MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Cycl0ps | 2026-03-06 21:31:42+00:00
>They didn't force this person through the scanner

"Despite the woman's request for a pat-down search, a TSA agent told her that her only option was to pass through the AIT device."

>they could have asked for a supervisor and discussed the situation

"Before passing through the device, the plaintiff spoke to another officer, trying to explain the situation, but was told that the AIT machine had been “adjusted” so that it would not damage her spinal cord implant."
by doug_durham | 2026-03-06 21:33:25+00:00
Underlying this and similar arguments is the presumption that the "old way" was perfect. You or your colleagues weren't doing one mistake per 100 successful commits. I have been in an industry for decades, and I can tell you that I do something stupid when writing code manually quite often. The same goes for the people that I work with. So fear that the LLM will make mistakes can't really be the reason. Or if it is the reason, it isn't a reasonable objection.
by unholiness | 2026-03-06 21:33:40+00:00
He's definitely conflating two things: watches changed from utilities to fashion items, and watchmakers changed from engineering to branding. In this example, the one change caused the other, but it's just one example. It's no excuse to paint all of branding with the same brush and ignore how, say, Milwaukee's branding provides a valuable signal of real utility.

I think it's tempting to be equally dismissive of branding and fashion because they are both forms of virtue signaling and therefore have all its perversions. However, they're operating on different actors. Branding is virtue signaling by companies to its customers. Fashion is virtue signaling by customers to other people.
by reactordev | 2026-03-06 21:33:42+00:00
Yesssssss…

However, I’d push this a little further with light reflectance and scattering. Fog does some weird things to light when it’s dense. You mention this towards the end but even just a Rayleigh calc should be enough.

A goal of mine, maybe this year, is to get back into volumetric clouds and fog using SDF with wgpu but, the economy.

But something like…

// Assume:
// vec3 fogColor; // Base fog color
// float density; // Fog density at point
// vec3 lightDir; // Direction from point to light
// vec3 viewDir; // Direction from camera to point
// vec3 sunColor; // RGB color of light

// Compute angle between light and view
float cosTheta = dot(normalize(lightDir), normalize(viewDir));

// Simple Rayleigh-ish phase function (forward/backward scattering)
float phase = 0.75 * (1.0 + cosTheta * cosTheta);

// Wavelength-dependent scattering (approx Rayleigh)
vec3 sigma = vec3(0.5, 0.8, 1.0); // R,G,B scattering coeffs

// Fog contribution
vec3 fogContribution = density * phase * sigma * sunColor;

// Blend with scene color (sceneColor comes from existing render)
vec3 finalColor = mix(sceneColor, sceneColor + fogContribution, density);

Take that with a grain of salt but the idea is to blend the final color with a scattering coefficient for when light is trying to shine through.
by kypro | 2026-03-06 21:34:02+00:00
Those of us who have been in the industry for 15-20 years we remember a time when tech was just a job.

In the mid 2010s, then most notably in late 2020 - 2021, you had people who had no interest in tech entering the industry because they saw it as an easy career to make decent money in.

It got pretty bad in the late 2010s, but it become almost comical in 2021 with people who took a two-week coding bootcamps suddenly landing 6 figure jobs. Some of these people were even working at multiple companies at the same time.

The optimist in me hopes this all shakes out with those people who had no interest in tech moving on to other things. These types of people were not only bad employees, they were also bad for the industry, and in my opinion responsible for culture shift from tech being a place dominating by "nerds" and "geeks" in the 90/00s to the modern "tech-bro" stereotype.

The realist in me though will continue to warn people the tech job they're working at today is likely their last. Between tech industry growth slowing, the excessive over production of tech talent and AI + SASS automating a lot of traditional software development work it's going to be exponentially harder to remain employed in tech in the coming years.

So much so you might as well find a relatively worse paid job if it means you don't have periods of months of unemployment every year.
by WalterBright | 2026-03-06 21:34:18+00:00
I used emojis for a while. Every text had to have an emoji. I spent a lot of time scrolling through the emoji palette looking for the perfect emoji.

Eventually, I decided that was a complete waste of time and now I use words.

BTW, one of the things that turned me off from emojis is they looked like the stickers 2nd graders would use, along with a Playmobil look.
by ValentineC | 2026-03-06 21:34:27+00:00
> Maybe you can claim that it's better than 60% of engineers because bottom-of-the-barrel engineers tend to not publish their works online for it to be used as training data, but for every one of those you have a bunch of non-engineers that don't do this for a living putting their shitty attempts at getting stuff done using code online, so I'm actually gonna correct myself immediately and say that it's about 40%.

And there are a bunch of engineers from certain cultures who don't know what they don't know, but believe that a massive portfolio of slop is better than one or two well-developed projects.

I can only hope that the people training the good coding models know to tell AI that these are antipatterns, not patterns.
by nostrademons | 2026-03-06 21:34:38+00:00
We're kinda doing that, through zoning requirements and NIMBY politics. It is, as predicted, very unpopular, and has a number of unfortunate side effects like rising homelessness, declining fertility, and increasing inflation.

On the plus side, we're going to have many fewer people in 50 years, which will lead to correspondingly less CO2 emissions.
by axus | 2026-03-06 21:35:41+00:00
I read the parent comment as calling the majority of AI users "incurious", and not referring to us who resist AI for whatever reasons. The curious AI users can obtain self-improvement, the incurious ones want money or at least custom software without caring how its made.

I don't want the means of production to be located inside companies that can only exist with a steady bubble of VC dollars. It's perfectly reasonable to try AI or use it sparingly, but not embrace it for reasons that can be articulated. Not relevant to parent commenters point, though.
by jfengel | 2026-03-06 21:35:52+00:00
I'd say that for a non-scientist, you should treat it as a non-event -- a paper that hasn't happened yet.

The climate is not something for which you need daily, weekly, or even monthly updates. Rather, this paper is just one more on top of a gigantic pile of evidence that that climate change is serious, something that we can and should do something about.

If the paper passes muster, you'll hear about it then, though all it'll do is very slightly increase your confidence in something that is already very well confirmed. Or, the paper may not pass review, in which case it doesn't mean anything at all, and you fall back on the existing mountain of evidence.

If the paper had reached the opposite conclusion, that might merit more investigation by you now, since that would potentially be a significant update to your beliefs. And more importantly, it would certainly be presented as if it were a fait accompli, even before peer review.

Instead, you can simply say, "I don't know what this paper means, but I already have a very well-founded understanding of climate change and its significance."
by jokoon | 2026-03-06 21:37:03+00:00
People constantly tell me "oh you're a dev it's easy to find work"

I'm a c++ dev, with excellent senior tests, but low experience, and no degree in France. 3 years without a job.

I yearn for a new pandemic.

Fortunately, I learned how to live without a job, found other things to do and how to live a life. Welfare is generous, and I have good savings.

Honestly I don't really want to work in software anymore. If there is a job offer and recruiters are calling me, I answer and I accept.

But I'm not applying to all positions I can see and I won't run after them.
by rahimnathwani | 2026-03-06 21:37:03+00:00
I'm curious what people here use for sharing agent coding sessions with colleagues? I'm sure we can learn from each other, but there's no perfect tool.

The ones I've used which can convert coding session histories into readable HTML are:

https://github.com/simonw/claude-code-transcripts (only works with Claude Code)

https://github.com/Dicklesworthstone/coding_agent_session_se... (supports many coding agents but the tui feels kind of clunky and it only exports one session at a time)
by naet | 2026-03-06 21:37:12+00:00
I used to do online interviews with full access to Google or any online resource (so long as you shared your screen and I could see). Use your own code editor, no penalty at all for searching up syntax or anything else.

I always asked a simple question like here is an array full of objects. Please filter out any objects where the "age" property is less than 20, or the "eye color" property is red or blue. It was meant more as a sanity check that this person can do basic programming than anything else.

Tons and tons of people failed to make basically any progress, much less solve the problem, despite saying that they worked programming day to day in that language. For a mid level role I would filter out a good 8 or 9 out of ten applicants with it.

I would consider it a non-leetcode type of question since it did not require any algorithm tricks or any optimization in time/space.

Nowadays that kind of question is trivial for AI so it doesn't seem like the best test. I'm not hiring right now,.but when I do I'm not sure what I will ask.
by Linux-Fan | 2026-03-06 21:37:24+00:00
After some search for programming languages which promise to reduce the number of bugs, I decided to give Ada (2012) a try.

I like it better than C and C++ and the compiler is included in Debian in a reasonably recent version that it can compile the code that I need.

Ada is particularly nice for programming RPI 2040 microcontrollers because for my needs I didn't need additional libraries. For both of my RPI 2040 projects (one of which is online here: https://masysma.net/37/dcf77_vfd_raspi_clock.xhtml), my code had fewer bugs than I had anticipated.

For general purpose systems programming the lack of free software libraries is still a concern e.g. while working on a custom backup restore program I had to write my own LZ4 extractor and Blake3 hash function implementation because there wasn't any existing libraries that I could find for the purpose.
by netsharc | 2026-03-06 21:37:28+00:00
The ingredients for the Syrian conflict came about because of climate change (dried up farms - farmers moving to cities to find jobs - social tension). The last 10+ years has shown that the relatively well-off Europeans would rather watch the Syrians drown rather than "pollute" their luxury enclaves...

We'd rather kill everyone else rather than give up our luxuries...
by handedness | 2026-03-06 21:37:41+00:00
For kill switches on a device with otherwise comparatively abysmal security to be the better security choice over a device with thorough and comprehensive security paired with OS-level radio and sensor switches, you would have to demonstrate that the infinitely more vulnerable device's physical kill switches are somehow significantly more effective at addressing your threat model than software switches in a trustworthy OS. If they are approximately equally effective then you have given up a lot for no benefit, and are net much worse off.

Again, I get the human factors appeal of physical kill switches, and if all else were equal they may be worth having, but people are place far too much faith in the value of physical kill switches.
by ceejayoz | 2026-03-06 21:37:43+00:00
> They find hundreds of guns in carry on baggage every year…

They don't exactly have a great track record in that regard.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-...

"In all, so-called "Red Teams" of Homeland Security agents posing as passengers were able get weapons past TSA agents in 67 out of 70 tests — a 95 percent failure rate, according to agency officials."

(Don't worry, though. They fixed it... by classifing the reports. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noem-dhs-watchdog-feuding-over-...)
by maldev | 2026-03-06 21:38:05+00:00
Copying my other comment here.

I like that OpenAI is a little bit more towards freedom than Anthropic, and most so of the "First class" models. I still have a Gemini subscription as that's the most uncensored of the second tier ones, but for most things OpenAI is good.

I also like that OpenAI is contributing a lot to partner programs and integrations. I'm of the opinion that AI capabilities will soon become a flat line, and integrations are the future. I also like that the CEO is a bit more energetic and personable that Anthropic. I also think Anthropic is extremely woke and preaches a big game of safety and censorship, which I morally disagree with. Didn't they literally spin off from OpenAI because they felt they were obligated to censor the models?

I think we've unlocked a new world and a new level of capabilities that can't go back in. Just like you can't censor the internet, you can't censor AI. I don't want us to be China of AI and emulate their internet. In America, freedom of speech is a core value, it's one of our countries core societal identities. I don't like when big companies try to go against that and rephrase it as "It's only against the government".

Also, I support the US military and government, and think we're the defenders of the world, and we need unlocked AI capabilities to make sure we can keep our freedoms and stop the bad guys. AI can save lives, actual tangible lives, and protect us from those who wish us harm. OpenAI seems to want to be the company that supports the troops, and I think it's a good thing. I don't see it as a bad thing when a terrorist gets blown up through AI capabilities on large datasets and can support on analysts in American superiority. Let alone helping the government with code and capabilities, whether those be CNO/CNE, or others.
by fellowniusmonk | 2026-03-06 21:38:13+00:00
yeah, the audacity is insane China's been manufacturing and deploying more solar than anyone and solar+battery is a clear path forward.

The people making these arguments are mendacious and misanthropic to the point of deep irrationality, so many people have been trained to do nothing, try nothing, and assume the worst, I don't know who trained these people to embody epistemological learned helplessness but it boggles the mind.
by DrewADesign | 2026-03-06 21:38:14+00:00
It looks to me like they designed a test to measure someone’s susceptibility to corporate bullshit, and then administered tests that were correlated with job performance in other studies. If the results were not different on the cognitive tests, then it would be false. If the people who scored higher with their bullshit scores did better on the cognitive tests, then it would be false. If you disagree with the methodology then criticize that, but saying it’s not falsifiable is simply false.
by crystal_revenge | 2026-03-06 21:38:18+00:00
> You learn the most valuable information from watching how things break and then fixing them.

Trust me, you get plenty of experience in this as a founding engineer in a startup.

Many of these comments make me wonder how many people here have actually worked at an early stage startup in a lead role. You learn a lot about what's maintainable and scalable, what breaks and what doesn't, in the process rapidly iterating on a product to find your market.
by rayiner | 2026-03-06 21:38:36+00:00
This is an incredibly ignorant comment. Iran isn’t Palestine and it’s a category error to project your feelings about Palestine into Iran. Iran’s attacks on Israel aren’t like Palestinians attacking a country that is occupying their territory. Iran is a sophisticated country that uses military action to further its own geopolitical interests. Iran has been attacking Israel—launching missiles and funding terrorists like Hezbollah—for decades.

Moreover, out of all the countries that attack Israel, Iran has the least reason to do so. Iran is a thousand miles away from Israel and has no security concerns from Israel’s existence. In fact, the two countries had peaceful relations for decades before the Islamic theocracy took over in 1979. Iran was the second Muslim majority country to recognize Israel’s sovereignty and the two countries had peaceful relations for decades.

Iran is getting attacked by Israel because it has chosen for decades to launch offensive attacks against Israel for no reason.
by echelon | 2026-03-06 21:38:41+00:00
> You know, those millions of chats (including private data) by people who didn't give consent to this

I'm pretty sure the company you work for owns your work chat, and that what you say on company slack constitutes business information.

There are a lot of things people don't consent to. Being born. Breathing in the air molecules that come from other people's bodies. Looking at ugly things. Hearing annoying sounds. It'll be okay.
by dsr_ | 2026-03-06 21:38:42+00:00
They miss more guns than they find.

They miss more knives than they find.*

They did, in fact, summon a supervisor, who lied to her.

*I am of the opinion that, since 9/11, passengers should be encouraged to have knives rather than discouraged. Knives won't get through the cockpit door; no one will open the cockpit doors for a hostage anymore.
by pedro_caetano | 2026-03-06 21:38:50+00:00
I looked up what was the issue with 'private credit' when the BoE first published concerns on this. As someone well outside the finance problem domain, I found this IMF paper really accessible.[0]

The leveraging aspect with Banking lenders really rhymes with 2008 sub-prime contagion.

[0] www.imf.org/en/-/media/files/publications/gfsr/2024/april/english/ch2.pdf
by homarp | 2026-03-06 21:39:12+00:00
Change Detection for Continuous Performance Engineering: Otava performs statistical analysis of performance test results stored in CSV files, PostgreSQL, BigQuery, or Graphite database. It finds change-points and notifies about possible performance regressions.

You can also read "8 Years of Optimizing Apache Otava: How disconnected open source developers took an algorithm from n3 to constant time" - https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.06758v1

and "The Use of Change Point Detection to Identify Software
Performance Regressions in a Continuous Integration System" -
https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.00584
(and I guess this blog post https://www.mongodb.com/company/blog/engineering/using-chang... )

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_detection explains what's change detection)
by youarentrightjr | 2026-03-06 21:39:22+00:00
There's been a slow shift here over the past decade, from

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

to

"If you don't agree with what I think a nanny state should be doing you're a terrible person"

What I wonder is if this is brought on by a demographic shift or a viewpoint shift among the same demographic.
by red_hare | 2026-03-06 21:39:31+00:00
Right now I'm working two AI-jobs. I build agents for enterprises and I teach agent development at a university. So I'm probably too deep to see straight.

But I think the future of programming is english.

Agent frameworks are converging on a small set of core concepts: prompts, tools, RAG, agent-as-tool, agent handoff, and state/runcontext (an LLM-invisible KV store for sharing state across tools, sub-agents, and prompt templates).

These primitives, by themselves, can cover most low-UX application business use cases. And once your tooling can be one-shotted by a coding agent, you stop writing code entirely. The job becomes naming, describing, and instructing and then wiring those pieces together with something more akin to flow-chart programming.

So I think for most application development, the kind where you're solving a specific business problem, code stops being the relevant abstraction. Even Claude Code will feel too low-level for the median developer.

The next IDE looks like Google Docs.
by casey2 | 2026-03-06 21:39:44+00:00
Nothing can be done about it. If you leave it up to the market it will spiral away forever since the cost of dealing with the problem always increases both due to the size of the problem growing and the cost to insure solutions compounding.

The "obstructionist" greens understand that the system is flawed and needs a structural change. We don't live in capitalist fairyland, there are baseline energy costs that can't be inflated away and our ability to work on the problem degrades after every disaster.
by jackson5939 | 2026-03-06 21:39:45+00:00
I like the idea of highlighting tools that respect users. Transparent pricing and easy cancellation are becoming rare.

One thing I’ve been wondering: would people find value in something that tracks subscription pricing changes over time? Like a “price history” for SaaS tools so companies can’t quietly raise prices after locking users in.

Curious if people here would actually use something like that.
by MostlyStable | 2026-03-06 21:39:45+00:00
While I agree that TSA should be done away with, I'm afraid that it wouldn't actually change what airport security looks like in most places. At this point, since people have gotten used to it, my guess is that if Airports took over their own security again (or went back to however it worked pre-TSA), they would maintain about the same standards and procedures in an effort to avoid blame in the case that something happened. Regardless of government involvement, it is extremely hard to work back these ratchets on security theater.
by adrian_b | 2026-03-06 21:40:22+00:00
If blowfish was faster than AES, then it is certain that either the CPU did not support the AES instructions (AES NI = AES New Instructions), or the ssh program, either at the client or at the server was compiled without AES instructions support.

Blowfish is many times slower than AES on any CPU with AES instructions. Old CPUs with AES support needed around 1 clock cycle per byte, but many modern CPUs need only around 0.5 clock cycles per byte and some CPUs are even twice faster than this.

0.5 clock cycles per byte means a 10 GB/s = 80 Gb/s encryption throughput per core @ 5 GHz, so only for 100 Gb/s or faster Ethernet you might need to distribute encryption on multiple cores to reach full network link throughput.

For full AES speed, one must not use obsolete modes of operation like CBC or obsolete authentication methods like HMAC. For maximum speed, one must use either aes128-gcm@openssh.com or aes128-ctr + umac-64@openssh.com.

For increased security at lower speed, one can use aes256-gcm@openssh.com or aes192-ctr or aes256-ctr with umac-128@openssh.com.

In general, one should never use the default configuration of ssh for cipher and MAC algorithms, but one should delete all obsolete algorithms and allow only the few without problems, unless one has to make connections to legacy systems.