MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by p1necone | 2026-03-11 23:46:02+00:00
This is the most common way this happens in my experience - people naively assume that by giving just a date and not a time surely it wont do timezone conversion, but it does (and even worse that behaviour is not at all consistent between different languages/systems). Oh and fun fact JS parses 'YYYY/MM/DD' (slashes instead of dashes) differently from the dashed format as well...

The 'safe' way that I try to make everyone use for 'wall clock'/'business' dates is 'YYYY-MM-DDT00:00:00' (without the Z) - this unambiguously parses as 'this date in the current timezone' in basically every languages Date type and it's ISO 8601 compliant. However it's still a pain in the ass to keep straight when serializing as the 'default' output is usually a timezone converted UTC string (Z at the end).
by orwin | 2026-03-11 23:46:10+00:00
> What is the strategic benefit here of not attacking?

Twofold. First you deplete your enemy interceptor with smallish payload and older tech before really hitting them (basically what just happened last Monday). Second, you get to say 'i didn't start this, they did'.

Also, I think Iran have 'sleeper' cells in remote areas that don't phone home to get orders, but only get them through radio or publicly broadcasted message. Them striking at the right time, either behind enemy lines or at a very inconvenient time, from a very inconvenient place, would probably their best use. Maybe this is a 'prepare your weapons' message.
by appreciatorBus | 2026-03-11 23:48:00+00:00
You missed something much more important than all 4 of those points:

- what does the human behind the keyboard think

If you want us to understand you, post your prompts.

Some might suggest that the output of an LLM might have value on it's own, disconnected from whatever the human operating it was thinking, but I disagree.

Every single person you speak with on HN has the same LLM access that you do.
Every single one has access to whatever insights an LLM might have.
You contribute nothing by copying it's output, anyone here can do that.
The only differentiator between your LLM output and mine, is what was used to prompt it.

Don't hide your contributions, your one true value - post your prompts.
by tehjoker | 2026-03-11 23:49:01+00:00
50% + 1 is called democracy. Civil liberties are more liable to be swept away by minorities that come to power. In the US, the republicans often do this because they have minority popular support but a disproportionate representation in government. So the key is to make sure that it's 50% + 1 but also representative of the real population.

The nobility is another example of a minority with disproportionate power. It's important that they are reduced to ensure civil liberties.
by pear01 | 2026-03-11 23:49:07+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.

The same can be said of Iran re creating off-ramps from conflict or bad outcomes. That's what the "nuclear deal" was meant to be about. The one the current President tore up because his predecessor was responsible for it.

> 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.

Afaik the administration has not articulated that view. It's not appropriate to take a scenario that might be plausible and put it into the President's mouth. You don't get to say what the war is about "from the US standpoint". That's the President's job.

> 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.

This is simply incorrect on so many levels I don't know where to start. But since you invited elaboration, please by all means.
by thisislife2 | 2026-03-11 23:49:32+00:00
I don't believe that - in my opinion, the school was deliberately targeted because the students studying there were mostly the children of Iranian military officials. Iran's military (surprisingly) has behaved in a very restrained manner in the last 2 years against Israel (and US), possibly on the advise of Russia and China, and that is why Israel and US have not been able to galvanise much international support for their aggression against Iran. The deliberate assassination of the Ayatollah (a religious muslim leader, who was 87+ years and soon to be replaced by the Iranians themselves) and targeted slaughter of the children of Iranian military officials is meant to provoke Iranians and Shia muslims elsewhere to commit acts of terrorism against the US and Israel. Then international outrage can be whipped up by the western media and NATO can be bulldozed to join the war and send soldiers into Iran.
by righthand | 2026-03-11 23:49:36+00:00
> And how do you create this without it being overran by bots, spam, and people posting gargantuan amounts of porn?

By not creating public networks out of it.

The only database people want to control is their personal information and who they communicate with and when. So we should enable low barrier to entry to communicate.

I cannot solve for the social media side of it, but we can enable people to at least have low friction when getting online. Somewhere to turn to that is not a data harvesting service.

The displacement effort has to come from those that believe in those freedoms. It’s not easy, maybe impossible in some circumstances but this status quo right now cannot be it, in my opinion.
by flottix | 2026-03-11 23:49:38+00:00
Flottix ends the era of "spreadsheet sprawl." Built on a high-performance stack, we provide sub-100ms response times for your entire hardware and software lifecycle. From instant QR auditing to proactive maintenance and SaaS license optimization, Flottix gives you 100% visibility without the enterprise bloat. We are the "Brain" of your IT operations, providing lifecycle intelligence that works out of the box. Deploy in 5 minutes, not 5 months.
by godelski | 2026-03-11 23:49:47+00:00
Yes? I even quite explicitly acknowledge that.

There's a cost in either direction. You can't ignore the the costs of reading the tea leaves while acknowledging the costs of unnecessary work. Both have costs.

>> Instead we have to compare and contrast both the benefits and limits of competing ideas. We are only doing ourselves a disservice by pretending the limits don't exist.
by xenadu02 | 2026-03-11 23:50:48+00:00
> What we could start doing is embrace our existing dual-voltage home wiring methods, and putting 240v sockets in some places where it's actually beneficial. Places like kitchens (for heating water and food), say. But broadly speaking: Nobody does this because nobody sells safety-approved residential appliances for the US domestic market, so it's a lot of money to spend to get it done for no benefit. It's a catch-22.

Yes, this is the problem I've been complaining about.

If code required at least two NEMA 6-15 outlets in kitchens and garages builders and remodelers would install them.

Once they started rolling out there are a number of existing appliance makers who sell 240v appliances in the rest of the world who could begin offering that variant for sale.

It would be a good way to kick-start the market without any major changes! It is literally just running one extra romex and installing one double-pole breaker yet it makes double the power available. The builder that remodeled my house ran multi-branch style (3-conductor + ground) to save on copper so if I can find a junction box where that wire splits off I can install one right there without even running a new wire as the breaker is already a double-pole breaker.
by alcazar | 2026-03-11 23:50:51+00:00
Here we prioritize ease of use.

The only way to make a message-sending service truly zero-knowledge is to require contacts to upload a public key beforehand and encrypt every message with that key before storage in the database.

Unfortunately, this approach requires contacts to be technical people who understand encryption, keys, and key custody. When you die, you want to reach your family and friends—not only the tech-savvy ones.

So we encrypt messages at rest with a key stored separately from the database. This forces attackers to compromise two separate infrastructures (and before we notice and rotate the keys) to access any data. When sending the messages, we decrypt them in memory and deliver them in plaintext. That way, your parents don’t need a computer science degree to read your last message.

And if your threat model requires it, you can also use our Portable Secret to password-protect the documents. We provide both options.
by p1necone | 2026-03-11 23:51:09+00:00
They might have tried, but this would be pretty hard to achieve for real - especially for the older/worse models. For changes that do more than alter a couple of lines llm output can be very obvious. Stripping all comments from the changeset might go a long way to making it more blind, but then you're missing context that you kinda need to review the code properly.
by kennywinker | 2026-03-11 23:51:10+00:00
I’d go further. To bypass the deadlocked congress, obama used executive orders in new and expansive ways. That ratcheted things up. Now trump is using executive orders even MORE expansively, to do things that are patently undemocratic and unconstitutional (federalizing who can vote, ilegal tariffs). The kludges and hacks are causing a crumbling of democracy, not just mediocre law.
by 9rx | 2026-03-11 23:51:20+00:00
> That can't exactly be true, because scarcity is a physical limit.

Hence resource allocation. If there were no physical limit, there would be nothing in need of allocation.

> If there is exactly 1 apple, it is impossible for 2 people to eat it.

Hence resource allocation. If there were an infinite number of apples, there would be nothing in need of allocation.

> There is a large social element involved

There is only a human social element involved. There isn't a magical deity in the sky waving a magic wand to decide who gets what. There isn't a group of aliens dolling out bread. Resources are allocated only by how humans, and humans alone, decide they want to allocate them.

> The natural human instincts are beyond terrible at allocating resources

Exactly. Now you're finally getting on-topic. Humans are beyond terrible at pretty everything. Hence us questioning why one would think that all kinds of human-created problems would magically disappear if humans were removed from only just one of the things they routinely make a mess of. Not going to happen.
by Barrin92 | 2026-03-11 23:52:06+00:00
>secret societies like the Oddfellows do

yes and they're all full of suckers. In the best case which is already bad you get a pretentious online night club like Clubhouse, in the worst case you get Epstein's island.

These walled off societies always attract people who are drawn to exclusivity, are run like dystopian island communities or high school cliques and tend to, in a William Gibon 'anti-marketing', way be paradoxically even more vapid.

No you need actual open access and reputation systems. A good blueprint is something like well functioning academic communities. It's a combination of eliminating commercial motives, strict rules, high importance on reputation and correctness, peer review, and arguably also real identities and faces.
by azakai | 2026-03-11 23:52:26+00:00
> DOM performance is a big deal and bottleneck for a lot of applications

What are examples of such applications? Honest question - I'm curious to learn more about issues such applications have in production.

> But we really shouldn't be requiring everyone to become an expert to benefit from wasm.

If the toolchain does it for them, they don't need to be experts, no more than people need to be DWARF experts to debug native applications.

I agree tools could be a lot better here! But as I think you know, my position is that we can move faster and get better results on the tools side.
by alephnerd | 2026-03-11 23:52:37+00:00
> The public should be allowed to invest in new companies, not just the rich.

Most of the public and VC funds lose money on early stage investing.

Allowing non-accredited investors to enter the privete capital is great for experienced investors like me because we can offload assets to less discerning and less experienced casual investors, but this is truly risky for the vast majority of individuals.

Hell, even in my own personal portfolio I stick with ETFs and call it a day because returns are good enough without active risk management.

> so in some way they have gone public

M&A is not an IPO. By that standard any acquisition by Crowdstrike or PANW is an "IPO".
by lobf | 2026-03-11 23:52:42+00:00
When you register to vote, you give your address as well as proof of eligibility to vote. That address is used to assign you a polling place, and also as an additional piece of data needed in order to filter out fakers. Your voting eligibility is checked before being added to the list, which also mitigates fakers.

If you're trying to register in someone else's name, you have to pray that they don't register themselves or show up to the polls to vote. That's a gamble which prevents systematic individual voter fraud.
by davorak | 2026-03-11 23:52:55+00:00
> If that's the case why would somebody who has good ideas but poor expressive capability bother posting here if their comments are just going to get ignored over relatively vapid comments that are grammatically correct?

The main problem is that ai consistently is seeing making things worse. Take a look at the examples in Dang's link in their comment:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342616

In the ones I read the AI editing is either hurting or needs to be much, much better to help.
by dzaima | 2026-03-11 23:54:05+00:00
P550 is, like, what, only a year old? I suppose there has been some laughing at it at least.

Also Kendryte K230 / C908, but only on vector mem ops, which adds a whole another mess onto this.

I'd hope all the massive OoO will have fast misaligned mem ops, anything else would immediately cause infinite pain for decades.

But of course there'll be plenty of RVA23 hardware that's much smaller eventually too, once it becomes a general expectation instead of "cool thing for the very-top-end to have".

I do agree that it'd be reasonable to just assume fast misaligned ops, but for whatever reason gcc and clang just don't, and that's what we have for defaults.
by cge | 2026-03-11 23:54:12+00:00
An added point of Tammany Hall is that for much of time it was a relevant political power, the US did not have secret ballots, arguably, it was the lack of anonymity/secrecy in voting that allowed for the types of election fraud that Tammany Hall and others were known for.

The secret ballot perhaps made a particular type of election fraud, the kind done by dedicated partisans voting multiple times themselves, theoretically easier. But it removed the mechanics that allowed far more prevalent and lucrative election fraud. In the Tammany Hall era, you could buy votes and know that your paid voters actually voted the way you wanted. You could promise that your preferred candidates, if elected, would give rewards only to people who voted for them, and actually follow through with that promise. You could physically prevent people from voting with ballots that weren't yours, rather than trying to rely on demographics.
by GMoromisato | 2026-03-11 23:55:24+00:00
> And yet, she persisted, we will still set guidelines

I'm not sure if you're including or excluding me from the "we". If you're excluding me, then I feel our conversation has come to an end.

But if you're including me, then I think the guidelines need to evolve to deal with LLMs. Maybe not right now--maybe the current guidelines are sufficient for the next year or two or three. But I think we as a community are uniquely qualified to design and influence the future of internet social clubs in the face of LLMs.
by PoignardAzur | 2026-03-11 23:55:48+00:00
> The USA threads the needle by simply not having verifiable voting. And it turns out it works pretty well.

No, no, no. January 6 is a systemic failure.

The purpose of a voting system is to select the most popular candidate in a way that is so far beyond doubt that a populist loser can't claim the results are wrong without alienating his base.

Even leaving aside the whole "Trump doesn't care if his lies are credible" thing, the US system works very poorly there. Mail-in voting, drive-in voting, voting machines, they leave room for suspicion, no matter how confident the people running the system are.
by xp84 | 2026-03-11 23:56:10+00:00
Yes, it's in my opinion one of the great tragedies of our time that some of our established countries are so hard to change. I don't mean this as the policy needs change, everyone will differ on those. I just mean the technology of government like you're saying. Efficient and more fair ways of voting on laws and electing representatives do exist.

For example my own (US) has a political system basically frozen in amber from a time before many of the political and policy challenges of our day were not even thought of yet. And they did their best to create a change mechanism, but I think anyone being truly fair of any political persuasion has to admit that while it has prevented nearly every harmful extremist constitutional amendment (I'd say Prohibition is the main one that sneaked in), it has proven to, within the lifetimes of most living Americans, be so hard to attain as to set the status quo in stone.

The framers didn't realize that most changes would be blocked by at least one party, out of fear that it would advantage the other guys. Same reason we stopped admitting states before letting Puerto Rico in, an absolutely absurd situation.
by qsera | 2026-03-11 23:56:41+00:00
> How do you see emotion as being necessary for creativity?

As its reward. Why should anyone be creative if it does not "feel" good?

>releasing chemicals like adrenaline, dopamine..

That does not explain how it results in a certain kind of "feeling"..

>FWIW I think consciousness is also very mechanical

I think I didn't really do an OK job of why I think otherwise in my comment above...
by brailsafe | 2026-03-11 23:56:46+00:00
But they're cycled through much more rapidly, and seem generally more vulnerable than the dictators in the U.S or otherwise. A small concession to be sure.

It seems like a fundamental failure of government that in many cases, there are no consequences for deliberately or accidentally screwing your people. You either get murdered eventually or the country is just left to fix itself later, which disproportionately affects people with little resources.
by tialaramex | 2026-03-11 23:56:50+00:00
All primary legislation is published. But this needn't be in the primary legislation since there is no need to legislate to make it happen. It's a side deal, the government agrees to do this, the Lords agree not to get in their way.

Much, but not all secondary legislation is also published. A typical means by which Secondary Legislation is brought into existence is that a Law says there shall be some list or reference established by some particular minister, and that document is Secondary Legislation. For example maybe a Law concerning Clown Licensing says there shall be a list of Clown License Offices, and the Secretary of State for Hilarity shall write this list, that list isn't voted on by Parliament, the list gets written by some bureaucrats working for the current Secretary of State for Hilarity. This "undisclosed" list needn't be in secondary legislation either.
by needSomeCoffee | 2026-03-11 23:57:33+00:00
"...handily...". Apple set the power limit for the A19 at 4 watts. The M1 does not have this limit. So in all tests using processes that tax the CPU, the M1 wins. Apple ignored the greater thermal cooling available with the new case. The A19 would beat the M1 if Apple did not do this. But no one really cares cause... it is Apple. The other points re: Walmart are valid. However, it goes to the point that Apple could sell the M1 at this price point, but chose not to. Seems likely the Walmart M1 at $599 had lower margins (My Guess), so the Neo was born.
by jmull | 2026-03-11 23:58:00+00:00
It seems like some companies may be unaware that not only are they interviewing prospective employees, but candidates are interviewing prospective employers.

I guess if your goal is just to hire desperate people who currently have no better choice (and who will leave as soon as they do), then you can flaunt how little you care about the candidates or the process. But if you're hoping for something better than that, I wouldn't run off as many candidates as possible.

I mean, this is probably a time-saving way to filter out a flood of poor candidates, but you're going to also be filtering out good candidates at a very high rate.
by conception | 2026-03-11 23:58:10+00:00
The thing is with mob tactics none of this matters. Who cares if it’s illegal what they did? They just go to another company and say hey if you want this government contract, you can’t work with them. I’m sure they might sue but after a year or two of the case going, who knows what other damage has been done when you don’t follow the rule of law or are bound to it having a judgment against you is meaningless.
by tzs | 2026-03-11 23:58:47+00:00
> I would still say no, there is something about finding the words for yourself, even if they aren't as elegant as an Ai can make. It's fine, most humans prefer imperfection.

In this instance the only reason I considered using the AI summary was that there was no Wikipedia article about the case (which surprised me as it is one of the foundational cases in Commerce Clause law...although maybe all the points in it are covered in later cases that do get their own Wikipedia articles?).

Normally I'd just copy Wikipedia's summary into my comment and link to Wikipedia and to the decision itself for people that want the details.

> The point is we don't want to read Ai summaries, we can make one ourselves if we want.

How would you know if you wanted one? Someone mentioned they would like to see a case on this subject but they didn't think it would ever happen. I knew of a case on the subject, found the reference, and posted the link. At that point we are already on a tangent from what most of the thread is about and from what most people reading it care about.

The point of the summary would be to let you know if the case might actually be relevant to anything you cared about in the thread. (The answer would probably be "no" for 95+% of the people reading the comment).
by keeganpoppen | 2026-03-11 23:59:04+00:00
yes. just because it is unfashionable to argue in favor of aristocracy does not mean that it doesn’t have its own intrinsic set of benefits and drawbacks… the drawbacks of ultra democracy (populism, etc.) are all cast aside as the innocent folly of people yearning to be free but not knowing whereof to yearn (“it’s not a system problem, it’s a people problem, but we must no matter what condemn ourselves to people problems because anything else is anathema to “liberty”, or whatever”). but dare utter one word in favor of conservatism in the original, true sense, and it is as though democracy is an unalloyed good with absolutely no downside. like, clearly we should have a direct democracy with no senate and no house, no? anything else is just allowing the Powers That Be to patriarchy everything!