MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by theamk | 2026-03-12 23:33:07+00:00
you are missing the point - updating "network elements" was never the problem. Linux kernel has IPv6 support since 2.6. RedHat got IPv6 in 2008. Nginx got it in 2010. And yet there plenty of IPv4-systems out there. why?

Software updates scale _very well_ - once author updates, all users get the latest version. The important part is sysadmin time and config files - _those_ don't scale at all, and someone needs to invest effort in every single system out there.

That's where IPv6 really dropped the ball by having dual-stack the default. In IPv4x, there is no dual-stack.

I upgrade my OS, and suddenly I can use IPv4x addresses... but I don't have to - all my configs are still valid, and if my router is not compatible, all devices still fall back to IPv4-compatible short addresses, but are using IPv4x stack.

I upgrade the home router and suddenly some devices get IPv4x address... but it is all transparent to me - my router's NAT takes care of that if my upstream (ISP) or a client device are not IPv4x-capable.

I have my small office network which is on the mix IPv4 and IPv4x addresses. Most Windows/Linux machines are on IPv4x, but that old network printer and security controller still have IPv4 address (with router translating responses). It still all works together. There is only one firewall rule set, there is only one monitoring tool, etc... My ACL list on NAS server has mix of IPv4 and IPv4x in the same list...

So this is a very stark contrast to IPv6 mess, where you have to bring up a whole parallel network, setup a second router config, set up a separate firewall set, make a second parallel set of addresses, basically setup a whole separate network - just to be able to bring up a single IPv6 device.

(Funny enough, I bet one _could_ accelerate IPv6 deployment a lot by have a standard that _requires_ 6to4/4to6/NAT64 technology in each IPv6 network... but instead the IPv6 supporters went into all-or-nothing approach)
by api | 2026-03-12 23:34:11+00:00
The pre-Internet BBS era is something I remember fondly. I was a kid, so there's that halo effect of course, but I loved the indie DIY nature of it and the diversity and community you'd get.

There's a site called textfiles.com that's kind of a museum, and a documentary you can find on YouTube. There's stuff on archive.org too.

It wasn't actually that long of an era. The first modern BBS was probably CBBS in Chicago in 1978, though there's other claimants depending on how you define BBS. When the Internet started to go mainstream in the middle 1990s, the BBS scene died shockingly quickly. So it lasted a little under 20 years, probably 17 or 18.

The glory days of it were probably from about 1985 until 1995. By 1985 you started to have PCs and modems good enough to make it a pleasure to use and cheap enough (and with a used after-market) to achieve significant penetration and enable less wealthy and kids to get online. By 1995 the Internet was starting to kill it.

I read a lot of rosy stuff about how people behaved so much better back then, and some of that is BS. There were trolls, weirdos, creeps, racists, black hat hackers that would mess with you, and malware that would mess up your machine. There were flame wars and sectarian splits where a bunch of users on a BBS would leave for a different one. There was junk content, filler, and nasty stuff like CSAM around.

I would, however, say that the signal to noise ratio was a lot better than modern social media and the modern SEO-trashed web. The big difference is that these systems did not have algorithms biasing things in this direction. You didn't have an algorithmic feed preferentially surfacing the most idiotic or inflammatory content to get you to get angry about it and "maximize engagement." You didn't have algorithms incentivizing endless amounts of chum to game the rankings. It was easy to just ignore the trolls and morons and creeps and go for the good stuff.

Much of the same can be said of the early pre-socials pre-SEO web.

You also didn't have a lot of money involved, and while money can create productive incentives in a lot of areas it seems to create mostly perverse incentives in media, especially if the money is coming from advertisers rather than consumers of the media.

The original sin is really the time-on-site/time-on-app KPI. It is literally destroying civilization. I don't think that's much of an exaggeration.

All in all it was good times, and I miss the ethos and community and sense of discovery of it.
by ImPostingOnHN | 2026-03-12 23:34:12+00:00
> Isn't it a weird coincidence that soon after the US and Israel started an unprovoked and unnecessary war (that billionaires will profit handsomely from, as an aside) that we get stories like this to manufacture consent?

Manufacture consent for what? Starting a war with Iran? The US already did that, and didn't need any sort of consent.

If anything, this sort of story is more likely to manufacture opposition to the war, because folks already think the war is stupid, pointless, and never should have happened, and now they're suffering more for it.
by swed420 | 2026-03-12 23:34:25+00:00
The point though is the error was intentional.

Democrats, as controlled opposition, intentionally lose in certain scenarios. FFS, they propped up Trump during his first run with their Pied Piper strategy which elevated him from meme-tier gameshow host to frontrunner, as exposed by wikileaks.

Republicans of course are no better. It's a carefully tuned machine of good cop / bad cop, and enough people fall for it to keep the illusion of democracy afloat.

What we functionally have is a uniparty of capital interests which depends on "idpol" types of division and distraction.
by magicalist | 2026-03-12 23:34:26+00:00
Eh, it also feels like a classic "maybe we somehow have enough perspective on this watershed moment while it's happening to explain it with a simplistic dichotomy". Even this piece interrogates the feeling of "loss" and teases out multiple aspects to it, but settles on a tl;dr of "yep, dichotomy". There's more axes here too, where that feeling can depend on what you're building, who you're building it with, time and position in your career, etc etc.

(I'll admit, though, that this also smells to me a bit too much like introvert/extrovert, or INTP/INTJ/etc so maybe I'm being reflexively rejective)
by wolvoleo | 2026-03-12 23:35:25+00:00
Not seeing this yet but our place is still trying to figure things out. We have strong KPIs on how much we use copilot so I must say woof woof to it every day or so to make sure it shows me as an active user (luckily it only shows the latest date someone has used it in each application).

For programming I find it pretty useful. For MS Office it's so far not a hell of a lot more useful than clippy. The one thing it's good at is finding old stuff in SharePoint and Outlook but that's more a sign of how terrible the search functions are in those than of how good copilot is.
by Roguelazer | 2026-03-12 23:35:40+00:00
That's absolutely not true. The places that have embraced "agentic engineering" are mostly garbage factories, and lots of places, including plenty of startups and fast-moving companies are staying off of this trend. I recognize that most of the people on this site are just trying to self-promote for their own gig, but the level of misinformation is sometimes just staggering.
by AnimalMuppet | 2026-03-12 23:35:45+00:00
> Partially because the agents follow the guidance much more closely than humans do and there is far less variance.

Ouch. Managing human coders has been described as herding cats (with some justice). Getting humans to follow standards is... challenging. And exhausting.

Getting AIs to do so... if you get the rules right, and if the tool doesn't ignore the rules, then you should be good. And if you're not, you still have human reviews. And the AI doesn't get offended if you reject the PR because it didn't follow the rules.

This is actually one of the best arguments for AIs that I have seen.
by emptybits | 2026-03-12 23:35:59+00:00
The title, as submitted, is pretty low key.

The actual headline of the article is "Palantir CEO Makes Shocking Confession on Disrupting Democratic Power" and this is the lead sentence:

"Palantir CEO Alex Karp thinks his AI technology will lessen the power of “highly educated, often female voters, who vote mostly Democrat” while increasing the power of working-class men."
by clbrmbr | 2026-03-12 23:36:07+00:00
This. The models struggle with differentiating tool responses from user messages.

The trouble is these are language models with only a veneer of RL that gives them awareness of the user turn. They have very little pretraining on this idea of being in the head of a computer with different people and systems talking to you at once. —- there’s more that needs to go on than eliciting a pre-learned persona.
by m4rtink | 2026-03-12 23:36:30+00:00
It only worked in the Expanse because they expertly choose a special trajectory that made the rocks hard to detect and some questionable (but plot necessary) "stealth coating".

By this point UN and MCR have been in cold war for 100+ years staring each other down with region killer nuke arsenals and an absurd amount of interceptors always ready. See than one time Mars actually fired a barrage - only like two warheads got through, only due to shitload of decoys and overall numbers.

A dumb rock would totally get vaporized without the plot armor in a safe distance.
by simoncion | 2026-03-12 23:36:31+00:00
> The router in your home would absolutely need to support IPv4x if you wanted to make use of the extended address space...

No. The router in your home would need to support IPv4x, or you would get no Internet connection. Why? Because IPv4x extends the address space "under" each IPv4 address -thus- competing with it for space. ISPs in areas with serious address pressure sure as fuck aren't going to be giving you IPv4 addresses anymore.

As I mentioned, similarly, ISPs will need to update their systems to handle IPv4x, because they are -at minimum- going to be doing IPv4x address management for their customers. They're probably going to -themselves- be working from IPv4x allocations. Maybe each ISP gets knocked down from several v4 /16s or maybe a couple of /20s to a handful of v4 /32s to carve up for v4x customer sites.

Your scheme has the adoption problems of IPv6, but even worse because it relies on reclaiming and repurposing IPv4 address space that's currently in use.
by fc417fc802 | 2026-03-12 23:36:54+00:00
There's an inconsistency but no ambiguity, only ignorance. Inflammable only ever means one thing regardless of how ridiculous english might be.

The historically correct term would be non-inflammable. The modern variant is non-flammable.

Similarly, inflammable is the historic term and flammable is the modern variant.

The confusion arises when people are exposed to the word flammable and then attempt to apply the usual rules to construct a word they've never actually used before.

This isn't the usual sort of inconsistency introduced by our fusing multiple incompatible languages. It's from the original Latin and I'm unclear what led to it. For example consider inflammable versus inhumane. It seems Latin itself used the prefix to mean different things - here on(fire) versus not(humane). But confusingly it's ex to indicate location, despite ex also being the antonym of in. So ex equo means you are on horseback, not off it as I would have guessed.
by jmclnx | 2026-03-12 23:36:56+00:00
>What do people think the chance is that someone from the OSI, FSF, or Linux Foundation WROTE this bill?

I would not be surprised, but I think it is more likely these organizations are staying quiet due to "donations" from large corporations. Or tax deductible bribes. I know OSI and the Linux Foundation is owned by big tech, but the FSF surprises me.
by anonnon | 2026-03-12 23:37:19+00:00
> Well, on one hand they lack new data. Lot's of new code came out of an LLM, so it feeds back.

Supposedly model curation is a Big Deal at Big AI, and they're especially concerned about Ouroboros effects and poisoned data. Also people are still contributing to open source and open sourcing new projects, something that should have slowed to trickle by 2023, once it became clear that from now on, you're just providing the fuel for the machines that will ultimately render you unemployable (or less employable), and that these machines will completely disregard your license terms, including those of the most permissive licenses that seek only attribution, and that you're doing all of this for free.
by bigwheels | 2026-03-12 23:37:19+00:00
I was still skeptical at the start of this year. Found the StrongDM Factory techniques in Feb and they've netted novel results that have been inspiring enough to keep studying and practicing.

https://factory.strongdm.ai/techniques

https://factory.strongdm.ai/products/attractor

If you've found better or ancillary resources, please share.
by victor106 | 2026-03-12 23:37:19+00:00
> cutting out menial decisions such as customer service

This is cited so often. We tried it at a large scale with some of the best engineering talent but unfortunately the humans on the other side preferred speaking to and interacting with a human by a wide margin.

We are still trying with the latest AI models but humans are still doing better at serving other humans.

In one of our studies, we observed by a large margin that our customers would hang up immediately on knowing that they are interacting with an AI system.

I have heard this from others as well.
by linolevan | 2026-03-12 23:38:23+00:00
Can we get context length / output length docs (looks like you mention "Max tokens (chat)" of 128k but it's unclear what that means)? Also it looks like your docs page is out of date from your playground page.

Also piece of feedback: it kind of sucks to have glm/minimax/kimi on separate api endpoints. I assume it's a game you play to get lower latency on routing for popular models but from a consumer perspective it's not great.
by steelbrain | 2026-03-12 23:38:39+00:00
> And on top of it, if you develop for native macOS, There’s no official tooling for visual verification. It’s like 95% of development is web and LLM providers care only about that.

Thinking out loud here, but you could make an application that's always running, always has screen sharing permissions, then exposes a lightweight HTTP endpoint on 127.0.0.1 that when read from, gives the latest frame to your agent as a PNG file.

Edit: Hmm, not sure that'd be sufficient, since you'd want to click-around as well.

Maybe a full-on macOS accessibility MCP server? Somebody should build that!
by CharlieDigital | 2026-03-12 23:38:56+00:00
Yes, as I mentioned in my other replies, what I've seen is that quality has gone up and coalesced around a much higher bar with far less variance than before as we've refined our docs and tooling.

In some cases, it was "instant"; dev's MCP server connected to our docs was down -> terrible PR. We fix the MCP connection and redo the PR -> instantly follows the guides we have in place for best practices.
by wolvoleo | 2026-03-12 23:39:05+00:00
Fibre channel HBAs really cost peanuts. Because there's tons on the second hand market and the only ones who want them are enterprises who don't buy second hand shit without a support contract (they usually dump them when the support is up, that's why there's so many working ones on the market)

So I get €300 cards for €20, it's a joke. Really great though because they're really amazing for tying storage together and they can do point to point just fine. No switch needed.

The one drawback is the convoluted software chain around it, I used to work with SANs but if you don't it might require a little investigation :) The client side is pretty easy, the target side is harder (this is the part that is normally covered by a SAN).

But the biggest problem with LTO drives and home use for me is the terrible noise they make.
by redwall_hp | 2026-03-12 23:39:38+00:00
That's why one of the super simple improvements I'd make to music copyright law, if I had to choose one thing rather than a massive overhaul, is for sampling to also be subject to the compulsory mechanical royalty system.

So any artist could sample something, do some paperwork, and send of a fraction of royalties. Rather than the current system where you need explicit permission from the recording artist and have no recourse if they say no.

So many music genres exist because of sampling, and the shit legal precedents set in recent decades ruined an amazing thing.
by dolebirchwood | 2026-03-12 23:39:48+00:00
> You might bring suit against a police department or LE agency, but you'll fail to find any relief there.

I don't know if I'd go so far to say she won't find any relief, but it probably still could be a pretty tough Monell claim against the department (although it's hard to tell from the sparse details in the article):

"[A] local government may not be sued under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Instead, it is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government, as an entity, is responsible under § 1983." [1]

I could see a problem if there was a policy/custom of relying on AI facial recognition alone without any other corroborating evidence (would be a really stupid practice, but I'm sure stupider things have become part of a police department's systemic practices). Or if there was a failure to sufficiently train detectives about the erroneous tendencies of this technology. Maybe the needlessly prolonged detention without bail could be an issue if there was a lack of adequate protocols to expedite in a reasonable amount of time.

Either way, still seems hard to say this a slam dunk case for her, unfortunately. But also seems too risky for the city of Fargo to not settle, at least nominally.

[1] Monell v. Department of Soc. Svcs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/658/
by philxor | 2026-03-12 23:40:01+00:00
I worked for Exec PC internet which evolved from the BBS which was the largest in the US afaik. It ran on somewhat custom PCs where there were I think four nodes per board on bread racks. No cases. Custom software. That BBS was over 250 lines at one point. I remember hearing stories the room with the modems, a lot of Couriers near the end, was so hot they would have to replace dead ones every week.
by digitalPhonix | 2026-03-12 23:40:11+00:00
How would anything on the internet know about x.x.x.x.y.y…?

Your computer knows it’s connected to an old router because dhcp gave it x.x.x.x address and not x.x.x.x... so it knows it’s running in old v4 mode.

And it can still send outbound to a v4x address that it knows about.
by adriand | 2026-03-12 23:40:30+00:00
I feel zero sense of sadness about how things used to be. I feel like the change that sucked the most was when software engineering went from something that nerds did because they were passionate about programming, to techbros who were just in it for the money. We lost the idealism of the web a long time ago and the current swamp with apex reptiles like Zuckerberg is what we have now. It became all about the bottom line a long time ago.

The two emotions I personally feel are fear and excitement. Fear that the machines will soon replace me. Excitement about the things I can build now and the opportunities I’m racing towards. I can’t say it’s the most enjoyable experience. The combo is hellish on sleep. But the excitement balances things out a bit.

Maybe I’d feel a sense of sadness if I didn’t feel such urgency to try and ride this tsunami instead of being totally swept away by it.
by tialaramex | 2026-03-12 23:40:40+00:00
Unless you are one of the rare unintegrated humans†, in which case you wouldn't read HN because you don't have any of the necessary technology, there is only a single human society. Given that, we should be uncomfortable about how we're doing on that "least fortunate" thing...

† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples
by jatins | 2026-03-12 23:40:43+00:00
Your comment is fully AI generated which is against HN guidelines https://www.pangram.com/history/6e9e9161-73d8-4860-88cf-2424...

> Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
by andrepd | 2026-03-12 23:42:23+00:00
It's not even just incompetence, but malice. "AI says so" is going to be the perfect catch-all excuse for literally everything anyone might want to do that they shouldn't. You know how techbros love to excuse every horrifying outcome of their torment nexi with "don't blame me, the algorithm did it"? It's going to be like that, but now everyone can do it.
by munk-a | 2026-03-12 23:43:02+00:00
That is a huge danger. Legally speaking it's not an issue since misusing a tool doesn't relieve liability (in most circumstances - all the trivial ones at least)... but that's a more significant political issue as evidenced by the Anthropic vs. DoD interactions since the DoD's actions are largely immune to oversight by the justice system.

Of course, that depends on sane non-politicized courts which you may rightfully doubt exist right now - but assuming the system works anywhere near as designed outsourcing a decision to AI wouldn't change liability.

For DC fans Harvey Dent would similarly not be free from liability for actions taken after a coin flip even if that coin could be viewed in a certain light to have the power to potentially force or prevent certain actions. An AI box that tells Harvey whether to shoot or spare would be similarly irrelevant to his liability - and a scenario in which Harvey points the gun at someone and then walks away giving the AI control over the trigger is essentially no different. Harvey in all cases is responsible for constructing the scenario that (potentially) leads to someone's death and, more over, even if the gun wasn't fired because the AI decided to spare the person Harvey would be on the hook for attempted murder.
by kace91 | 2026-03-12 23:43:22+00:00
Just out of the popularity of the claim, I’ll bite.

Both big tech and startups are now full of people working at 10x, features are written as fast as PMs can think them, monoliths self heal with agents buzzing over them.

10x means 10 times the outcomes in a given amount of time, so did you see the last iOS version pack a decade worth of features in a single release?

Do you remember when meta moved their backend to rust in a month?

What about Microsoft software not having a single bug in a year?

Yeah, me neither.
by skhatter | 2026-03-12 23:43:34+00:00
Interesting — are you instrumenting the agent workflows themselves with OpenTelemetry spans?

I was wondering how well the standard o11y stack works once agents start running multi-step workflows (agent → tools → other agents → APIs). Tracing probably helps visualize the steps, but I'm curious how people handle operational things like retries, replaying failed workflows, or containing cascading failures across agents.

Those reliability aspects are what I've been exploring.
by hinkley | 2026-03-12 23:43:47+00:00
Yeah this is a function called sort_by but I don’t think it’s doing the same thing.

let (initial_values, stream) = (initial_values, stream)
.filter(filter)
.sort_by(new_sorter_lexicographic(vec![
// Sort by latest event's kind.
Box::new(new_sorter_latest_event()),
// Sort rooms by their recency.
Box::new(new_sorter_recency()),
// Finally, sort by name.
Box::new(new_sorter_name()),
]))
.dynamic_head_with_initial_value(page_size, limit_stream);

That’s an api that would make an OG Java developer get tingles.

sortBy should be locking each object once and I’m reasonably sure this is happening at least three times. Author ends up approximating _.sortBy() at the bottom by introducing a struct.