MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by reliabilityguy | 2026-03-11 23:37:25+00:00
China has both the nukes and ballistic missiles. Obviously, the calculus for the war with China completely different: you create a situation where China prefers not to attack Taiwan.

> Maybe in five years the regime would have collapsed during a succession crisis. Perhaps this perhaps that.

Maybe, but the war in Iran is not about Iran itself, at least from the US standpoint. It's about cutting China off from cheap oil that they buy from Iran with a huge discount. For Trump, to get a win is enough to get a new supreme leader who is more aligned with the west, like in Venezuela.

> A failed Iranian state might be the site of horrible atrocities to come.

Why would it fail? Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all. If you analyze Iraq, Syria, and Libya pre-war and Iran pre-war you would see that none of the conditions that lead these countries to become failed states exist in Iran. IF you are interested, I can elaborate.

> For a post that seems to contemplate the future you seem to exhibit a strange lack of reflection.

I am not.
by anonMcKinsey | 2026-03-11 23:37:54+00:00
"US produce... mostly not very bright people?"

The top universities are not setup to mold intellectually rigorous and curious people. It's setup to make hard working, and increasingly sycophant men.

My lab mate is a former drug addict with two years of art school. Easily more intellectually curious than anyone I met at McKinsey.
by joshwget | 2026-03-11 23:38:00+00:00
Hightouch | Multiple Roles | Remote | Full-time | $180,000 - $320,000 USD + equity

Hightouch is building an AI platform for marketing and growth teams. It’s not just about the LLM hype though!

1) You’ll get to work with a sharp team and we won’t waste your time in interviews - across three interviews we assess based on systems design conversations and a manager chat, no leetcode

2) Real marketing teams at companies you’ve heard of have used our agentic products to plan, design, and ship campaigns in days, instead of the usual weeks/months

3) The foundation that we’ve built over the past 5 years - building on top of data warehouses like Snowflake and Databricks, and solving some complex distributed systems and real-time streaming systems problems on top - give us an edge over legacy players who require complex data integrations

4) We’re doing great in the market - we doubled our ARR over the last year and plan to do it again

Check out our open roles here:

Product Engineer: https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/hightouch/jobs/4620430004

Software Engineer, Customer Studio Backend: https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/hightouch/jobs/4782625004

Software Engineer, Distributed Systems: https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/hightouch/jobs/4782632004

Software Engineer, Control Plane: https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/hightouch/jobs/5426891004

Software Engineer, AI Agents: https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/hightouch/jobs/5542602004

Software Engineer, Journeys: https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/hightouch/jobs/5698845004

Developer Productivity Engineer: https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/hightouch/jobs/5701750004

Forward Deployed Marketing Data Scientist: https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/hightouch/jobs/5718912004

Software Engineer, Streaming Systems: https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/hightouch/jobs/5731011004

Web Engineer: https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/hightouch/jobs/5734303004

Principal Engineer, Streaming Systems: https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/hightouch/jobs/5735541004

Head of Machine Learning: https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/hightouch/jobs/5775517004

Software Engineer - AI Productivity: https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/hightouch/jobs/5809895004
by xp84 | 2026-03-11 23:38:23+00:00
People already in the Apple Store have already chosen to probably buy an Apple computer, and they all have approximately equally great displays to the layperson (myself included -- I can't tell an important difference between my M1 MacBook Air's screen and the one on the nicest MacBook Pro in the Apple Store).

Go into a non-Apple space though, where money is not "no object," and see how many people would choose a 16-17" 1920x1080 screen over a 13" MacBook Neo purely because of the big screen, nevermind that the Mac has roughly 4x the number of pixels. I guarantee you, it's more than you think.

My only point was that yes, the MacBook Neo wins on quality construction and aesthetics (but I'll argue NOT on durability since plastic laptops can take a lot more incidental bumps than Macs will), cool factor/perceived eliteness, and screen quality. I am sure there are plenty of people who care about those things, but I think most of those people are already buying a Mac today.

I suspect we'll actually see a modest cannibalization of those casual but cheap Mac users from the MacBook Air, since most people don't really understand how to evaluate RAM and storage size, but a lot of them will have a bad experience after filling the disk.
by dwohnitmok | 2026-03-11 23:38:31+00:00
Arbitrary filtering of candidates doesn't reduce the effort that it takes. Let's say 1 out of 1000 of the candidates you see is what you need. The total amount of effort to find the right candidate is still the same. But throwing out half the resumes just doubles the amount of time until you find the candidate you need (you just spread lower effort over a longer time).

On the other hand if you "raise your bar" (let's say you do so by some method that makes it twice as expensive to judge a candidate; twice as likely to reject a candidate that would fit what you need, i.e. doubles your false negative rate; but cuts down on the number of applications by 10x, so that now 1 out of 100 candidates are what you need, which isn't that far off the mark for certain kinds of things), you cut down the effort (and time) you need to spend on finding a candidate by over double.

EDIT: On reflection I think we're mainly talking past each other. You are thinking of a scenario where all stages take roughly the same amount of effort/time, whereas tmorel and I are thinking of a scenario where different stages take different amounts of effort/time. If you "raise the bar" on the stages that take less amount of effort/time (assuming that those stages still have some amount of selection usefulness) then you will reduce the overall amount of time/energy spent on hiring someone that meets your final bar.
by bsder | 2026-03-11 23:39:15+00:00
That is conflating two VERY different numbers. 60% is percentage of reported workplace injuries. 9% is of all adults.

That makes me suspect that the total number of RSI cases is much larger right now than from back in 1990. This would back up my assertion that RSI simply became a mainstream medical diagnosis.

And, do note that the data is confounded by being taken during Covid.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr189.pdf
by JumpCrisscross | 2026-03-11 23:39:24+00:00
> in this subthread we are talking about republics which you are keen to mention china isn't

This subthread is part of the broader discussion. There are lots of Reddit corners for debating whether America is a republic. I haven’t seen any novel arguments in a while. The argument for whether an American AI is useful out of an American republic, its dying republic or even its embers is the germane one here, and I think it speaks decisively in favor against the one that’s proudly autocratic without organized dissent.
by xyzzy123 | 2026-03-11 23:39:27+00:00
Iraq I will grant you, those sanctions were a travesty. Cuba bad too.

In general, I don't find the argument that there were 38 million deaths from sanctions very convicing. That estimate is based on excess deaths and correlation. But it doesn't establish causal structure.

What I mean is, those studies don't have the power to distinguish between (regime -> sanctions -> deaths) vs (regime -> deaths + regime -> sanctions).

I would definitely agree that sanctions cost lives (e.g. unavailability of specialist medicines) but I don't see a specific mechanism whereby they cause "millions" of deaths without a complete failure of local governance.
by ASalazarMX | 2026-03-11 23:40:04+00:00
> I think it's quite natural to link AI summaries like that.

I think you misspelled "convenient". More than the small effort that it takes one to share generated text, one has to consider the effort of who knows how many humans that will use their time to read it.

If a LLM wrote something you don't know about, you're not qualified to judge how accurate it is, don't post it. If you do know the subject, you could summarize it more succinctly so you can save your readers many man hours.

If LLMs evolve to the point where they don't hallucinate, lie, or write verbosely, they will likely be more welcome.
by abdelhousni | 2026-03-11 23:40:28+00:00
"Paxton had long avoided a "facile and polemical use of the fascist label" for Donald Trump, rather preferring "a more unemotional term, such as oligarchy or plutocracy." However, Paxton's assessment had changed by the 2021 publication of an opinion article on Newsweek in which Paxton characterized Trump's comments before the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol – which to Paxton "crosses a red line" – as the deciding factor in changing his view.[19]"

via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Paxton
by jychang | 2026-03-11 23:40:28+00:00
The numbers look about right. Opus 4.5 is about 1.5x the size of Sonnet 4.6, and Opus 4/4.1 is about 5x the size of Sonnet 4.5/4.6.

Note that Opus 4.5 is about 1/3 the size of Opus 4/4.1 (and 1/3 the price in the API)
by riversflow | 2026-03-11 23:40:51+00:00
Here is the announcement on X.

https://x.com/antigravity/status/2031835833716625883

They retoactively reduced (and introduced for Pro3.1) their weekly quotas. I've been building with Antigravity on a Pro subscription and having all of my quotas other than Gemini flash at 0 with a nearly 5 day reset when I went to start today was a massive downer. Probably going to look at switching to Claude Code. I really can't understand how Google can't afford to bury Anthropic, they should have a massive hardware advantage.
by brailsafe | 2026-03-11 23:40:53+00:00
> That being said, it's nice having 64gb of RAM, a fast CPU and an Nvidia card (we build stuff that runs on CUDA). Build times are quick and I can run some of our more demanding test suites without RAM filling up and slowing everything down.

No question there, more RAM and a specifically CUDA capable card make sense. At a big corp gig I did years ago, they issued me this atrocious HP thing they must have bought in bulk. I really tried to be optimistic, since it was just a tool and I was otherwise grateful for the work, and I'm sure the ram and CPU situation was fine, but for my use it only actively detracted from my ability to get things done. It pretty much had to be docked at all times, the screen had one viewing angle, Windows was functionally detrimental for my workflow (frontend web at that time), and the battery life was just sad.

ThinkPads have always seemed a bit better, even their more chonkier versions.
by DetroitThrow | 2026-03-11 23:40:55+00:00
Flag as AI would be incredible and is probably unique to software-focused forums. Saves everyone who wants it a lot of time. Still allows cool content to reach the front page with some visibility or escape some moderation queue.

Thanks for not standing still on this issue. The world is changing, fast, and glad HN responded quicker than some forums on a cogent stance.
by tialaramex | 2026-03-11 23:41:14+00:00
And for many years now, even the remaining minority of hereditary peers in the chamber are elected to that job, albeit not by the general public. My guess is that all those who are actually useful will get "grandfathered in" by this legislation making them life peers so that they can keep doing the exact same job. Many life peers (who are all entitled to be there) rarely attend, so it would be kinda silly if Lord Snootington, the fifteenth Earl of Whatever is kicked out for being a hereditary peer despite also being the linchpin of an important committee and one of the top 100 attendees in the Lords, while they keep Bill Smith, a business tycoon who got his peerage for giving a politician a sack of cash and hasn't been in London, never mind the House of Lords, since 2014...
by hatthew | 2026-03-11 23:41:25+00:00
When I'm running a lot of model training workflows concurrently, I can spend a small but noticeable amount of my day just clicking through links to see current progress and logs of any errors. If an AI would be capable of understanding the relatively complex UI, at least enough to find the right links to click, it could make a status report that takes me 15 seconds to read, and from that alone would save $2000 of labor annually.

I think their numbers of $1.6M and 3.25 years is still probably a massive overestimate, but the order of magnitude seems plausible.
by davorak | 2026-03-11 23:41:55+00:00
Are you up for sharing details?

> I would hate to see a culture that discourages AI assistance.

Mostly I think the push back is about ai assistance in its current form. It can get in the way of communicating rather than assisting. The cost though is mostly borne by the readers and those not using the AI for assistance. I have seen this happen when the ai adds info and thoughts that were tangental to the original author and I think, but I can not verify times where an author seems to try to dig down on the details but seemingly can not.
by eschaton | 2026-03-11 23:42:24+00:00
You stated that you will fraudulently misrepresent the origin of contributions you make to projects if you feel like it, and that nobody has any recourse. That’s you LARPing, by thinking there’s no recourse for fraud.

First of all, I don’t take anonymous or pseudonymous contributions to any of my projects, so if you had made any contributions I would have your real-world identity. That should tell you right away that recourse is possible.

Then, if I learned or had reasonable suspicion that your real-world identity mapped to Hacker News user “orf,” I would instruct my attorney to send a formal contributor agreement to you to sign within a certain period of time that certifies that you are indeed the sole author of all of the content you submitted to the project, and that you did not copy it from another codebase without proper attribution or license, or use an LLM to write it.

If you refused to sign such an agreement, or signed it and were discovered to be lying, I would file a lawsuit for the cost of having having to remove your contributions for possible fraudulent misrepresentation of their origin, for the cost of having to hire one or more developers to recreate any any important downstream work that depended upon your contributions using clean-room techniques, and for punitive damages to ensure you were dissuaded from making fraudulent misrepresentations in the future.

That’s not LARPing, that’s what any business will do in the event of a possible breach of contract. Just because many open source projects don’t have someone like me involved with the financial resources to pursue such a suit as far as necessary doesn’t mean that none do.
by rishflab | 2026-03-11 23:43:22+00:00
I don't understand the push to make the browser a tool for securely running general purpose applications. This is the job of the OS. We keep building layers on top of layers of abstraction instead of fixing or improving what we have.

I think web apps are dead anyway and the browser is heading towards being a legacy software. The future is small ephemeral UIs generated on the fly by LLMs that have access to datasources. WASM is too late.
by johng | 2026-03-11 23:43:32+00:00
I had used OS 9 and older versions at school but never owned one and had no interest in owning a mac. Eventually I started hearing about OS X online and that it was UNIX based and became very interested. At the time my primary desktop was a PC with Windows, and my secondary was a PC running Linux. My friend needed money and sold me his G4 Mac Tower and I wiped it and reinstalled OS X as my "third" machine on the desk. Within a week, it had moved to be the 2nd machine and then a week after that it moved to be my primary machine. I've been using Mac's as my primary machine ever since then and keeping a PC only for gaming. Now Linux is getting good enough that it can run pretty much any game except for games that require kernel level anti-cheat, secure boot, etc...

OS X was truly beautiful. I still look at it and think it looks great... if it looked like that today I'd be fine with it. Great memories learning how to use it, and being amazed that to install an app all I had to do was drag it to the Applications folder. What magic compared to every other OS at the time.
by kl33 | 2026-03-11 23:43:33+00:00
Long-time lurker.

Personally I stopped using LLMs much from around 6 months ago. I was using them regularly prior to that.

I noticed these dimensions of myself increased:

- Patience
- Focus
- Ability to hold concepts and reason for longer

and other related qualities improved.

My personal experience tells me they do degrade or hinder oneself from operating maximally. Some may be more sensitive than others - we aren't all the same.

But one thing for sure - younger generations will be more sensitive as they are already exposed to products that are designed to erode their self-control.
by languid-photic | 2026-03-11 23:44:00+00:00
makes sense! we wrote something yesterday about the weaknesses of test-based evals like swe-bench [1]

they are definitely useful but they miss the things that are hard to encode in tests, like spec/intent alignment, scope creep, adherence to codebase patterns, team preferences (risk tolerance, etc)

and those factors are really important. which means that test-evals should be relied upon more as weak/directional priors than as definitive measures of real-world usefulness

[1] https://voratiq.com/blog/test-evals-are-not-enough/
by brailsafe | 2026-03-11 23:44:16+00:00
Kind of an interesting idea. Only the portability but none of the mobile computing capability.

It does kind of seem like, outside a few select models, the PC market just gets the laptop part of laptops so so wrong. Bad touchpads, bad screens, no battery life, unpleasant industrial design usually, crammed with crapware and other bullshit. I hand it to the few companies that do try harder to remedy these.
by Scubabear68 | 2026-03-11 23:44:22+00:00
The signature check is actually not uncommon, particularly if the vote is contested or a recount done.

We had a vote thrown out of an election several years ago, the woman died right after the election, the signature on the card looked nothing like hers and was probably done by her daughter.

That said all indications are voter fraud is not any kind of wide spread problem in the United States.
by godelski | 2026-03-11 23:44:27+00:00
I definitely think all these are important, even if in different ways. For the subtle (and even not so subtle) misunderstandings it matters who misunderstands. For the most part, I don't think we should concern ourselves with non-experts. We do need science communicators, but this is a different job (I'm quite annoyed at those on HN who critique arxiv papers for being too complex while admitting they aren't researchers themselves). We write papers to communicate to peers, not the public. If we were to write to the latter each publication would have to be prepended by several textbooks worth of material. But if it is another expert misunderstanding, then I think there's something quite valuable there. IFF the other expert is acting in good faith (i.e. they are doing more than a quick read and actually taking their time with the work) then I think it highlights ambiguity. I think the best way to approach this is distinguish by how prolific the misunderstanding is. If it is uncommon, well... we're human and no matter how smart you are you'll produce mountains of evidence to the contrary (we all do stupid shit). But if the misunderstanding is prolific then we can be certain that ambiguity exists, and it is worth resolving. I've seen exactly what you've seen as well as misunderstandings leading to discoveries. Sometimes our idiocracy can be helpful lol.

But in any case, I don't know how we figure out which category of failures it is without it being published. If no one else reads it it substantially reduces the odds of finding the problem.

FWIW, I'm highly in favor of a low bar to publishing. The goal of publishing is to communicate to our peers. I'm not sure why we get so fixated on these things like journal prestige. That's missing the point. My bar is: 1) it is not obviously wrong, 2) it is not plagiarized (obviously or not), 3) it is useful to someone. We do need some filters, but there's already natural filters beyond the journals and conferences. I mean we're all frequently reading "preprints" already, right? I think one of the biggest mistakes we make is conflate publication with correctness. We can't prove correctness anywhere, science is more about the process of elimination. It's silly to think that the review process could provide correctness. It can (imperfectly) invalidate works, but not validate them. It isn't just the public that seems to have this misunderstanding...
by dylan604 | 2026-03-11 23:44:37+00:00
If you think a site with only 209 visitors in the past 30 days is going to move the needle, then I've got news for you. Especially if bots are the main source of that visitors count. That's very very close to the number of people visiting your site being you, you, and maybe your mom type of numbers. After that, it'll be skiddies and bots. Anybody that's run their own site has been there, but let's not make it out to be some grandiose site that will determine Google page ranking.
by verdverm | 2026-03-11 23:44:51+00:00
Simon Willison published something for turning Claude Convos into something publishable. [1] I haven't tried it, so cannot speak to the ergonomics.

Where to post it? Any blog site, probably a good few Show HN too. Will anyone read it? I haven't read anyone else's, I'm more inclined to dock them reputation for suggesting I read their Ai session. Snippets of weird things shared on socials were interesting to me early on, but I'm over that now too.

[1] https://simonwillison.net/2025/Dec/25/claude-code-transcript...
by xenadu02 | 2026-03-11 23:45:22+00:00
True which is why I posted the caveat. It is possible that the prices we are seeing are legitimate market dynamics. I just think given past history we should be skeptical of that. It smells like market manipulation to me.

Of course given the dynamics of business these days and how financialized these companies are it wouldn't surprise me if this is also just a result of refusal to invest capex in expansion. So long as the other 2-5 players in the market do the same there's no benefit to expanding or lowering prices. We all just sit on our hands and let market forces raise prices (and profit) for us.

Whatever the case it seems capitalism has gone off the rails in multiple ways.
by HyMasa | 2026-03-11 23:45:49+00:00
I built a simple dynamic macroeconomic model to explore how large-scale AI automation might affect economic stability.

The model is calibrated to historical FRED data and uses systems-style stability analysis while gradually increasing the level of AI automation.

One result is a potential economic “stall speed” at 32.7% AI automation, where the system becomes significantly more fragile to shocks.

The article describes the modeling framework, calibration process, and simulation results.

Curious what others think about the modeling approach.
by xp84 | 2026-03-11 23:45:58+00:00
“It should never be a gallery of old boys’ networks, nor a place where titles, many of which were handed out centuries ago, hold power over the will of the people.”

Nobody tell these extreme optimists about America. Replace 'titles' with 'generational wealth' and that's precisely what not just our upper house, but most of our government, is. And they're all elected!