MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by deepfriedbits | 2026-03-11 23:59:06+00:00
I'm perpetually cautious about wild tech claims, myself, but if you watch the launch video, there are examples of how they could claim labor/cost savings.

For example, one task takes a document with data, charts, and metrics, and Perplexity Computer was tasked with creating a 10-page slide deck for a presentation. Prior to AI, that took human capital and labor costs.

I can't say whether the $1.6M in labor costs is legit or not, but these tools are not just clicking links in 2026.
by al_borland | 2026-03-11 23:59:35+00:00
I guess you could make an excuse of why no one should anything… but that won’t get you very far.

AI isn’t going to do anything by magic. Someone has to tell it to do it, setup guardrails so it doesn’t destroy everything, etc. There is no way in hell I’d be handing over those agent issues to AI to monkey around on production servers. Saying AI can do it is a cop out excuse unless someone already setup AI to do it successfully.

Are you expecting to come in as a new grad and work on nothing but exciting greenfield projects with the latest tech? Maybe that’s the case in startups, but in a more established business, there is a lot of work that needs to get done to keep the business running. It’s not glamorous, but it’s why they’ve been making billions for decades. Those more interesting projects tend to go to the people who’ve proven they can handle them by doing smaller projects successfully, and everyone has their stories from when they did “shit work”. Thinking you’re above it sounds like a problem. The best boss I ever had was the first one to quite literally pick up a broom if that’s what was needed. Work was work, and he earned a lot of respect on those moments.

Having something be “shit work” is a matter of perspective, and also a question of how you solve it. A lot of times people were doing “shit work” and then I’d be asked to help, and I’d write some code to do it and the “shit work” went away. It was more interesting for me, I learned things along the way, I showed more value to the company, and only had to spend enough time doing that work to figure out how to not have to do it anymore.

For a while, my boss would throw me into random projects and teams, because he knew my tolerance for nonsense was low and I’d find a better way to do it. He pretty much let me do whatever I want after a while.

As far as getting the job. You’d be surprised. I’ve interviewed people who gave off a vibe that they were too good for certain types of work. They don’t get the job, because they’re a pain in the ass to work with and everyone has to cover for the jobs they feel are beneath them. They’re choosy beggars. I wouldn’t say what you said verbatim, or have that be you’re big pitch, but also accept that as the new person, you might get some “shit work” and it’s up to you what you do with it.
by nine_k | 2026-03-11 23:59:38+00:00
>> Harvard, MIT

> people are being paid too much to spend all day emailing each other

Hmm, this does not sound exactly right. Also, does anybody seriously think that communication is not work, or is not important? A number of really impactful things started from people emailing each other. (Hell, Linux kernel development is still much about people emailing patches each other.)
by muyuu | 2026-03-12 00:00:16+00:00
For me right now, there are a bunch of Strix Halo unified memory laptops offering 64 to 128GB of unified memory that are the current best value. This will probably spill into next generation (Strix Medusa IIRC).

They're just very versatile and performant, and they're usually very good value. As a big plus you can run very decent models locally.
by skissane | 2026-03-12 00:00:35+00:00
> My guess is that all those who are actually useful will get "grandfathered in" by this legislation making them life peers

The government made a political deal with the hereditary peers-drop their fight against this bill, and in exchange the government will grant a subset of them life peerages

But that political deal is just an informal extralegal “understanding”, it isn’t actually in the text of the bill-having the bill text grant someone a life peerage would upset the status of peerages as a royal prerogative, and they don’t want to do that
by alecco | 2026-03-12 00:01:02+00:00
Holy rabbit hole.

SBF was in Patel's previous podcast in July 2022 and FTX unraveled in November 2022. Hmm.

https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/sbf

> I flew to the Bahamas to interview Sam Bankman-Fried, the CEO of FTX! He talks about FTX’s plan to infiltrate traditional finance, giving $100m this year to AI + pandemic risk, scaling slowly + hiring A-players, and much more.

And that was right in the middle of FTX being accused by many prominent people .

April 29, 2022 https://x.com/AlderLaneEggs/status/1520023221294145536

June 20, 2022 https://x.com/MartyBent/status/1538645746655936519
by vkuprin | 2026-03-12 00:01:04+00:00
You can already work around the rate-limit issue today — there's a global minimum recheck interval in Settings that spreads checks out across time. Not per-site throttling yet, but it prevents one domain from getting hit too many times at once.

The pipeline you described — detect a change, extract a value with a small LLM, open a PR — is pretty much exactly what the MCP server is designed for. Connect Site Spy to Claude or Cursor, and when a specific part of a page changes, the agent can handle the extraction and PR automatically. I don't think anyone has wired up that exact flow yet, but all the pieces exist.
by stevenwoo | 2026-03-12 00:01:42+00:00
I think the monarchy could have used its power to prevent Brexit, but the monarchy never uses its voice for anything controversial for the most part, that there was a valid referendum and the closeness of the vote and rancor at the time from leavers who held all the reins of power at the time might have made the partial public funding of monarchy untenable, too. Queen Elizabeth seemed particularly neutral even on Brexit, maybe Charles would have done differently?
by devnotes77 | 2026-03-12 00:01:44+00:00
The onboarding cliff is real. I've pointed experienced JS devs at wasm-bindgen docs and watched their eyes glaze over before they've even gotten to the actual interesting part. Most end up cargo-culting a template they found and never really understand what the glue is doing.

Hopefully native component support makes that "aha, I get it now" moment happen earlier.
by hunterpayne | 2026-03-12 00:02:21+00:00
"That is not how it works here."

Right, how it works in Europe is there are just no jobs or economic growth at all. Works great for those late in their career who have jobs and basically can't be fired. Not so much for anyone younger though. Better hope your employer doesn't go out of business before you retire. Better hope your government doesn't go bankrupt before you die.

Stop injecting politics into a non-political discussion that had nothing to do with Trump or politics at all. Especially since Europe's situation doesn't exactly shine by comparison.
by falcor84 | 2026-03-12 00:02:22+00:00
I like Clickup's way of allowing arbitrarily nested subtasks and easily promoting/demoting a task across levels, without having this hard distinction that Jira has between levels. I understand that some coporate managers like the rigidity, but in practice, it's just very hard to know the scope of a story early on, and I found this flexibility really valuable.
Show HN: Gitingest for Jupyter Notebook Accessibility
by deviscold | 2026-03-12 00:02:46+00:00
Hi all, I'm sharing Jupycheck, an open source web tool that detects accessibility issues in Jupyter Notebooks that are either uploaded or from a GitHub repository. It also lets you remediate accessibility issues by launching the notebooks in a JupyterLite environment with our interactive Lab extension installed.

The tool is powered by jupyterlab-a11y-checker, an accessibility engine/extension that our student team has been working on for over a year at UC Berkeley. We believe accessibility should be a first-class concern in the notebook ecosystem, and we hope our tools can help raise awareness and make notebooks more accessible across the community.

Support us on GitHub if you find the tool useful!
by wlesieutre | 2026-03-12 00:02:55+00:00
Hilariously when I looked that one up the Dell store page says

Dell Pro Max 16 Premium Laptop
Model: MA14250

I think they have the model number wrong and corresponds to a 14” version, because further down the “order code” is bts101_ma16250_usx

Even Dell can’t keep their computers straight.

https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/dell-pro-max-16...

Edit: confirmed, here is a different laptop listed with the same model number https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/dell-pro-max-14...
by slg | 2026-03-12 00:02:58+00:00
>Taking the time to write something, and read over it is a better skill than asking an LLM to do it for you.

Furthermore, if someone doesn't think whatever they're saying is worth investing the time to do this, it's a signal to me that whatever they could say probably isn't worth my time either.

I don't know why this isn't a bigger part of the conversation around AI content. It shows a clear prioritization of the author's time over the readers', which fine, you're entitled to valuing your own time more than mine, but if you do, I'll receive that prioritization as inherently disrespectful of my time.
by rybosworld | 2026-03-12 00:03:15+00:00
> Planning, alignment, scoping, code review, and handoffs—the human parts of the SDLC—remain largely untouched

Seems likely that process is holding things back. Planning has always been a "best-guess". There's lots you can't account for until you start a task.

Code review mostly exists because the cost of doing something wrong was high (because human coding is slow). If you can code faster, you can replace bad code faster. I.e., LLMs have cheapened the cost of deployment.

We can't honestly assess the new way of doing things when we bring along the baggage of the old way of doing things.
by skeeter2020 | 2026-03-12 00:03:22+00:00
Is this true for you? How often do you get 99% of a complete, valuable thought?

My experience is that it is quite rare. Occasionally high 90's for simple things of low value, 60's or less for things that approximate "thinking". At best it feels like a new search channel that amalgamates data better, and hasn't been thoroughly polluted by ads and SEO - yet.
by devnotes77 | 2026-03-12 00:03:55+00:00
SWE-bench scores well in the narrow task of making tests pass, which means models get good at exactly that. Real codebases have style constraints, architecture choices, and maintainability concerns that don't show up in any test suite. Not surprised at all that the PRs wouldn't get merged; you'd expect that from an eval that can't measure what reviewers actually care about.
by aylmao | 2026-03-12 00:04:31+00:00
IMO it's telling that the lineup here is bucketized by screen size and not model. Screen size, processor performance, storage, sensors, etc are ambiguous concepts that don't mean much in their own merit. People don't really think "my priority is 8.3 inches"; people think in terms of use cases and cost.

For laptops the buckets are portability and performance. These two will always be at odds, and people will gladly prioritize one over the other; these are the ingredients you need for creating a model lineup. Each model prioritizes something different:

- Affordability, MacBook Neo

- Portability, MacBook Air

- Performance, MacBook Pro

There's people who will be carry this machine everywhere and will gladly sacrifice performance for portability. There's people who will gladly use a laptop as essentially a desktop they can occasionally move if it means maximum power. You even see this in the wider market; there's a clear category of laptops praised by their portability (ultrabooks), and another group praised by their power (gaming laptops).

I don't think there's an equivalent for tablets, since people don't really seem to need them for that much (lol). Apple has been focusing a lot on portability, but the market of people who carry their tablet everywhere isn't really that big, most people use them at home [1]. Digital nomads, students, PMs hopping around meetings: they're on laptops. Same with performance; people who need performance are on laptops.

The killer use-cases for tablets seem to be drawing and media consumption, but not only is drawing not a huge market, these two aren't at odds. Both are better with a better, bigger screen. A single dimension for improvement doesn't give you the ingredients for creating a model lineup, it gives you the ingredients for a price ladder where more money just gets you a bigger, better screen.

I think the iPad's lineup could be simplified to just one model, but I understand Apple want's to have several for marketing and price-ladder delineation, like it does with the iPhone. In that case, I think like the iPhone, the iPad could do with less overlap:

- 8.3", $ (iPad mini, affordable)

- 11", $$ (iPad, standard)

- 13", $$$ (iPad Pro, better in pretty much every way)

And keep the iPad Air in the same space as the iPhone Air, a novelty luxurious product that isn't the fastest nor the most affordable, but showcases premium hardware and what the future could look like.

I think Apple doesn't do this because it hopes to discover what people want through the grid of different screen size, thinness, performance, etc permutations that currently exist, but oh well.

[1]: https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.c...
by xp84 | 2026-03-12 00:05:12+00:00
unelected hereditary nobles

Let's break down what Senators are:

> Unelected

In most states a single party will always win statewide elections, so our Senators are what I'd call "marginally elected" since they only have to face a quiet low-turnout primary election and then they sail to an easy re-election. They're nearly always guaranteed to win their primaries as long as The Party supports them, and they'll do so as long as you're loyal to The Party agenda.

> Hereditary

Many of them come from generational wealth, and a few suspiciously just happen to become wildly wealthy while in office, including through their stock trades, which has been decided to be 100% not illegal even when they know things the public does not know.

> nobles

Ours are called "elites," but most things are the same - they tend to all have gone to the top 2-4 colleges, and you can't 'break into' this set unless you were born into old money. Seems close enough from the perspective of those of us who aren't nobles or elites.

So, you can think of the Senate as the House of Lords lite.
by heavyset_go | 2026-03-12 00:05:20+00:00
You can "relicense" it as you see fit, but anyone can just copy it and ignore your license and its terms entirely, it's not your property to put a license on.

See also Red Hat IP lawyer's opinion on trying to license the chardet "rewrite": https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/334#issuecomment-4...
Startup Idea: Make geography irrelevant when browsing the internet
by mowcirclular | 2026-03-12 00:05:31+00:00
At home (Australia), using the internet for day-to-day things is a PITA. Some sites are outright blocked, and many are age restricted. Many sites simply don't appear in search engines or are blocked via ISP if visited.

Overseas it's just as bad. Vietnam blocks medium.com for some reason. Thailand blocks the daily mail (not a particularly important site, but it's the principle).

Idea: rather than switching the country in my VPN software every time a site is missing/blocked/requires age verification, could there be a browser extension that simply routes those specific requests via $WHATEVER_FUCKING_COUNTRY_MAKES_THE_SITE_HAPPY?

(that variable could potentially be guessed based on some rules or crowd sourcing i.e. what has worked for other users - importantly, the user doesn't need to know nor care, the software could ensure it 'just works' TM etc).

This way, the user just gets to the internet without all the regulation-induced rigmarole.

Am I crazy for wanting to use the internet without the cruft? Is there a technical reason this isn't possible?

(I'd pay $10/month for the convenience).
by avdelazeri | 2026-03-12 00:05:38+00:00
Lack of will.
That was one of the main results from the survey from Whitaker in 2020.
Making your code reusable and easy to understand is significant work that had no direct benefits for a researcher's career. Particularly because research code grows wildly as researchers keep trying thungs.

Working on the next paper is seem as the better choice.

Moreover if your code is easy for others to run then you're likely to be hit with people wanting support, or even open yourself to the risk of someone finding errors in your code (the survey's result, not my own beliefs).

There are other issues, of course. Just running the code doesn't mean something is replicable. Science is replicated when studies are repeated independently by many teams.

There are many other failure modes SOTA-hacking, benchmarking, and lack of rigorous analysis of results, for example. And that's ignoring data leakage or other more silly mistakes (that still happen in published work! In work published in very good venues even)

Authors don't do much of anything to disabuse readers that they didn't simply get really look with their pseudorandom number generators during initialization, shuffling, etc. As long as it beats SOTA who cares if it is actually a meaningful improvement? Of course doing multiple runs with a decent bootstrap to get some estimation of the average behavior os often really expensive and really slow, and deadlines are always so tight. There is also the matter that the field converged on a experimentation methodology that isn't actually correct. Once you start reusing test sets your experiments stop being approximations of a random sampling process and you quickly find yourself outside of the grantees provided by statistical theory (this is a similar sort of mistake as the one scientists in other fields do when interpreting p-values). There be dragons out there and statistical demons might come to eat your heart or your network could converge to an implementation of nethack.

Scale also plays into that, of course, and use of private data as the other comment mentioned.

Ultimately Machine Learning research is just too competitive and moves too fast. There are tens of thousands (hundreds maybe?) of people all working on closely related problems, all rushing to publish their results before someone else published something that overlaps too much with their own work. Nobody is going to be as careful as they should, because they can't afford to. It's more profitable to carefully find the minimal publishable amount of work and do that, splitting a result into several small papers you can pump every few months. The first thing that tends to get sacrificed during that process is reliability.
by crowcroft | 2026-03-12 00:06:01+00:00
Not really a comment on laptops, but I recently built a new desktop for the first time in nearly two decades. I'm sure that there has been some innovation in the space, but overall I was surprised that everything just seemed... the exact same?

PCI slots are from the 90s.
DIMM from the 90s.
SATA from the early 00s.
LGA sockets from the mid 00s.
by Vvector | 2026-03-12 00:06:29+00:00
Paper ballots are a must. Vote on a touchscreen, then have the terminal print out a voter-verifiable paper ballot that can also be machine counted.

Make the ballot printout layout a standard format. Then machines from multiple vendors can verify the counts on a subset of the ballots. And as a last resort, the ballots can be hand counted as well.
by VorpalWay | 2026-03-12 00:06:43+00:00
Good question, that I don't fully know the answer to. The rest of the byte code (apart from the primitives that enable looping) already allow expressing a lot. From memory (it has been almost half a year since I last worked on this), you can specify things like "for this 32 bit value, the first two bytes can be found in the middle of RAX, the third byte is found following this chain of pointers, and the final byte is on the stack" without even touching the TC parts.

Basically, my impression was that that the format was flexible enough that I couldn't see why you would need the TC parts in practice. The compilers seemed to agree and not use it in practise (at least gcc and llvm).

This was of interest to me since I was generating BPF code from these (for user space trace points) and BPF is famously and intentionally not TC. I could translate many patterns that do show up in real world code, but not the general case.
by jatins | 2026-03-12 00:06:49+00:00
I know this is being marketed for students and such but honestly even if you are a developer who works primarily with web dev stuff you will be able to do all of it on this device. Or if you are a product manager in a tech company, this is perfect device.

IMO there is a small subset of Mac users today(gamers, local LLM users, editors, mobile devs) for which this won't be the best option
by TheOtherHobbes | 2026-03-12 00:06:56+00:00
You already get this in the UK, and also in other countries, most of which have royal families and associated aristocrats.

There are also - notoriously - foreign-funded influencer, lobbyist, and donor operations.

And the traditional industries - fossil fuels, property, finance, arms - also have a huge say.

The reality is most decisions aren't made in Westminster. Parliament is a device for packaging and legitimising decisions made by the oligarchy. And the House of Lords is largely ceremonial.

It's not there to shape policy, it's there to provide a reward for loyal service to the country's real rulers.

Being in the Lords is a very nice deal. You get up to £371 a day just for turning up, with the option to claim expenses on top of that.

You get access to high quality heavily subsidised food and drink. And you get the status of being a lord, which opens doors if you happen to be someone for whom they weren't already open.
by Manishearth | 2026-03-12 00:07:00+00:00
.... we're talking about serialization here. "convert to a raw string" is sort of the name of the game.

It's a string in a well specified string format. That's typically what you want for serialization.

Temporal is typed; but its serialization helpers aren't, because there's no single way to talk about types across serialization. That's functionality a serialization library may choose to provide, but can't really be designed into the language.
by tomatocracy | 2026-03-12 00:07:12+00:00
The thing is, the reason for the delays and inefficiencies is not really juries. It's mostly much more mundane things like the prison service not sending defendants to court at the right time, translators not turning up when they are supposed to, buildings which are falling apart, technology not working properly, and court time being double-booked. It's an administrative failure, not a problem with the system.

Alongside removing the right to trial by jury, perhaps more alarmingly the government are also planning to remove appeal rights from "minor" cases (from magistrates to the Crown Court). The current statistics are that more than 40% of those appeals are upheld.

The planned changes won't fix any of these things, but it will cause fundamental damage to trust in the system and result in many miscarriages of justice.
by klondike_klive | 2026-03-12 00:07:22+00:00
It's a mess. Do I look in the list of frequently-selected countries and hope to find that we're still in there? Or look for UK? United Kingdom? Great Britain?

I've been foxed before in American forms where I'm forced to select UK but it shows up as GB, even though there is no GB in the list! Every time I come to fill out the form I look at what I did last year and go through the same anti-pattern.