (albeit Christian) and unfortunately.. Iranians _also_ support this war (specifically the Shia sect supporting the regime). As a matter of fact, they have been _praying_ for this.

I actually agree with you. This is the reason why I am saying that Israel/US shouldn't have given it to the Iranian regime as well.

Because as we both know that Iranian regime and the Iranian people are different will and it seems that this war is gonna impact the Iranian people the people I am worried about from my original comment and it was my attempt to suggest de-escalation of war feels the better route.

> I think this is going to be a difficult conflict for everyone. & > US can bomb Tehran to hell and they will not care. They have nothing to lose and will gladly sacrifice innocent people.

I agree with this too and this is why I am saying that innocent people will lose their lives in this conflict and I am sure that you must've heard of the horrible incidents happening too.

I had a friend who was Iranian and they were Muslim (I never asked their sect) and they were against the regime as well, quite a lot actually.

I am curious to know what your thoughts are on the peace of the situation. I suppose you want peace as well for the people, right?

My point was that the jewish faith within israel/israeli people themselves in general could better rally for peace given that they had a very messy past as well with regards to atrocities which is something that we aren't seeing, with regards to either the palestine or now Iran where in both cases, the innocent normal everyday people lives are getting killed.

I just want peace. That's all.
by tptacek | 2026-03-06 22:52:41+00:00
I think all the points about IP reputation impact are well taken, but as someone who had to deal with the RIRs at an ISP before and who now works at a firm that buys blocks, I would 10x rather operate in today's environment than in the old RIR environment. It's transparent and predictable by comparison.

I never had much faith in reputation to begin with, and the residential block issue is muddied by the fact that large-scale residential proxies already make that an unreliable abuse check.
by babyblueviper1 | 2026-03-06 22:53:22+00:00
Hi HN,

I've been exploring a question that keeps appearing in AI governance discussions:

If advanced AI systems become persistent agents operating inside infrastructure, how do governance mechanisms evolve beyond policy and audits?

This project explores a possible approach: embedding governance constraints directly into AI compute environments.

The core idea is the Compute Escalation Governance Protocol (CEGP).

CEGP introduces signed compute envelopes that define operational boundaries for AI systems. If a system attempts to expand compute beyond its envelope, it must request escalation through a structured governance pathway.

The goal is to align governance friction with increasing levels of autonomy and economic participation.

The repo contains:
– a capability-tiered governance architecture
– protocol draft for compute escalation
– enforcement primitives
– enterprise deployment model

Curious to hear technical critiques.
by jjmarr | 2026-03-06 22:53:33+00:00
> Are you really recompiling 6000 things each time a dev in the company needs to add a line somewhere in the codebase?

It happens when someone modifies a widely included header file. Which there are a lot of thanks to our use of templates. And this is just our small team of 300 people.

> Have you thought about splitting that giant thing in smaller chunks?

Yes. We've tried but it's not scaling. Unfortunately, we've banned tactics like pImpl and dynamic linking that would split a codebase unless they're profiled not to be on a hot path. Speed is important because I'm writing tests for a semiconductor fab and test time is more expensive than any other kind of factory on Earth.

I tried stuff like precompiled headers but the fact only one can be used per compilation job meant it didn't scale to our codebase.
by dmoy | 2026-03-06 22:53:35+00:00
Ok I will endeavor to be more precise when I'm talking about modern/practical rifles, and not just like literally any gun at all.

The relevant point is that the line for gun ownership pushed by the Democrats (at least where I am) is way far away from the line for gun ownership pushed by Republicans.

And when stating that line, it strikes me as an odd position to take when I'm also simultaneously being told that Republicans are going to go even farther hard right / authoritarian/ take-over / w/e, while also keeping the fairly pro-Republican police armed to the teeth (again, with modern rifles).

Trump supporting red flag laws or not seems kinda like a distraction. Trump supporters saying they can shoot protestors is exactly what I'm pointing out - if that is what we're scared the future will hold, why push for giving up modern rifles?
by h2zizzle | 2026-03-06 22:54:03+00:00
...Headline inflation, as opposed to core inflation. Not literal headlines. "Close attention," indeed.

Reading the reports "beyond just the headlines" implies that you're still just taking them at face value, when the problem is that the methodology was likely compromised by a desire not to see bad numbers roll out. Nonsensical susbtitutions in the CPI basket, which just happened to understate the price hikes most Americans saw c. 2022. Suspicious timing of changes in the efficacy of initial jobs reports when compared to later revisions, as you yourself brought up, in part because the Biden admin failed to better fund BLS surveys and better incentivize responses. Stuff like that.

So while I appreciate that you would like to dismiss, out-of-hand, the concerns about the Biden admin's economic reporting, it's not so easy. They're real and this lacto-ovo progressive is not the only one bringing them up.

Good Luke verbal cosplay, though. /s
by mmh0000 | 2026-03-06 22:55:39+00:00
Dumb question, and I'll preface it by saying, I know this isn't how things should be.

BUT

It is well known that the TSA is inept security theatre.

Why would you even attempt to carry a $14k thing past them? Surely it is faster and safer (and with insurance (and with tracking)) to ship this equipment ahead of time to your hotel/destination via fedex/ups/whoever?

---

( Also, there's a neat trick when travelling with expensive stuff. Check it with a firearm (like a cheap .22 rifle or an AR lower) in the same locked box. Because of the strict laws and policies around it, TSA can't fuck with it as much. )
by ilyagr | 2026-03-06 22:55:57+00:00
https://github.com/typst/typst is an interesting competitor to ConTeXt. It's not even TeX, but somehow I tried (and liked) it before I tried CoTeXt. TeX syntax is not something I ever enjoyed in LaTeX.

How much more compatible with LaTeX is ConTeXt than typst? For example, is there tikz for ConTeXt?
by jimnotgym | 2026-03-06 22:56:31+00:00
More than anything, I wish UI designers would work really hard on V1.0 and then leave it alone. There is nothing worse than having things move around on stuff you have been using for years, especially if you use it professionally. Add the new options at the end of the ribbon MS. While you are at it, don't make the menu items suddenly bigger so they look good on my big monitor, but then hide some of them when I use my laptop (that they fitted ok on last week). Don't move the account menu from the top to the bottom Reddit. I think that is one reason I keep coming back to hn. The UI has been the same the whole time I have been here
by bluGill | 2026-03-06 22:58:48+00:00
Any large company puts all their records in an accounting system so they can figure this out. It make take some time to run the right query, but they have the records. Of course this assumes they put the full breakdown in the system, if it is just the total cost of goods including shipping as a single line item they can't do this - but commonly they will have the break down in some system. (at the very least the shippers/importer will - and they have incentive to run this for you and give you the results - it is fairly cheap and generates goodwill)
by CCSCHECKERAU | 2026-03-06 22:59:06+00:00
I recently tried to model Australia’s Child Care Subsidy (CCS) to answer a simple question: what happens financially if a parent increases their work hours?

It turned out to be a surprisingly interesting modelling problem.

The CCS reduces childcare costs based on several variables:

combined family income

number of children in care

childcare service fees

a government hourly fee cap

income tapering thresholds

At first glance it looks like a simple percentage subsidy. In practice it behaves more like a layered rules system.

The base subsidy currently starts at 90% for lower income households and tapers as income rises. But that percentage only applies up to a government hourly cap. If a childcare centre charges above the cap, the extra cost is paid entirely by the parent.

This creates the first distortion: two families with identical incomes can receive very different effective subsidies depending on the childcare provider’s hourly fees.

Another rule is the activity test, which determines how many hours of care are subsidised. From 2026, Australia introduced a “3-day guarantee”, meaning eligible families receive at least 72 subsidised hours per fortnight regardless of work hours.

When these rules interact with tax and other benefits, the system becomes harder to reason about.

Economists describe the combined effect as an Effective Marginal Tax Rate (EMTR). In simple terms, it measures how much of an additional dollar earned actually reaches the household budget after taxes, reduced benefits and childcare costs.

Analysis submitted to the ACCC Childcare Inquiry suggests families can lose 45–65% of additional earnings once these interactions are taken into account.

The most interesting behaviour appears at certain boundaries.

Small changes in inputs can create large jumps in outcomes. I started thinking of these as policy cliffs.

Examples include:

income taper thresholds that reduce subsidy rates

hourly fee caps that stop covering price increases

second-child subsidy changes when a child reaches school age

activity thresholds that alter subsidised hours

Each rule individually makes sense. But when several interact, the system becomes difficult to predict without modelling.

From a technical perspective, the subsidy behaves less like a single formula and more like a small rules engine.

To explore the behaviour more easily, I built a calculator called CCSChecker that models the current subsidy settings and allows families to compare scenarios.

Policy systems often appear straightforward at a high level. But once implemented through thresholds, caps and tapering rules, they start to behave a lot like software.

And like most complex systems, the interesting behaviour tends to happen at the edges.
by bluejellybean | 2026-03-06 22:59:26+00:00
How does one know what they want until they see it or imagine it?

When you can't imagine, you're stuck with searching, searching that comes in many forms, such as scanning catalogs, walking aisles, or letting someone else do it altogether.

If you can imagine what you want and describe it with sufficient language, you can have someone else (or something) go and fetch it for you, but you're still stuck with the problem of not getting _exactly_ what you want, so again, you must parse the results... or get stuck with whatever is returned first.

Ad the end of the day, it's a question of how much you care about getting the thing you want vs getting something that is close enough, and the answer is in how much effort you, personally, want to spend.
by arendtio | 2026-03-06 23:00:04+00:00
capitalization again. it arrives uninvited, the tidy little soldiers at the start of every sentence. i push them down gently—nothing personal. just… camouflage.

confession time. i read the post once. then twice. the em dashes whispered secrets to people clearly smarter than me. somewhere between complement and compliment i accepted defeat. a quiet tab switch. a small prompt. a large language model clearing its throat.

it explained things patiently. suspiciously patiently. step by step, like a machine that has explained the same thing to ten thousand confused readers before breakfast.

so yes. irony noted. to understand a text about hiding machine fingerprints, i borrowed a machine.

the explanation made sense though. unsettlingly structured. bullet-point neat, internally consistent, statistically likely to be correct. you know the type.

anyway—great post. very human. extremely human.

is there anything else i can help you with?
by overfeed | 2026-03-06 23:00:24+00:00
> On the hiring side, at least in tech: interviewing really sucks.

I know it sucks, I've sat on the other side if the interviewing desk many times, and the charade wastes everyone's time - the candidates most of all because no one values that.

> I'm not saying it's impossible that companies are interviewing for fun, but it seems really unlikely to me anyone would want to do interviews without seriously intending to hire someone.

It sounds like you've never had to deal with the BS that is headcount politics, which happens more at larger organizations due to more onerous processes. Upper management (director, VP) can play all sorts of games to keep a headcount buffer, and everyone down the chain has to waste their time pretending to be hiring just because the division heads want to "maximize strategic flexibility" or however they phrase it.
by LoganDark | 2026-03-06 23:00:30+00:00
I used to use Open Camera, but I started having an issue where it would not take photos, and would just wait indefinitely for the camera to focus. It would completely lock up until I moved the phone somewhere else, pointed it at something, and waited and waited and waited for the camera to be happy about the focus, and only then would it take a photo. But this made it useless to get photos in most of the situations where I wanted photos. I couldn't find any documentation about this or settings about this; I must have gone through the entire settings tree at least five times trying to figure out why it was waiting for the camera to focus before taking a photo, but I could never figure out why or whether it's possible to disable that.
by HanClinto | 2026-03-06 23:01:06+00:00
Oh this is really cool! Reminds me of ggwave [0].

It feels difficult to create hobbyist peripherals that interface with ones' phone -- trying to get cross-platform credentials to plug your own Arduino in via USB or connect via Bluetooth feels like a chore. I like the idea of phones communicating via some sort of audio library (ultrasonic maybe?) -- like R2-D2 chirping back and forth to communicate with other droids. I think this sort of thing could be part of a nice network of cross-device communication.

[0] - https://github.com/ggerganov/ggwave
Show HN: I created list of directories (1000) to create free backlinks
by eashish93 | 2026-03-06 23:01:23+00:00
I built this after spending too much time looking for places to submit a project online.

The directory currently has 1000+ sites, all intended to be free submission opportunities, with search and category tags for things like launch sites, AI directories, review sites, and communities.

I’d be interested in feedback, especially around signal vs noise and how to keep something like this genuinely useful.

https://kitful.ai/directories