MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jsnell | 2026-03-10 23:33:47+00:00
For example:

The METR time-horizon benchmark shows steady exponential growth. The frontier lab revenue has been growing exponentially from basically the moment they had any revenues. (The latter has confounding factors. For example it doesn't just depend on the quality of the model but on the quality of the apps and products using the model. But the model quality is still the main component, the products seem to pop into existence the moment the necessary model capabilities exist.)
by solarkraft | 2026-03-10 23:33:48+00:00
It’s still an insightful and well written comment, but the LLM-ness does make me wonder whether this part was actually human-intended or just LLM filler:

> The discipline to do it consistently enough that agents can actually retrieve and use it is what's missing, and structuring it for that purpose is genuinely underexplored territory

Because I somewhat agree that discipline may be missing, but I don’t believe it to be a groundbreaking revelation that it’s actually quite easy to tell the LLM to put key reasoning that you give it throughout the conversation into the commits and issue it works on.
by jacquesm | 2026-03-10 23:34:13+00:00
The main difference is humans are learning all the time and models learn batch wise and forget whatever happened in a previous session unless someone makes it part of the training data so there is a massive lag.

Whoever cracks the continuous customized (per user, for instance) learning problem without just extending the context window is going to be making a big splash. And I don't mean cheats and shortcuts, I mean actually tuning the model based on received feedback.
by kikimora | 2026-03-10 23:35:14+00:00
Why would anyone use 200M model when 1B model is available? The company increase its bet with each iteration increasing risks. It blow up at some point because it cannot guarantee 2B return after 1B investment.

To GAAP point - 200M or 1B or 10B is not a loss but cash converted into an asset. It won’t affect the bottom line at all. Unless the company re-evaluates the asset and say it now cost 1M instead of 200M. This would hit the bottom line.
by adrian_b | 2026-03-10 23:35:26+00:00
I would not call PA-RISC boring. Already at launch there was no doubt that it is a better ISA than SPARC or MIPS, and later it was improved. At the time when PA-RISC 2.0 was replaced by Itanium it was not at all clear which of the 2 ISAs is better. The later failures to design high-performance Itanium CPUs make plausible that if HP would have kept PA-RISC 2.0 they might have had more competitive CPUs than with Itanium.

SPARC (formerly called Berkeley RISC) and MIPS were pioneers that experimented with various features or lack of features, but they were inferior from many points of view to the earlier IBM 801.

The RISC ISAs developed later, including ARM, HP PA-RISC and IBM POWER, have avoided some of the mistakes of SPARC and MIPS, while also taking some features from IBM 801 (e.g. its addressing modes), so they were better.
by mananaysiempre | 2026-03-10 23:35:40+00:00
Wait, this is a modern-ish ISA with a software-managed TLB, I didn’t realize that! The manual seems a bit unhappy about that part though:

> In the current version of this architecture specification, TLB refill and consistent maintenance between TLB and page tables are still [sic] all led by software.

https://loongson.github.io/LoongArch-Documentation/LoongArch...
by cryzinger | 2026-03-10 23:35:48+00:00
Measles and chickenpox aren't even similar pathogens. Chickenpox is more closely related to herpes!

(That's also why chickenpox can come back later in life as shingles, the same way cold sores recur... because shingles is reactivated chickenpox, it's not a "relabeled" virus...)
by bri3d | 2026-03-10 23:36:44+00:00
I agree with this, I just don't think I agree with the Beagle approach (CRDT on AST as the source of truth) vs. the Git method (bytewise files as the source of truth) with something alongside.

Like, I think it's way easier to add a parallel construction to Git (via a formal method or even a magic file) which includes the CRDT for the AST than it is to make that the base unit of truth. It still lets you answer and interact at the higher level with "oh, this commit changed $SYM1 to $SYM2" without also destroying byte-level file information that someone finds important, and without changing the main abstraction from the human-space to the computer-space.
by rectang | 2026-03-10 23:37:38+00:00
Haha I have usually found myself on the conservative side of any engineering team I’ve been on, and it’s refreshing to catch some flak for perceived carelessness.

I still make an effort to understand the generated code. If there’s a section I don’t get, I ask the LLM to explain it.

Most of the time it’s just API conventions and idioms I’m not yet familiar with. I have strong enough fundamentals that I generally know what I’m trying to accomplish and how it’s supposed to work and how to achieve it securely.

For example, I was writing some backend code that I knew needed a nonce check but I didn’t know what the conventions were for the framework. So I asked the LLM to add a nonce check, then scanned the docs for the code it generated.
by firecall | 2026-03-10 23:38:57+00:00
Thats a hot take LOL

> https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> In Comments
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

No, I'm saying they are not a 'technical person'.

I know them very well, and they are not a coder, or a 'technical person' by a broad HN definition.

What I'm saying is that we are at the point where technology is so pervasive in our society, and the lure of AI so seductive, that many more people are excited to try things out than I might have expected.

I suppose it has similarities to the early to mid 1980s and the home computing revolution. Where many people thought they should have a computer at home, even if they were not sure what they'd do with it.

Much like the excitement around AI today!
by Findecanor | 2026-03-10 23:39:11+00:00
Because today, getting a fast CPU out it isn't as much an engineering issue as it is about getting the investment for hiring a world-class fab.

The most promising RISC-V companies today have not set out to compete directly with Intel, AMD, Apple or Samsung, but are targeting a niche such as AI, HPC and/or high-end embedded such as automotive.

And you can bet that Qualcomm has RISC-V designs in-house, but only making ARM chips right now because ARM is where the market for smartphone and desktop SoCs is.
Once Google starts allowing RVA23 on Android / ChromeOS, the flood gates will open.
by malfist | 2026-03-10 23:40:00+00:00
Got a project finished early? Well, you didn't insist on the highest standards. Made sure things were held to a high standard? Well, you weren't biased for action.

Were you a knowledge source for the entire team? Well, you weren't learning and being curious. Did you ask a lot of questions to learn everything? Well, then you weren't "are right a lot".

Did you think big and come up with an architecture that saved Amazon a lot of money? Then you weren't inventing and simplifying. Build something simple to get out out the door quick? Well, you weren't thinking big.

Did you act quickly without consulting others to fix an issue? Well you weren't earning trust. Did you consult people to make sure they were happy with the solution? Well you weren't biased for action.

Thats just a few examples, there's so many more
by adgjlsfhk1 | 2026-03-10 23:40:02+00:00
Of your list, Qualcomm and Nvidia are fairly likely to make high perf Riscv cpus. Qualcomm because Arm sued them to try and stop them from designing their own arm chips without paying a lot more money, and Nvidia because they already have a lot of teams making riscv chips, so it seems likely that they will try to unify on the one that doesn't require licensing.
by itishappy | 2026-03-10 23:40:13+00:00
I'm colorblind, but I ended up getting a 0.0028 "much better than average" score. Hmm... Fun site!

To promote some further reading:

OKLab isn't actually a perceptually uniform colorspace. It's better than others, but it was specifically chosen as a tradeoff between accuracy and speed (hence the name OK). When you start digging this deep, you quickly learn that we have yet to invent any perceptually uniform colorspaces; even the most precise models we have end up using fits and approximations. Color has some really inconvenient properties like depending strongly on brightness and background. Frankly, given the differences in human biology (having orders of magnitude differences in relative numbers of each cone, for instance), it's surprising we agree as much as we do! Human color perception is an endless pit of complexity.

(Note, I don't say any of this to detract from what you've built here, merely expand. Your site is awesome and I love it!)
by nostrademons | 2026-03-10 23:41:14+00:00
It's interesting that this article is funded by Francis Fukuyama, who famously wrote the "The End of History" [1] in 1992, which argued that the rules-based liberal democratic world order had won and there was no more need for geopolitical realism. This article represents a complete repudiation of his past beliefs, and basically an admission that he was wrong.

Anyway, just as how Fukuyama was right for ~20 years and then very, very wrong, I suspect this essay is too. The U.S. mapped out all the game theory around nuclear war in the 50s and 60s. If you have too many states with nuclear weapons, nuclear war becomes inevitable, just like if you have too many firms in a market a price war becomes inevitable. That's why the U.S. and other nuclear powers have put so much effort into nuclear non-proliferation. North Korea may have been right in the short-term national interest sense to pursue and continue its nuclear weapons program, but the end result here is that most of humanity is going to die in a nuclear war, and we won't have such things as states and nations afterwards.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Las...
by 15155 | 2026-03-10 23:41:28+00:00
> That was literally Nazi Germany's strategy for defeating Britain.

And this strategy was enormously effective. Absent U.S. intervention, Europe was fucked.

> The Allies just made ships faster than they could be sunk.

Not "the Allies" - just one Ally, separated by an entire ocean. No such separation exists today.

> Today the US has 55 fast attack submarines, each of which can carry about 50 torpedos at a time. So with 100% of your subs deployed you can sink maybe 250 ships

We had torpedo bombers in 1940, as well, submarines aren't the only ASW mechanism that exists. How many sunken ships in each port will bring them to a grinding halt? Are they magically going to tug millions of tons of steel out of these harbors?

> China produces 15 ships per day

When their shipbuilding operations aren't strategically bombed into oblivion, sure.

> it can import food from its neighbors by land connections

Now it's a World War - why would this be allowed?

> grows 700 million tons of grain per year

With several hundred million of those tons of grain (along with vast amounts of other relevant food calories - livestock, etc.) being grown in the Yangtze basin, courtesy of the fact that the Three Gorges Dam is allowed to exist. Why would the U.S. allow that dam to remain intact? This one structure is a cheat code: knock out 50% of enemy food production, displace or kill hundreds of millions of people creating a mass humanitarian crisis and subsequent Cultural Revolution, and hobble huge amounts of industrial production. Short of theoretical attacks like EMP, no such non-WMD single-point-of-failure exists anywhere in the United States.

Nuclear response is truly the only thing keeping the peace.
by dkechag | 2026-03-10 23:42:00+00:00
The primes one is my least favourite one indeed, I left it in just because I happened to include it in the very first version and I am thinking it just counts for 5% in the end...
The regex ones are "micro" yet quite important, dkbench it's a Perl (and C)-based benchmark (reflects our main code), and the regex engine is the most highly optimized part of the language so regex speed is a good representation of text processing speed in Perl.
As I said, the overall score correlates well to SPEC/Geekbench so as a suite it works well.
For compiler comparisons I usually compile a language like python or perl as a test, but I did not want to add something like that, to keep it fast with many smaller benchmarks.
by spartanatreyu | 2026-03-10 23:42:03+00:00
It's nice, but it's not quite ready for use yet.

It's not supported on the previous main version of Safari, so everyone following the "last two major versions" of browser support rule can't use them.

Also, it's currently limited to only dialogs and popovers (and custom events, but in those cases you need js anyway).

It'll be more useful once it can control:

- details (open, close, toggle)

- video (play, pause, toggle play state, set seek point, mute, set volume)

- select (open/close widget, set/unset value(s))

- input (open/close widget, set/unset value(s))

- all elements (add/remove/toggle/set a class/attribute)
by 2001zhaozhao | 2026-03-10 23:42:10+00:00
I agree with this. For the last ~4 years I have been working to turn my Minecraft server into a free browser game on a custom engine.

Though in Roblox's case, there's two additional factors helping the success of games on its platform besides being free to play

- Roblox has become the de-facto portal from which lots of people play games by default, especially on mobile devices like tablets where discovery for other games (that aren't P2W and can spam ads) is very poor

- Multiplayer games are exceptionally easy to develop on Roblox. (With a standalone game you have to grind on an engine for years like what I'm doing. I'm developing thousands of LOC per weekend with a multi-agent setup and there is just so much necessary complexity that launching an alpha build will take months.)
by cookiengineer | 2026-03-10 23:42:19+00:00
I didn't know that this is a mystery?

A lot of old German sailor maps (e.g. from the Hamburg or Bremen maritime museum exhibitions) contain Azimutal angle descriptions. The globe on an azimutal map is projected from the North Star in the center.

This way you could more easily calculate the angles you would need to use the Sextant (which was focused on the brightest star, the North star). They also used circles (the tool) to calculate relative speeds, current drift etc with it.

I thought this was kind of common knowledge, as a lot of museums have that sorta thing for children in their exhibitions to try out.
by aeonik | 2026-03-10 23:44:13+00:00
I thought fascist was the literal opposite of this. Where the population is indoctrinated and is more embedded into war machine. They kinda become one.

Vanilla authoritarianism, or other forms of government don't need approval from citizens. Oligarchy, monarch, etc... but at the end of the day, even a dictator needs to keep some critical level of people happy.

Classic CGPGray series on this:

https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs?si=3LmAGcWjeVWumxsz
by 8note | 2026-03-10 23:44:49+00:00
At least with my experience at amazon it wasnt.

if i wanted, i could queue up weeks worth of review in a couple days, but that's not getting the whole team more productive.

Spending more time on documents and chatting proved much more useful for getting more output overall.

Even without LLMs ive been nearby and on teams where review burden from developers building away team code was already so high that youd need to bake an extra month into your estimates for getting somebody to actually look.
by clickety_clack | 2026-03-10 23:44:50+00:00
Really good data only goes back a couple or more decades, so any data you put in your model has only been influenced by the kinds of things we’ve seen in that time. Impact of a hot war between major powers? The gold standard? Stagflation? Invention of the car or train? Transition of major world powers to democracy or communism? All these events left almost no data compared to today, to say nothing of run-of-the-mill changes in styles of monetary policy, economic drivers or shifts in style of government.
by type0 | 2026-03-10 23:45:18+00:00
> Iranian-made drones are killing people in Ukraine

Ultimately it's still the drone operators the that use them who do the killings and atrocities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_safari_(terror_campaign)

Iranians built a huge factory in Russia, don't think they supply drones now but probably many components are still supplied from Iran.
by jjuliano | 2026-03-10 23:46:52+00:00
I remember I traded my SNES console for a 9.6bps modem. Spent my high-school nights connecting to BBSs, learning Linux, downloading weird BBS files, door games, fidonet. Experience modem speed progressing to 28.8, 33.3 and finally 56k (and I'm still at 9.6k lol). And the joy of trying to use a winmodem on Linux. Those are the days, Windows 3.1, 95, Timbuktu, pcAnywhere, ParitionMagic, Encarta, SimCity, Warcraft, C&C, ICQ, mIRC.
by sitharus | 2026-03-10 23:47:01+00:00
Because the other commenter wasn’t posting the actual answer, I went to find the documentation about checking for integer overflow and it’s right here https://docs.riscv.org/reference/isa/unpriv/rv32.html#2-1-4-...

And what did I find? Yep that code is right from the manual for unsigned integer overflow.

For signed addition if you know one of the signs (eg it’s a compile time constant) the manual says

addi t0, t1, +imm
blt t0, t1, overflow

But the general case for signed addition if you need to check for overflow and don’t have knowledge of the signs

add t0, t1, t2
slti t3, t2, 0
slt t4, t0, t1
bne t3, t4, overflow

From what I’ve read most native compiled code doesn’t really check for overflows in optimised builds, but this is more of an issue for JavaScript et al where they may detect the overflow and switch the underlying type? I’m definitely no expert on this.
by wtallis | 2026-03-10 23:47:13+00:00
The idea of giving spammers a second chance seems truly bizarre to me. Have you ever un-blocked an email address that you previously blacklisted for spamming you? Do you think recipients of spam from this company want to give them a second chance?

I'm not necessarily saying the people behind this should be completely blacklisted from the entire industry, but when a company earns a place on my block list for behavior like that, it's permanent. They need to start over with a different business model. Failure of the company is a reasonable and fair consequence for such scandalous behavior, especially for a company at such an early stage.
by generallyjosh | 2026-03-10 23:47:58+00:00
Did it make any mistakes on your taxes?

Personally, I know coding pretty well. So when I'm using it for coding, I can spot most of its mistakes / misunderstandings

I would not trust using it on a complex domain I'm not super familiar with, like doing taxes

A mistake here is pretty high cost (getting audited, and/or having to pay a bunch in penalties)
by chimeracoder | 2026-03-10 23:48:13+00:00
> I've yet to come across anything I want or need outside banking or government use where age verification benefits me, or is so useful/important that I would willingly hand over critical secret documents

So far. As these laws proliferate (and companies continue complying in advance), at this rate, it won't be long before you can't meaningfully do anything on the Internet otherwise.
by mdasen | 2026-03-10 23:48:40+00:00
If this does bypass their own (and others') anti-AI crawl measures, it'd basically mean that the only people who can't crawl are those without money.

We're creating an internet that is becoming self-reinforcing for those who already have power and harder for anyone else. As crawling becomes difficult and expensive, only those with previously collected datasets get to play. I certainly understand individual sites wanting to limit access, but it seems unlikely that they're limiting access to the big players - and maybe even helping them since others won't be able to compete as well.
by anonnon | 2026-03-10 23:49:04+00:00
> Odd choice of a comment to post this reply to.

How? They claimed LLMs somehow enabled them to write more code in the span of 3.5 years (assuming they started with ChatGPT's introduction) than they would be able to write in the span of decades. No studies have shown this. But at least one study did show that LLM devs overestimate how productive these systems make them.
by mergeshield | 2026-03-10 23:49:06+00:00
The signal-to-noise problem is real, but I think framing it as a "bubble" confuses two different products being sold under the same name.

Product A: "AI looks at your diff and leaves comments." This is getting commoditized fast. GitHub Copilot does it, Anthropic just launched it, and every startup in the space does some version of it. The value ceiling is low because it's fundamentally a linting++ problem with better language models.

Product B: "AI-native governance for when AI agents write production code." This is a different problem. When 41% of commits are AI-assisted and Dependabot, Renovate, Copilot, Cursor, Claude Code, and Devin are all opening PRs on the same repo, the question isn't "are there bugs in this diff." It's: what's the risk profile of this change? Which agent wrote it and do we trust that agent? Should this auto-merge or need human review? What's the approval workflow?

The bubble is in Product A. Product B barely exists yet, and it's where the actual value is for engineering teams trying to ship at AI speed without losing governance. The Jane Street example in this thread is interesting - their model works because they have an extremely homogeneous engineering culture. Most teams don't. They need policy-driven automation that encodes their standards.
Show HN: Mumpix – Local-first AI infrastructure and $1B developer grant
by carreraellla | 2026-03-10 23:49:41+00:00
Hi HN,

I’m working on Mumpix, a local-first infrastructure stack for building AI systems that don’t depend on centralized cloud platforms.

The goal is to make AI memory, state, and infrastructure run anywhere: phones, browsers, desktops, servers, or edge devices.

The stack currently has four layers:

MumpixDB
Structured hierarchical database designed for AI memory and application state.

Examples of keys:

memory^assistant^context
memory^assistant^recent
workflow^task^42^status

Features:
• hierarchical key model
• prefix scans
• watchers for state changes
• deterministic snapshots
• link resolution
• generation-based sync

⸻

MumpixFS

A file substrate designed to integrate with the memory layer.
Handles files, aliases, and version references.

Example:

files^alias^report
files^versions^report^latest

⸻

MumpixSL

The system-level runtime and daemon (mumpixd) that exposes the stack as shared infrastructure through transports like:
• Unix sockets
• REST
• WebSocket
• D-Bus
• Binder (Android)

This lets multiple applications share a single memory system.

⸻

MumpixFE

Frontend runtime that runs MumpixDB directly in the browser, allowing the same memory model to work client-side.

⸻

Why this exists

Right now most AI systems rely heavily on centralized APIs and infrastructure.

That works well for model inference, but memory and application state don’t necessarily need to live in the cloud.

A lot of agent systems today store state in:
• prompts
• vector databases
• ad-hoc JSON blobs

MumpixDB is an attempt to build a deterministic structured memory layer that applications and agents can depend on.

⸻

$1B infrastructure grant

To encourage adoption we’re also launching a Mumpix AI Infrastructure Grant.

The idea is to allocate $1B worth of infrastructure and developer resources over time to projects building:
• AI agents
• local-first AI applications
• edge AI systems
• privacy-preserving AI tools

The base platform will remain free to build on.

⸻

Feedback welcome

This is still early and I’d love feedback from the HN community on:
• the hierarchical key model
• daemon vs in-process usage
• browser runtime (MumpixFE)
• integration patterns for AI agents

Happy to answer questions.