MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by cmdoptesc | 2026-03-04 05:08:54+00:00
I've worked without a product manager before and missed having a PM.

Without a PM, I conducted customer interviews, wrote up product requirement docs (PRD), and iterated with design on the mocks. On top of that, I had to implement the whole feature, while also juggling another track of technical work.

This would be fine if I was a founding engineer, but I'm not and wasn't being compensated enough for the extra workload. And sure, now with LLMs the coding portion is smaller, but there's still a lot of context switching and one might not able to do technical deep dives into things with all the meetings.

So don't overlook your PM.
by ranyume | 2026-03-04 05:09:20+00:00
> Monitoring children's DMs is the responsibility of the parents, not megacorps

Absolutely. But what responsibilities do megacorps have? Right now, everyone seems to avoid this question, and make do with megacorps not being responsible. This means: "we'll allow megacorps to be as they are and not take any responsibilities for the effects they cause to society". Instead of them taking responsibilities, we're collecting everyone's data and calling it a day by banning children from social networks... and this is because there are many interests involved (not related to child development and safety).
by finiking | 2026-03-04 05:09:33+00:00
Previously, MCP agents had to read/write local files to update designs. Now, the agent connects directly to the running editor via SSE.
You type a prompt, and the UI nodes update on the canvas in real-time. Zero file I/O latency.
We also shipped strict security hardening for local agent execution (write allowlists, path traversal guards, env sandboxing).
by Ugvx | 2026-03-04 05:09:36+00:00
Grapheneos has well established its role in the android ecosystem. Having developed and upstreamed features that have as a whole, improved the security of android.

Pine64 has targeted a very different market around extensibility and hacker/maker mindset. However while their phones have a lot of potential, security measures are half baked (microphone cutoff switch doesn't actually cut off the microphone), performance mediocre, and demand missing. While I love my pinephone pro, its not a dailiable device. A phone that cannot access common services like your bank account are non viable for 99% of users.
by neya | 2026-03-04 05:10:40+00:00
> extremely hard to write to the point of impracticality, and useless
> Most orgs settle for the latter and end up testing easily testable things like the final rendered dom and rely on human qa for all the hard bits like "does the page actually look like it's supposed to

Not disagreeing with you here, but what ends up happening is the frontend works flawlessly in the browser/device being tested but has tons of bugs in the others. Best examples of this are most banking apps, corporate portals, etc. But honestly, you can get away with the frontend without writing tests. But the backend? That directly affects the security aspect of the software and cannot afford to skip important tests atleast.
by chii | 2026-03-04 05:10:42+00:00
> But if has to be embedded into the OS

that would be fine if the embedding means all applications can leverage this functionality - like how accessibility is embedded into the OS rather than per-app.

The only problem is if this embedding requires third-party verification (which i dont believe it is), or require some sort of hardware attestation to a remote server (so you cannot modify the OS to turn it off if you wish as a non-parent).

To me, flexibility and choice is paramount. The parents have the responsibility to monitor their child, and this tool should help when the parents opt-in for it. It should not be enforced on all computer users arbitrarily without a parental opt-in first.
by locknitpicker | 2026-03-04 05:10:45+00:00
> Presumably you mean me, and every current and former team-member I've ever had?

Yes, I mean you.

You don't need hundreds of engineers to have a test suite with meaningful coverage. You need yourself and willingness to do the job.

Just adding happy path tests can get you significant coverage. Why did you failed to do this?

Blaming others for the problems you created and help create is not helpful. You can post PRs, can't you?
by strcat | 2026-03-04 05:10:48+00:00
It's an outright fabrication with no basis. All you've done is posted a video filled with doctored content and fabricated claims from a serial harasser. Henry Fisher (Techlore) has been orchestrating harassment towards me for years. Basic research and critical thinking is all that's needed to debunk the content. The video shows someone engaging in blatant bullying through directing hate towards someone with lies while taking great pleasure in it.
by autoexec | 2026-03-04 05:10:59+00:00
There was at least one bike death last year (https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2025/12/14/person-biking-on-...) at least one this year (https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2026/02/woman-hit-and-kil...) but it looks like 2024 might have been a year with no bicycle related fatalities.
by burnt-resistor | 2026-03-04 05:11:26+00:00
Cool for looking at the Sun, although I think SK was changed to be more specialized towards hunting supernovae. There's also sky surveys like IceCube does. [0]

And for terrestrial sources (geoneutrinos) from natural and artificial sources, there are/were efforts that could detect terrestrial reactors in operation like AGM2015. [1] Irrespective of the current geopolitical instability, I'm surprised that the IAEA doesn't have its own network of geoneutrino detectors to proactively look for proliferation concerns.

0. https://neutrino-map.science/ (ICNO)

1. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep13945 (KamLAND and frmr Borexino)
by hyperion2010 | 2026-03-04 05:11:36+00:00
Annoyingly? Ironically? The best technical implementation of this law would be to make it possible for the "device owner" to tell the OS to set a flag that the user was under age. Never send the age, never send anything else. Just have a global variable indicating that the user is under age that can be accessed by the browser.

Now what would happen after that?

First oses would have to implement the above in a way that could not be bypassed, pretty much impossible if the child has access to the device.

Then you would need to require that websites honor that token or any similar token no matter how it was implemented ... https MITM etc. good luck with that.

Finally once all the implementation and enforcement hurdles are complete every website out there would immediately know that the user browsing was a child and all the trackers and ad networks on the web would immediately start targeting those users because children are marks.

Now you need even more laws and regulations to protect the children from being targeted by advertising companies, and good luck with enforcing that.
by trinsic2 | 2026-03-04 05:11:53+00:00
I'm pretty sure they can use the meta data the pull from your various interactions with search and the text you post online. These services build fingerprints of your habits using these techniques to follow you everywhere. At some point in the chain they could easily connect this fingerprint to your identity as soon as you log into and account that contains a piece of identifying information about you. The threat is real. I can foresee someone programming a terminal or app that obfuscates online behavior to avoid this fingerprinting in the future.

Unless I am misreading something. Take a look at surveillance capitalism to see what's possible right now. It's going to be 100x worse as LLMs become more advanced.

It's not the things you post online, it's the nuances behind the way you type and other ways to determine behavior that allows them to be able to build these kinds of profiles.
by stkdump | 2026-03-04 05:12:08+00:00
I don't like betting on newcomers. While they may have some good ideas that improve the industry overall, there is a lot of long-term learning that newcomers can't yet benefit from. That usually leads to silly mistakes and quality problems. The useful aspect of newcomers is the credible threat they pose to the old guard of taking a portion of the pie away if they don't innovate. But I don't feel like spending my own money on that.
by locknitpicker | 2026-03-04 05:12:26+00:00
> Have you ever worked at a place where you were put on an existing codebase, and that code has no tests?

Yes.

Then I added tests. Now the codebase has tests.

Funny how that works.

> Have you ever worked at a place where, when you try to fix that, management tells you that they don't have the time to do so, they have to crank out new features?

Yes.

I then added tests that covered my features. Now the project has tests.

Funny how that works.
by saltyoldman | 2026-03-04 05:12:41+00:00
the same agent that wrote it. it's not great now, but getting better each month. Agents will likely start performing visual testing, checking the database, etc... i don't think people understand quite how powerful these agents already are - or could be. In the next month someone will likely unlock new visual check agents (I mean it already happened but few people are using it so far).
by strcat | 2026-03-04 05:12:53+00:00
The ongoing lies, bullying and harassment towards me is very real and you're directly participating in it. The reality which can be found through looking through actual content which hasn't been doctored is that joemazerino has engaged in years of lies and bullying towards me on Hacker News without moderators stepping up to end it. Ending this bullying showing up in every thread about GrapheneOS from the same small group of perpetrators is long overdue.
by 8note | 2026-03-04 05:13:17+00:00
i think i could reasonably drscribe a difference.

entry - needs mentoring to get stuff done
mid - can build the whole thing by themselves, given enough time
senior - can guide entry and mod to the same overall task and break up work such that both can do it. organizes and coordinates work across multiple teams
principal/staff - sets direction for many teams worth of engineers

above that stops being so meaningful, except for directing where major engineering directions go, and is kinda more of a sales job about getting a lot of engineering managers pointed in the same direction.

a lead is orthogonal a bit, but reasonably a flavour of senior. you could have several seniors but only one lead in an area, who's a bit obsessed with a topic, and has the idea of where things are going.

> Here is a case study, would you interview at Meta today and work under someone far younger than you and has a more 'senior" role than you? You do understand that the "title" was made up and "created" for a particular position?

yes? i set up projects and gave feedback for people younger than me to get promos, and they did the work well and showed that they can do that work. Just cause didnt want the promo doesnt mean they didnt show their skill. Age is just a number. The youngest principal i met is by far still the best and most effective one (other than the sandbagging senior-principal)
by Ugvx | 2026-03-04 05:13:52+00:00
Add to that existing grapheneos users at best only care about good enough performance and a good camera, the selling feature is security and so a lot less overhead to market such a phone. Those who want the latest features will continue to buy pixels, Samsung, and iphones. The only thing I feel is missing from the picture at a quick glance is a tablet for the few who want a secure tablet device.
by Tyrubias | 2026-03-04 05:14:56+00:00
I understand where you’re coming from, but I respectfully disagree with some of the points you made:

* It’s ambiguous how your proposed parental setup and control process would work for anything other than walled gardens like Apple’s ecosystem. On an OS like Debian, does that mean a child can’t have the root password in case they use to it change the age? Does that mean we need a second password that needs to be entered in addition to the root password to change the age? Will Arduinos and similar devices also need to be age gated?

* Those edge cases might seem small, but read broadly they would require substantial, invasive, and perhaps even impossible changes to how FOSS works. If the law isn’t changed and FOSS doesn’t adapt, this basically means the entire space will exist in a legal gray area where an overzealous prosecutor could easily kill everything.

* This is not a matter of “perfect vs good enough”, this is a major slippery slope to go down. Also, this doesn’t mean age _verification_ will simply go away.
by js8 | 2026-03-04 05:16:02+00:00
I think intelligence in general means solving (and manipulating) constraint problems. So when you ask AI to, say, write a "snake game", it figures out what this means in terms of constraints to all the possible source codes that can be written (so it will have things like the program is a game, so it has a score, there is a simple game world and there is user input connected to the display of the game world and all sorts of constraints like this), and then it further refines these constraints until it picks a point (from the space of all possible programs) that satisfies those constraints, more or less.

One beautiful thing about current AI is that this process can handle fuzzy constraints. So you don't have to describe the requirements (constraints) exactly, but it can work with fuzzy sets and constraints (I am using "fuzzy" in the quite broad sense), such as "user can move snake head in 4 directions".

Now, because of this fuzzy reasoning, it can sometimes fail. So the wrong point (source code) can get picked from the fuzzy set that represents "snake game". For example, it can be something buggy or something less like a canonical snake game.

In that case of the failure, you can either sample another datapoint ("write another snake game"), or you can add additional constraints.

Now, the article argues in favor of formal verification, which essentially means, somehow convert all these fuzzy constraints into hard constraints, so then when we get our data point (source code of the snake game), we can verify that it indeeds belongs to the (now exact) set of all snake games.

So, while it can help with the sampling problem, the alignment problem still remains - how can we tell that the AI's (fuzzy) definition of a functional "snake game" is in line with our fuzzy definition? So that is something we don't know how to handle other than iteratively throwing AIs at many problems and slowly getting these definitions aligned with humans.

And I think the latter problem (alignment with humans on definitions) is the real elephant in the room, and so the article is IMHO focusing on the wrong problem by thinking the fuzzy nature of the constraints is the main issue.

Although I think it would definitely be useful if we had a better theoretical grasp on how AI handles fuzzy reasoning. As AI stands now, practicality has beaten theory. (You can formalize fuzzy logic in Lean, so in theory nothing prevents us from specifying fuzzy constraints in a formal way and then solving the resulting constraint problem formally, it just might be quite difficult, like solving an equation symbolically vs numerically.)
by mindslight | 2026-03-04 05:16:29+00:00
No, Trump did not ruin America's reputation. No matter how many billions he steals, how many kids he rapes, how many Americans his terror squads execute, one man cannot ruin America's reputation. What has ruined America's reputation is all of the people continuing to support and enable this sick man - from the politicians and surveillance industry titans who are in on the con, to the grassroots supporters who won't set aside their (understandable!) grievances and would rather see our country destroyed. That is who has ruined America's reputation.
by ranyume | 2026-03-04 05:16:53+00:00
I'd say that at minimum social networks need to be required to show how their algorithm works and allow users control over their data. They must be able to know why a content was served to them. Nowadays social networks are so pervasive in society, affecting it and molding it to unknown interests, that this is the bare minimum for a free society.

Ideally, users should be able to modify the algorithm, so they can get just what they want, while simultaneously maximizing free speech. If something isn't illegal, it shouldn't be hidden or removed.
by strcat | 2026-03-04 05:17:35+00:00
The statement was put together collaboratively by our COO, community manager and moderation team which is the case with a lot of our written responses to journalists and others. People with their real name tied to GrapheneOS are targeted with conspiracy theorizing and harassment. You can see it throughout this Hacker News thread. People personally target myself and other members of the team in very vile ways.
by rvz | 2026-03-04 05:18:17+00:00
The engineering team at a large bank some time ago did a blog post of having over 4,000+ microservices where a single API call from the client interacts with 1,100 of those microservices. Sounds great a great architechture right? /s

Would you want to be in charge of simplifing this architecture for a 'senior staff' title for 4+ years?

This is just one of many examples who have this sort of complexity and it is celebrated, and the microservices hype (originated from Netflix and overhyped by Thoughtworks) have somewhat caused this madness and for some, it has turned into a mountain of technical debt to maintain.

Unless you have a very good reason to save a company from drowing over it's own complex infrastructure costs to run itself, attempting to simplify this architecture will be met with feroucious backlash by other teams of senior staff engineers, hundreds of meetings with risk officers and being blocked because of forever meetings with architects.
by losalah | 2026-03-04 05:19:29+00:00
This hit a nerve because “simplicity” is one of those things you only notice when it’s missing, and most orgs don’t have a good way to reward “the thing that didn’t happen.”

I’ve watched this exact dynamic play out: one person ships the boring implementation, nothing breaks, everyone moves on. Another person ships the “platform” version, there are docs, diagrams, an internal talk… and now there’s a subsystem that needs to be explained to every new hire. Guess which one looks like “impact” on paper.

The part I think is under-discussed is that complexity has a carrying cost that rarely gets charged to the builder. The team pays it later: more surface area, more failure modes, more time spent reading before changing. In that sense, unearned complexity is like taking on leverage. Sometimes it’s the right move, but you should need a business case, not just enthusiasm.

What’s helped on teams I’ve liked: make “simplicity” legible by treating it as a decision record. In the PR/ADR, explicitly list the two “cooler” options you didn’t take and why, and write down the trigger conditions for upgrading later (“if p95 > X for Y days”, “if we add a second producer”, etc.). That turns “implemented feature X” into “made a deliberate tradeoff, reduced risk, and defined a clear escape hatch.” It also forces the room to argue with specifics rather than vibes like “future-proofing.”

Also +1 on the interview point. A lot of system design interviews are accidentally training people that the goal is to draw more boxes until the interviewer nods. The more senior move is usually: start simple, instrument, set thresholds, and only then add machinery. But that’s harder to “perform” in 45 minutes than rattling off Kafka and sharding.

If an org wants to fix the incentive, I think the question to ask in reviews isn’t “how big was the thing you built,” it’s “did you make the system easier to change next quarter.” That’s the kind of impact that compounds, and it’s usually correlated with simplicity.
by 0_____0 | 2026-03-04 05:20:29+00:00
I'm also weirded out by how much ad spend they have. Billboards? Ads on buses? Why? I want my VPN provider to be like the domain registrar Gandi, not super well known, consistent, and no-nonsense.

I am a Proton user now, mostly because I finally realized VPN came with the email service I was already paying for. No complaints.
by palmotea | 2026-03-04 05:20:31+00:00
> This is an incredibly nonsensical rationale. For some people, including myself, abortion is going to be a hard line. I don't care if you think compromise is a better option, if that line is crossed they are losing my vote. If abortion can be a single-issue policy for Republicans then I can damn well make it into one for myself.

Donald Trump and the MAGA right thank you for your service to their cause.

>> Such black and white thinking. You'd rather have 0% alignment on issues than 90% or 75%? Because that's what you get when a Republican wins.

> Correct. I'm done voting for the lesser evil. If it works for Republicans it can work for the left. As much as you say it's a 'dumb strategy' we're in this situation today because it works. It's what got the current set of Republicans into power.

I think you misunderstand how and why Republicans win in a lot of places, and how and why Democrats lose. Maybe you're also thinking too much about Texas. Everywhere is not Texas.

Also, even admitting for a moment that "it works for Republicans" (which I disagree with), you're assuming a false symmetry between the left and the right. To make a Starcraft analogy: the left could be Protoss and the right could be Zerg, and strategies that work for Zerg won't work for Protoss, because they're actually different. Getting mad at a Zerg for winning with a Zerg strategy doesn't change that.

> The idea that democrats should compromise a bit with insane assholes who are causing direct harm to women is a mistake. Even if you consider it 'tactically' correct, morally it is a mistake and is a losing proposition for their own voters.

There's a name for that: letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. You'll never get perfect, and if you demand it, at best you'll get less than you could have accomplished otherwise, and at worse, you're inviting total defeat.

And if your kind of thinking becomes dominant on the left, we're fucked (in more ways than one).
by ares623 | 2026-03-04 05:21:20+00:00
This is what I was hoping for when I read one of the comments. It's okay if the child can technically bypass the flag. That's what the parent is for, to regularly monitor their child's device. But I am a parent with a technical background so this works for me, selfishly, I have no idea how it will work for everyone else.

But once again, I'd like to bring up my preferred solution for this problem. Ban "smartphone" (precise meaning TBD) for minors in public spaces. My belief is that it will disrupt the dopamine hits enough that it doesn't become addicting and kids don't rely on it completely to function socially. And just having it in legislature will serve as a starting point for parents to discuss the topic more openly, which will help with the network effects. Parents don't have second thoughts on why cigarettes or drugs or alcohol is bad for children, they just are, and whole groups of parents can collectively agree that their children and friends of their children should not be using them. I hope to see the same for "smartphones".
by ranger_danger | 2026-03-04 05:21:40+00:00
Who is they? Which services?

From what I can tell, the article/paper in question does not appear to utilize any of the techniques you mention, but I'd be interested to learn more about it.

> it's the nuances behind the way you type

I found this paper which talks about some of those methods.

https://www.audiolabs-erlangen.de/content/04_fraunhofer/assi...

For example the "Text" section on page 91.