MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by heggenhougen | 2026-03-07 11:40:58+00:00
We just ran the exact expert FFN slice from Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct (8192×28672, batch 512) on a single NVIDIA B200.

Results (ROLV vs vendor-best cuBLAS):

- Speedup : 50.5× (4953% faster)
- Energy Savings : 91.4%
- Tokens/s : 6.42M vs 127k
- TFLOPS : 3,018 vs 59.7
- Energy : 64 J vs 742 J
- Per-iter : 0.000080 s vs 0.004027 s

A_hash and V_hash are identical for both runs (full reproducibility).

ROLV_norm_hash: 8dbe5f139fd946d4cd84e8cc612cd9f68cbc87e394457884acc0c5dad56dd8dd

This is the real hot path for MoE inference. No synthetic matrices.

Comments and questions welcome
by omrimaya | 2026-03-07 11:41:37+00:00
The design decision I find most interesting here is ephemeral-by-default with opt-in checkpointing, that inversion of the usual "persist everything, clean up manually" model fits agent code execution well. Most sandboxing approaches I've seen treat isolation as the hard problem, but state leakage across runs is the subtler foot-gun when you're executing LLM-generated code repeatedly.

One thing I ran into building agent infrastructure: the boundary between "sandbox that runs code" and "agent that decides what code to run" wants to be a clean HTTP interface, not a library call. Makes it easier to audit what crossed the boundary. Does Shuru expose any hook for streaming stdout back to the caller during execution, or is it strictly "wait for exit, get result"?
by shrubby | 2026-03-07 11:42:01+00:00
People are guided by two things. What others do first and after some programming what they're used to or comoulswd or addicted.

So not a conscious one.

Vietnam war shows us what's possible in terms of collective change.

During the Vietnam War, heroin usage among U.S. enlisted men was high, with estimates indicating that 34% to 43% of service members tried the drug, and roughly 10% to 20% were addicted.

Nixon was in panic about bringing heroin addicted killers back home.

Which they did. And nothing happened. The ones who had issues before leaving to Nam continued using but almost everyone who started there quit and perhaps tried again.

With conscious design of the society I don't think there's any habit we can't change should we decide.

Just remove the AG subsidies and this will be mostly fixed in no time.

We just need to collectively make a connection with the future outcome and Bob's your uncle.
by wilkystyle | 2026-03-07 11:42:21+00:00
Curious to hear your gripes about modal editors! I'm a long time Emacs user (traditional keybindings, not evil-mode), but I also started using Vim in parallel a little over a decade ago. I feel very proficient/productive in both, regularly using many of Vim's more advanced motions and functionality. I generally love the power and composability of Vim text objects, and definitely experience the benefit of using them. But there are some times where I am doing things like many small edits within a line where rapidly changing modes for all of the edits starts to feel cumbersome.

For Emacs, I use multiple cursors and a treesitter-based plug-in for incrementally expanding or reducing the selection by text objects. I also have a collection of my own helper functions for working with text that make my non-modal Emacs approach still feel very comparable to the power of manipulating text in Vim.

Curious to hear if your issues with modal editing are similar.
by alwillis | 2026-03-07 11:43:53+00:00
> This means not everyone with compromised phone will get alerted. You are still in the dark

Apple only alerts people who are potentially in life threatening situations because of who they are or what they do:

Apple today detailed two initiatives to help protect users who may be personally targeted by some of the most sophisticated digital threats, such as those from private companies developing state-sponsored mercenary spyware. Lockdown Mode — the first major capability of its kind, coming this fall with iOS 16, iPadOS 16, and macOS Ventura — is an extreme, optional protection for the very small number of users who face grave, targeted threats to their digital security.

“Apple expands industry-leading commitment to protect users from highly targeted mercenary spyware” — https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/07/apple-expands-commitm...
by naiba | 2026-03-07 11:44:04+00:00
Hi HN, I built Bonds, a personal relationship manager for keeping track of everything about the people in your life — notes, reminders, important dates, life events, gifts, debts, and more.

It's inspired by Monica (24k on GitHub), which I loved but has slowed down significantly (700+ open issues, tiny maintenance team). Bonds is a ground-up rewrite in Go + React with a focus on simplicity and performance:

• Single binary with embedded SQLite — no PHP, no Composer, no runtime dependencies
• Docker one-liner or just download and run
• CardDAV/CalDAV sync (Apple Contacts, Thunderbird, etc.)
• Full-text search with CJK support
• WebAuthn/FIDO2 passkeys, TOTP 2FA, OAuth (GitHub/Google/OIDC)
• Multi-vault isolation with role-based access
• 1,300+ tests (backend + frontend + E2E)

Tech stack: Go backend (Echo + GORM), React 19 + TypeScript frontend (Ant Design), SQLite by default (Postgres also supported).

Source: https://github.com/naiba/bonds
Docs: https://naiba.github.io/bonds/
BSL 1.1 licensed (free for individuals, converts to AGPL-3.0 in 2030)
by timr | 2026-03-07 11:45:20+00:00
They used a published methodology. That doesn't mean the methodology is uncontroversial, and it certainly doesn't mean that they used it in a way that makes sense in the current context. One can commit an almost infinite number of horrible abuses via bog-standard linear regression.

Even setting aside the dubious nature of the adjustments, doing a regression on a 10-year window of a system that we know has multi-decade cycles -- or longer -- is just blatantly trying to dress up bad point extrapolations as science. Then, when they don't get the results they want to see from that abuse, they start subtracting the annoying little details in the data that are getting in their way.

> Just because they don't know exactly what past global temperatures would have been in the absence of El Niño doesn't mean it's statistically invalid to try and account for it.

You can't go back in time, invent counterfactual histories by subtracting primary signals, and declare the net result to be "significant". This isn't even statistics -- it's just massaging data via statistical tools.

> Besides, temperature data to 2024 already shows accelerated warming with a confidence level that "exceeds 90% in two of the five data sets".

https://xkcd.com/882/

> Add another year or two and it's likely we won't even need to smooth the curve to show accelerated warming at 95% confidence.

I guess we'll find out.
by c0m4r | 2026-03-07 11:45:34+00:00
At some point, writing these files became a hassle and I felt it was too chaotic, so I gave up on it. Regarding licenses, given that LLMs are using other people's work without their consent anyway, and most of the code produced rn is AI, these licenses are to me really just suggestions. I would treat them as an expression of intent, not a strictly legal document.
by alex43578 | 2026-03-07 11:46:42+00:00
As they should be?

For a private company, QOL for someone doesn’t pay the researcher, laboratory chemical supplier, or lab’s landlord. Money does.

You won’t get a cure or treatment if you can’t discover it, get it approved, or distribute it, all of which costs (a lot) of money.

Inevitably, the bigger the quality of life improvement or more significant the impact = more money, so those measures are already indirectly considered.

It’s only incredibly rare diseases that aren’t receiving active research efforts.
Show HN: Bonds – Open-source personal relationship manager (Go and React)
by naiba | 2026-03-07 11:46:49+00:00
Hi HN, I built Bonds, a personal relationship manager for keeping track of everything about the people in your life — notes, reminders, important dates, life events, gifts, debts, and more.

It's inspired by Monica (24k on GitHub), which I loved but has slowed down significantly (700+ open issues, tiny maintenance team). Bonds is a ground-up rewrite in Go + React with a focus on simplicity and performance:

• Single binary with embedded SQLite — no PHP, no Composer, no runtime dependencies
• Docker one-liner or just download and run
• CardDAV/CalDAV sync (Apple Contacts, Thunderbird, etc.)
• Full-text search with CJK support
• WebAuthn/FIDO2 passkeys, TOTP 2FA, OAuth (GitHub/Google/OIDC)
• Multi-vault isolation with role-based access
• 1,300+ tests (backend + frontend + E2E)

Tech stack: Go backend (Echo + GORM), React 19 + TypeScript frontend (Ant Design), SQLite by default (Postgres also supported).

Source: https://github.com/naiba/bonds
Docs: https://naiba.github.io/bonds/
BSL 1.1 licensed (free for individuals, converts to AGPL-3.0 in 2030)
$1k and the difficult future that AI has left for many
by 01-_- | 2026-03-07 11:48:07+00:00
Violent scenario! Every day I see my colleagues being fired and evicted from their jobs and homes because our currency is losing value with each passing day. The people we always thought would defend us are the ones paying for our misfortune. It's complicated. What are we going to do from now on? I know carpentry, so is that what I'm going to start working in now? I won't know how to get good results and show confidence to my clients, what a mess! I only have $1,000 to support myself and I'll have to decide quickly before things start to get complicated.
by birdsongs | 2026-03-07 11:48:19+00:00
> and majority of the time you will not be working with native English speakers, usually people who speak multiple languages at all times, if you're only language you know is English you are the minority and people will have to work with you to understand.

This is pretty much life anywhere outside of North America and the UK (or colonies). In Norway, I don't think a single coworker of mine is a native English speaker (I am). We get along fine of course, but often I see the resistance they feel when having to switch to English. Second (or third) languages just take more brain power, and have more friction.

I have learned Norwegian, but English is still is required sometimes, as it's the common denominator amongst the mix of Norwegian, Swedish, German, and Spanish people. And that English is usually functional and as clear as can be.

This is the engineering department though. If you go to marketing or strategy it's full of this corpo double-speak.
by simonklitj | 2026-03-07 11:48:42+00:00
No one seems to want to answer your practical question. As I understand it, you receive an email with a payment link. When paid, your email is received by recipient.

I am unsure whether you could use e.g. Apple Pay to pay directly, or if you’d have to follow the microtransaction playbook to buy a greater amount of currency which you can spend.
by ta20240528 | 2026-03-07 11:48:45+00:00
From The United States Uniform Code of Military Justice: "Attacking civilians is unequivocally a war crime".

https://ucmj.us/is-attacking-civilians-a-war-crime/

@dang: you've banned members from this forum before for messy threads merely discussing apartheid. Surely advocating for war crimes — that the US itself considers crimes — is beyond the pale?
by plutokras | 2026-03-07 11:49:03+00:00
I have no issue with anyone pirating. In my country — and soon in Italy as well — all storage media sales include a small levy (Artisjus) intended to compensate copyright holders for losses from piracy. One could argue it's unfair if you're not actually using the media for copying, but having been forced to pay it regardless, I have no moral qualms about pirating content I don't feel like paying for.

By the same token, AI companies are in no position to complain when their models are scraped and distilled.
by Xmd5a | 2026-03-07 11:50:07+00:00
> In contrast, if a user has been rude, entitled, and high maintenance, I may end up not even trying to reply in the first place because I know they’ll just be combative every step of the way,

get paid. Stop this nonsense. You shouldn't work for free it makes you disagreeable (I am the living proof).

> I guess the moral of the story is don’t be a prick to the people you’re asking something from.

This is your salary. That's how you get paid. In power. Power over what? "I am a latex maintainer". I'm not impressed. You're wasting your time. Show me your Ferrari instead.
by graemep | 2026-03-07 11:50:28+00:00
There are a number of factual mistakes, misleading/unclear statements and speculation in your "fun facts".

Al-Ma'mun failed to conquer Byzantium and died while preparing his next attempt to do so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma'mun

He cannot possibly have been the patron of the Almagest as Ptolemy lived centuries before he did. Maybe you mean of a translation.

Everyone knows Galileo did not originate a heliocentric model, because he was promoting the Copernican model.

Heliocentric models had been proposed by ancient Greeks, but the Copernican model was a huge advance. There is big difference between just speculating that the sun was the centre of the the universe and an actual mathematical mode.

There is a lot more to the scientific method than al-Haytham's minor contribution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
by zpeti | 2026-03-07 11:51:18+00:00
> There’s no democracy in being mostly beholden to a few companies which own the largest and most powerful models, who can cut you off at any time, jack up the prices to inaccessibility, or unilaterally change the terms of the deal.

LOL. Maybe you are referring to OpenAI and Anthropic? Yes they have codex and opus. But about 1-2 months behind them is Grok, Gemini, and then 2-3 months behind them are all the other models available in cursor, from chinese open source models to composer etc.

How you can possibly use this "big company takes everything away" narrative is ridiculous, when you can probably use models for free that are abour 2 months behind the best models. This is probably the most uncentralised tech boom ever.

(I mean openAI is in such a bad state, I wouldn't be surprised if they lose almost their entire lead and user base within 6-12 months and are basically at the level of small chinese llm developers).
by Fnoord | 2026-03-07 11:51:35+00:00
I don't like it. All kind of legit services use email, such as Steam when you made a purchase, or health service. The idea that they won't move the weight of the loss to you, is ludicrous. Ergo, price goes up, and you either get paid or lose out more. It is a race to the bottom, kind of like using Brave to block ads and show their own.

It also adds to the adagium that all spam solutions ultimately do not work, and Bill Gates proposed all of them (a meme, too).

Furthermore, email is a broken protocol not because of federation (something alternatives usually lack) but because of lack of E2EE.
by wyum | 2026-03-07 11:52:01+00:00
Thank you for reading and the very thoughtful observations.

>> At a certain point, the verification complexity takes off. You literally run out of time to verify everything.
> Could you elaborate on this?

I plan to publish a thorough post with an interactive model. Whether human or AI, you are capacity constrained, and I glossed over `C` (capacity within a given timeframe) in the X post.

You are correct that verification complexity remains finite at n_0. The barrier is practical: n_0 is where V(n) exceeds your available capacity C. If V(n) = n^(1+k), then n_0 = C^(1/(1+k)). Doubling your capacity doesn't double n_0. It increases by a factor of 2^(1/(1+k)), which is always less than 2.

So the barrier always exists for, say, a given "dev year" or "token budget," and the cost to push it further grows superlinearly. It's not absolutely immovable, but moving it gets progressively harder. That's what I mean by "literally run out of time." At any given capacity, there is a finite n beyond which complete verification is not possible. Expanding capacity buys diminishing returns.

> Either way, this entire discussion assumes n will increase as more and more software gets written by AI. Couldn't it also be the opposite, though?

You are getting at my core motivation for exploring this question.

Verification requires a definition of "done" and I wonder if it will ever be possible (or desirable) for AI to define done on its own, let alone verify it and simplify software based on its understanding of our needs.

You make a great point that we are not required to add more components and "go right" along the curve. We can choose to simplify, and that is absolutely the right takeaway. AI has made many people believe that by generating more code at a faster pace they are accomplishing more. But that's not how software productivity should be judged.

To answer your question about assumptions, while AI can certainly be prompted to help reduce n or k in isolated cases where "done" is very clear, I don't think it's realistic to expect this in aggregate for complex systems where "done" is subjective and dynamic.

I'm speaking mainly in the context of commercial software dev here, informed by my lived experience building hundreds of apps. I often say software projects have a fractal complexity. We're constantly identifying new needs and broader scope the deeper we go, not to mention pivots and specific customer asks. You rarely get to stand still.

I don't mean to be pessimistic, but my hunch is that complexity growth outpaces the rate of simplification in almost every software project. This model attempts to explain why that is so. And notably, simplification itself requires verification and so it is in a sense part of the verification cost, too.
by sometimes_all | 2026-03-07 11:52:03+00:00
> India is facing a weird problem

Corporate India is facing way too many weird problems, not just 90-day notice periods:

1. Refusal to provide leaving documents if you leave on less than excellent terms, but you absolutely need pristine docs and sometimes multiple references when joining

2. Salary expectations as compulsory form fields during job applications, but no salary ranges provided in job descriptions

3. An unhealthy approach to leaves - need doctor certificates, way too early notices for leaves more than a few days, too few leaves, etc.

4. A sudden leap in "immediate joining" requirements - you need to come at once, but you can only leave after at least 90 days

5. Playing games with insurance, salary deductions and compulsory contribution requirements to management's favorite CSR pots

In the past few years I've become so frustrated that I just don't bother with large company job applications, or messages from Indian recruiters, because there's a 99% chance there's a really crappy process involved. Smaller firms with good founders / non-Indian consulting roles are a lot more relaxing, and most of the times pay is higher as well.
by ownagefool | 2026-03-07 11:52:12+00:00
In more practical terms:-

1. Users - your users table may not benefit by being ordered by created_at ( or uuid7 ) index because whether or not you need to query that data is tied to the users activity rather than when they first on-boarded.

2 Orders - The majority of your queries on recent orders or historical reporting type query which should benefit for a created_at ( or uuidv7 ) index.

Obviously the argument is then you're leaking data in the key, but my personal take is this is over stated. You might not want to tell people how old a User is, but you're pretty much always going to tell them how old an Order is.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2026-03-07 11:52:58+00:00
Carlos's comment in here is great too and I have nothing to add to that but on the flip-side of that, I would argue for you to find things which you want yourself and if you see a market for that.

For example, from what I am understanding, you position the time spent into a product as waste if it doesn't generate revenue and are finding people who can ditch the idea if it doesn't generate revenue.

You are better off also finding things that you want to build which you are happy building because I feel like more than anything, its hard to be spotted when you are small and to be trusted with.

Imagine I was the telegram (subscription?) user and I trusted that you will continue it but it turns out that it wasn't profitable so you closed it.

Say, I was invested into your product and was paying you what I thought was right but then you closed because it wasn't enough (and that's okay too!) but the next time I will try to learn to not use products which make small money and hey this becomes a vicious cycle because everyone starts out small!

I also wish to know how you lost 2200 dollars because it seems that you did end up making profit and only lost when you invested 800 dollars, I am unable to understand that part, so please do clarify.

Another point but if you are great at coding, I would suggest hackathons to get service credits which you can then use for side-projects without burning money or partnering up with someone. I do feel like it might be worthwhile of your time as well

Hope this helps, My point is mainly to do something which you can be proud of yourself in it of itself and can be passionate about because I have seen multiple businesses which don't work until they do.

Maybe Sunk cost bias and Survivorship bias and that's fair. In that case, I actually recommend carlos's advice too. Both advice are great (in my humble opinion)
by bobjordan | 2026-03-07 11:53:22+00:00
Yes, the LLM can write it. No, the LLM cannot architect a complex system and weave it all together into a functioning, workable, tested system. I have a 400 table schema networked together with relationships, backrefs, services, well tested, nobody could vibe code their way to what I've built. That kind of software requires someone like yourself to steer the LLM.