MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by user_7832 | 2026-03-14 15:36:14+00:00
Tangential - The funny thing is, broadcasting Bluetooth to multiple devices isn't a new thing at all. Back in 2017, Motorola did it on their phone [1]. No extra hardware afaik, it was purely a software solution.

Of course, the company disappeared, and now in 2026, we have lesser tech than we had back in 2017.

If you're wondering "Well, how did a company disappear?!", feel free to take the most corpo/capitalist-dystopian guess.

If you guessed "They got bought out by Google - presumably for IP - with the founders joining Big G, and Google of course promptly shelved it and did absolutely diddly squat with it", congratulations, you win... frustration and disappointment, I suppose!

1 - https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/the-most-exciting-th...
by tim333 | 2026-03-14 15:36:18+00:00
As someone not very worried about privacy I don't use that line but think it's worth while using some reasoning as to the likelihood of bad stuff happening. Cambodia 1975 - terrible data but chances of genocide very high. Google knowing what I'm up to now, very likely but probable harm beyond seeing an ad, very low. I think sometimes people worry about the wrong things on that kind of basis.

Re the current US government I'd be more worried about their cruelty as illustrated by ICE, DOGE etc.
by sunir | 2026-03-14 15:36:22+00:00
That came later than the beginning. Workhouses came before the loom. You can see this in the progression of quality of things like dinner plates over time.

Making clay pottery can be simple. But to make “fine china” with increasingly sophisticated ornamentation and strength became more complex over time. Now you can go to ikea and buy plates that would be considered expensive luxuries hundreds of years ago.
by izelnakri | 2026-03-14 15:36:33+00:00
I got tired of test frameworks that require config files, plugins, and 50MB of dependencies just to run assert.equal. So I built QUnitX.

The pitch is simple: one test file, three runtimes, no changes.

import { module, test } from 'qunitx';

module('Math', () => {
test('addition', (assert) => {
assert.equal(2 + 2, 4);
});
});

node --test math-test.js
deno test math-test.js
qunitx math-test.js # browser, headless

Why QUnit?

I know the reaction: "QUnit? That jQuery thing from 2008?" — yes, exactly. That's the point. It's been solving real edge cases for 16 years that Jest/Vitest are still catching up to. assert.deepEqual correctly handles circular references, typed arrays, Maps, Sets, prototype chains. assert.step / assert.verifySteps catches missing async callbacks that other frameworks silently swallow. assert.expect(n) fails if the wrong number of assertions ran — invaluable when async code paths are involved.

What QUnitX actually does:

- Wraps Node's built-in node:test runner with the QUnit lifecycle (no Jest, no Vitest, nothing extra)
- Wraps Deno's native BDD runner the same way
- Browser path is a thin re-export of QUnit itself — full browser UI with filterable, shareable test URLs

TypeScript works out of the box (node --import=tsx/esm --test). Coverage via npx c8. Watch mode via --watch. Zero runtime dependencies.

The browser demo is what I'm most proud of — the QUnit UI lets you filter to any test and share the URL, so your colleague sees the exact same filtered view. We've been using this in production for years and it never gets old.

Repo: https://github.com/izelnakri/qunitx
by arty_prof | 2026-03-14 15:36:59+00:00
In terms of the Tech Debt it is obviously allow to make it a lot. But this is controllable if analysing in depth what AI is doing.

I feel I become more like a Product than Software Engineer when reviewing AI code constantly satisfying my needs .

And benefits provided by AI are too good. It allows to prototype near to anything in short terms which is superb.
Like any tool in right hands can be a dealbreaker.
by fao_ | 2026-03-14 15:37:02+00:00
> (TBF, BT ones also drop packets in RF-noisy environments, but they seem to be more resistant to it)

I've experienced the opposite. The microwave will knock out my bluetooth completely, but the wired headphones are solid but in a decade of using both wired and wireless headphones I've never heard anything weird or staticy through the wired ones. My wired headphones were the Shure SE215, and now after a decade of using those they broke, so I have the Kiwi Ears Belle.
by simonh | 2026-03-14 15:37:05+00:00
They are supporting and encouraging Russia’s war against Ukraine. They also provide diplomatic cover and economic support for the Iranian regime. They promote nationalist radicalism and harassment of nonconformists on foreign campuses. They ruthlessly suppress dissent, or even just non Han ethic identity and implement racist eugenic policies in their regions.

The comment you replied to referred to Taiwan as existing alongside China as a country. That’s a crime in mainland China.
by actisharma | 2026-03-14 15:37:46+00:00
Hi HN,

I'm Aakarsh — law graduate, applied psychology background, now working in AI strategy.

I built Human Layer AI (https://youtube.com/@HumanLayerAI) because I kept noticing a gap: most AI discourse is either fear-driven or hype-driven, and almost none of it seriously examines what happens in the cognitive, legal, and psychological layer when AI lands in real professional work.

The show is interview-based, 15-22 min episodes. Guests so far have included an ex-Google PM on enterprise AI failure modes, a psychiatrist on AI in mental health contexts, and researchers on professional displacement.

Trailer (1:04): https://youtu.be/BcuImSzbFF0

The thesis: AI isn't replacing human judgment — it's changing the conditions under which human judgment operates. That's worth examining carefully.

Happy to discuss the show's thesis, production approach, or guest selection methodology. Honest feedback welcome.
by j3k3 | 2026-03-14 15:38:38+00:00
Nicely put.

There's this mistake Engineers make when using LLMs and loudly proclaiming its coming for their jobs / is magic... you have a lot of knowledge, experience and skill implicitly that allows for you to get the LLM to produce what you want.

Without it... you produce crappy stuff that is inevitably going to get mangled and crushed. As we are seeing with Vibe code projects created by people with no exposure to proper Software Engineering.
by ahmed-fathi | 2026-03-14 15:38:54+00:00
Markdown works because one person owns the whole picture. The moment you add a second client, that assumption collapses.
You're not choosing between markdown and a database. You're discovering that markdown was always a database just one held together by a single person's understanding. The moment no single person owns the full picture, markdown stops being a feature and starts being a liability.
The answer to your questions database for isolation and access control, markdown for the human-readable layer that people actually need to read and edit. Keep the legibility. Drop the illusion that legibility scales.
by hrimfaxi | 2026-03-14 15:39:17+00:00
> Maybe you were writing code, make design choices and debugging 8 hours a day. Maybe you were primarily doing something else and only writing code for an hour a day. Who would be the better programmer? The first guy with one year of experience or the second guy with 7 years?

So your logic is that the grandparent specified hours because they spent that many hours specifically programming, and not by just multiplying the number of years by the number of hours in a year?
by ProllyInfamous | 2026-03-14 15:39:44+00:00
Why?

----

I know there are readily-observible NASA debris scattered across the moon. Heck, it's even likely that we've already sent a few Americans up there before (perhaps not as early as '69, but eventually... yeah.sure.fine.).

But why go, even if "again?" Why even have gone in the first place (outside of USSA Space Race posturing)?

What is the point? Even if we discovered the goldiest of oils, deep within moonmantle, it would be absolutely cost-prohibitive to transport commercially between our masses.

----

equally stupid == Mars gaiabomb

----

So again I'll ask: WHY?
by dtkav | 2026-03-14 15:40:03+00:00
I was early at Planet (and fresh out of college) and the transition internally towards govt money was very painful for the bright eyed save-the-world hackers internally.

The initial technical architecture was aligned with broad good (low res, global, daily, openly available), but the shift towards selling high res satellite capabilities directly to governments has been tough to see.

Their role of providing a public ledger is still a net good thing IMO, and i doubt Planet is adding much increased capability to the US war fighter (they have way better stuff). Harder to say for their deals with other governments that have fewer native space capabilities.
by rincebrain | 2026-03-14 15:40:05+00:00
I do, generally, think that banning (or legalizing) things in their entirety is often ineffective, and if you just make them entirely and equally illegal/legal you no longer have any levers to stop people making them as toxic as possible. (Look at how insanely pinpoint-targeted at addiction exploitation sports betting has become in the US, for example.)

In this specific case, it's because I don't think you can whack-a-mole things that tickle the addictive feedback loops in people's brains everywhere faster than people can engineer their ways around it or find new ways to exploit things that do those same things without being caught in the laws, so I think you need to both:

- raise the cost of making it too painful for people who aren't self-moderating enough and keep the most lethal edges off it (e.g. ceilings on how much you can spend, making you have to take active action that takes more than a few seconds so you can't impulse-click and blow a fortune on One More Hit, no feedback mechanisms that incentivize spending more when you already spent a lot...)

- limit how harmful it can be to people who are too young and haven't yet learned what it does to them and that they need to be careful (e.g. use something like having access to a credit card you can input on request as a proxy for verifying you're an adult, and try to ensure any of the foam padded Kid Slot Machines(tm) can't be traded in a useful fashion for cash or paid for with cash, even with verification)

In some sense, the original video games with this kind of feedback loop were arcade games - you got a variable amount of reward for your input token, and they had to give you enough to convince you to keep doing it. Microtransactions with lootboxes are just that feedback loop taken to the logical limit, but I don't necessarily think people who hate microtransactions would consider games like that as a similar evil, precisely because, like physical blind boxes, the quantization and scale is so much smaller, and it's so much higher friction to blow a fortune on it.
by lukeschlather | 2026-03-14 15:40:19+00:00
I was really hoping this gave people the right to use their computers, but it really looks like it simply prevents "the government" from regulating the right to "make use of computational resources." So Google or Apple can still prevent me from using my phone for lawful purposes, the government just can't regulate it (and the government might not be able to write restrictions that prevent manufacturers from violating my right to compute.)
by theParadox42 | 2026-03-14 15:40:35+00:00
It’s not the RISC-V core itself, it’s just some of the surrounding architecture to support the CPU, to turn it into a SOC. So the USB drivers, the AXI memory interfaces, and the analog components, like PLLs for generating clocks, or even the IO pad drivers. These components take the fully open RISC-V core which works in a simulator and makes it work like a normal physical chip would.
by nunez | 2026-03-14 15:41:20+00:00
There's an unofficial Claude Code plugin for Vim. It only does plan mode afaik. I haven't used it, but I have considered it.

That said, I've been using Vim as my editor for the last ten years. The last few companies I worked for had integrations with VSCode, so I use it sometimes so that I could show those off, but nothing about it makes me want to give up my awesome Vim setup with my weird color scheme (Dalek).

It took me a few months to go fast with Vim, but once I did, nothing compares. (Yes, I have tried the Vim plugin for VSCode, though it's been a few years.)

RIP Bram; thanks for giving the world this wonderful and timeless piece of software!
by pardon_me | 2026-03-14 15:41:50+00:00
Aside from the poor tone of this style of writing, short declarative statements don't convey the same information and leave a confusing message.

Without knowing how you arrived at "the point", you are pushing all the work onto the recipient (or worse, every reader of your comment on HN) to verify what you say and how much they can trust you. That could involve researching, checking your credentials, or putting in effort to understand/overlook the emotional tone.

"This is the answer. I have the answer" style dumping of information is a poor form of human-human communication, unless you are directly answering a closed-ended question.
by water_badger | 2026-03-14 15:43:52+00:00
So somewhere here there is a 2x2 or something based on these factors:

1. Programmers viewing programming through career and job security lens
2. Programmers who love the experience of writing code themselves
3. People who love making stuff
4. People who don't understand AI very well and have knee-jerk cultural / mob reactions against it because that's what's "in" right now in certain circles.

It is fun to read old issues of Popular Mechanics on archive.org from 100+ years ago because you can see a lot of the same personality types playing out.

At the end of the day, AI is not going anywhere, just like cars, electricity and airplanes never went anywhere. It will obviously be a huge part of how people interact with code and a number of other things going forward.

20-30 years from now the majority of the conversations happening this year will seem very quaint! (and a minority, primarily from the "people who love making stuff" quadrant, will seem ahead of their time)
by mayhemducks | 2026-03-14 15:43:52+00:00
I find that context has a strong affect on how I decide to communicate. How I respond to communication in a professional setting, both emotionally as well as practically, depends on whether the message is an asynchronous medium like email, or a fully synchronous medium like a face to face meeting in person. It depends on what I'm doing in the moment, what I have been doing recently, and what I will be doing in the near future. It depends on who is communicating to me, their role within the organization, how their role relates to mine, whether it is one-to-one, or one-to-many, or many-to-many. And a whole host of other contextual things, some even subconscious.

There are times when I become very tilted if I feel like someone else is not respecting my time. There are other times when I become similarly frustrated if I feel like someone else is not allowing enough time to discuss something important, or if they seem like they are being dismissive of a topic I care about.

My own emotional response to communication is another input I can use to evaluate reality. My emotions are indicators of certain things, but they are not straightforward, flashing neon signs that explain exactly what's going on in clear and simple terms. The gut thoughts need to be combined with the brain thoughts for a more complete picture, and that increases uncertainty.

The situation also matters. If I am debugging a problem in production that is costing the organization, and therefore me, a lot of money, most of my focus is going to be dedicated to finding and fixing the problem. If you interrupt that with "how was your weekend?" you can probably expect me to be like, "what is wrong with you? can't you see this plane is on fire?". This is my emotional reaction. My rational reaction is - if you aren't helping, you are in the way. This reaction is due 100% to the way I was brought up - when I wasn't helping I WAS in the way, and I would be asked by my parents step aside, watch and learn. And that was the right thing to do because it improved safety and lowered risk.

My point is, there is an infinite pool of influences that contribute to the way people choose to communicate. And the way someone chooses to communicate is not always 100% under their conscious control - some of it is instinct, more like a reflex.

I very much value clear and straight-forward communication that respects everyone's time - in the right context. And my own expectations of this kind of communication has damaged my relationships on numerous occasions as well.

I also very much value the creative process of talking things through - in the right context. I also tend to find this draining. If there is too much of it all at once, I have to recharge somehow.
by logicchains | 2026-03-14 15:44:31+00:00
>They have the most economic output

Only because they have such a large population. Their economic output per person (GDP per capita) is only around $15k, similar to Turkey. And they've hit a severe aging population problem that other East Asian countries only hit when their GDP per capita was around $30k; they're getting old before they get rich. Unless they dramatically increase immigration or birthrates (now less than 1.0), it's likely that even by 2100 Chinese people still won't enjoy the same standard of living (GDP per capita of around $80k) that Americans enjoy today.
by notepad0x90 | 2026-03-14 15:44:48+00:00
They're hardly a voice of reason, they criticize the US so everyone rallies around them, but they're just taking advantage of the situation like anyone else would. It's all optics. I think the era of the superpower is already over.

They can't build a peaceful relationship with taiwan, it would hurt the PRC if they did that. They need an point of contention for political reasons there, but taiwan has seen what has become of hong kong. They have historical ties but since the 1940's much like the Koreas their culture and society has developed separately. Peace is possible, if the PRC can accept a separate independent Taiwan, but they won't for the same reason putin doesn't like countries like ukraine nearby, that have a significant military and economic advantage to be outside its sphere of influence.

China is like a carefully crafted house of cards, long term planning means they will likely establish a long lasting prosperous nation, but that's only possible if contemporary situations don't force them into desperate actions, like invading taiwan, a military conflict with the US,etc.. right now their sources of oil from iran and venezuela are being cut off, they've been heavily investing in renewables predicting this exact situation, and that's what I mean by long term, they're a few decades away from the fruition of most of their longterm plans. Xi won't be alive to see it, but he needs to make a mark in their history too. The fate of china depends on Xi's patience, and the ability of China to endure temporary economic hardship.

They've been building alliances like BRICS for the same reasons, they're grandstanding now also to avoid a direct confrontation with the US.

The US isn't increasingly being radicalized, it is beyond that. it is right a strange mix of kakistocracy and kleptocracy. On one hand, the US's hegemony is practically over, on the other hand who will fill in the void? certainly not China. Even things like the UN are not a given anymore. The best outcome is one that avoids conflict between countries with large economies and militaries.
by krapp | 2026-03-14 15:44:50+00:00
>Based on a quick skim it looks like he's talking about combatant deaths?

You should have read the article more closely.

Hegseth describes the war in Iran very differently. At a news conference last week, he said it would have “no stupid rules of engagement.” In another, he said that the U.S. military would shower “death and destruction from the sky all day long.”

Today’s campaign isn’t about enduring freedom. It’s called Operation Epic Fury. “Maximum lethality, not tepid legality,” Hegseth said earlier this year. “Violent effect, not politically correct.”

What part of this language leads you to believe he's only talking about combatant deaths?
by hnsdev | 2026-03-14 15:44:57+00:00
With laws such as the Brazilian one or the one proposed in New York, I am curious to know what will be the future for computing.
On one hand, forbidding and limiting people from using computers as they wish is somewhat impossible, as too many computers that don't have restrictions have already been produced. You can always use old hardware and, with open source projects, fork an old version that will respect your right to compute. At some point though it will be a problem as hardware no longer works and software becomes incompatible with everything. The thing is that those who will probably be doing it mostly are people that already grew accustomed to not live in an Orwellian state, while, on the other hand, newer generations will all be using new systems with these restrictions, as if they were normal. The smart ones will find ways of circumventing it (as if it wouldn't be hard to get your parents CC and verify it as if you were over 18).

Given that, they will be computing in a restrictive and controlled environment. I feel sorry for them.

I am going to college (Computer Science) as an older student with previous experience in programming, and it never ceases to amaze me that the current generation of students doesn't think out of the box and is completely dependent on ChatGPT. We all suffered from conditioning from governments and corporations throughout the years, but it is accelerating at an alarming rate.

Acts like this (the one from Montana) are positive, but unfortunate that they simply have to exist and somewhat irrelevant when the big dogs (California, New York and whole countries such as Australia) approve legislation that will promptly be followed by most companies/projects, which will in turn force this way of things happening everywhere else.
by dynm | 2026-03-14 15:45:08+00:00
I think the main content of this law (https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB212/id/3212152) is just two paragraphs. I'd suggest reading them yourself rather than relying on secondary description:

"Government actions that restrict the ability to privately own or make use of computational resources for lawful purposes, which infringes on citizens' fundamental rights to property and free expression, must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest."

"When critical infrastructure facilities are controlled in whole or in part by a critical artificial intelligence system, the deployer shall develop a risk management policy after deploying the system that is reasonable and considers guidance and standards in the latest version of the artificial intelligence risk management framework from the national institute of standards and technology, the ISO/IEC 4200 artificial intelligence standard from the international organization for standardization, or another nationally or internationally recognized risk management framework for artificial intelligence systems. A plan prepared under federal requirements constitutes compliance with this section."

In particular, I think the reporting is straight wrong that there's a shutdown requirement. That was in an earlier version (https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB212/id/3078731) and remains in the title of this version, but seems to have been removed from the actual text.