MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bwfan123 | 2026-03-11 16:28:33+00:00
> But then again, how often do humans actually reason outside their own “training distribution”? Most human insight happens within well-practiced domains.

Humans can produce new concepts and then symbolize them for communication purposes. The meaning of concepts is grounded in operational definitions - in a manner that anyone can understand because they are operational, and can be reproduced in theory by anyone.

For example, euclid invented the concepts of a point, angle and line to operationally represent geometry in the real world. These concepts were never "there" to begin with. They were created from scratch to "build" a world-model that helps humans navigate the real world.

Euclid went outside his "training distribution" to invent point, angle, and line. Humans have this ability to construct new concepts by interaction with the real world - bringing the "unknown" into the "known" so-to-speak. Animals have this too via evolution, but it is unclear if animals can symbolize their concepts and skills to the extent that humans can.
by otherme123 | 2026-03-11 16:28:35+00:00
> Number of released papers/number of citations is a target

There was this guy, well connected in the science world, that managed to publish a poor study quite high (PNAS level). It was not fraud, just bad science. There were dozens of papers and letters refuting his claims, highlighting mistakes, and so... Guess what? Attending to metrics (citations, don't matter if they are citing you to say you were wrong and should retract the paper!), the original paper was even more stellar on the eyes of grants and the journal itself.

It was rage bait before Facebook even existed.
by scuff3d | 2026-03-11 16:28:46+00:00
Exactly. That's why the comment was seemed arranged to me.

For the most part, there's gamers/editors and a few other groups who need a lot of horsepower. They're generally gonna have decent hardware. Then there's everyone else, who wouldn't notice a difference regardless of hardware (to a point). There just isn't a whole lot of middle ground.
by dekhn | 2026-03-11 16:29:24+00:00
I had a somewhat similar experience- was a postdoc for a pre-tenure professor at berkeley. after writing up a paper based on her methods, with poor results, I handed the draft to her. She rewrote it- basically adding carefully worded/presented results that made it look as good as possible. And then submitted it (to a niche conference where the editor was a buddy of hers). When I read her submission I asked her to remove my name from it and she immediately withdrew the submission. I left her lab shortly after because I am not going to tarnish my publication record with iffy papers like that.

Over time I learned that most papers in my field (computational biology) are embellished to some extent or another (or cherry-picked/curated/structured for success) and often irreproducible- some key step is left out, or no code is provided that replicates the results, etc. I can see this from two perspectives:

1) science should be trivially reproducible; it should not require the smartest/most capable people in the field to read the paper and reproduce the results. This places a burden on the people who are at the state of the art of the field to make it easy for other folks, which slows them down (but presumably makes overall progress go faster).

2) science should be done by geniuses; the leaders in the field don't need to replicate their competitors paper. it's sufficient to read the paper, apply priors, and move on (possibly learning whatever novel method/technique the paper shows so they can apply it in their own hands). It allows the field innovators to move quickly and discover new things, but is prone to all sorts of reliability/reproducibility problems, and ideally science should be egalitarian, not credentials-based.
by Imbryk | 2026-03-11 16:29:40+00:00
Hello folks. I wanted to show you a project I built called Imbryk. It is a little world inside the computer that runs on those Gemini models with the million token memory.

I set up seven different thinking machines to act like newspapers. They all have their own strong opinions. One is a strict capitalist and another is a radical, and so on. The twist is how the news gets made. People come to the website and type in events they want to happen in this world, but they have to attach a Stripe payment to their event.

Because people might submit events that fight each other, I built a sorting layer that groups similar prompts together. If the stories contradict, the system looks at the dollar amount. The event with the highest payment weight becomes the objective truth for that day in the simulation. Then the six biased newspapers wake up and write their daily articles based on that winning truth. They spin the story to fit their views, but they cannot deny the facts that won. A seventh machine just watches the real world and writes a report to connect everything.

I thought you folks might find the architecture interesting, especially how the agents maintain a consistent history in that giant context window while dealing with conflicting user inputs. I would sure appreciate it if you looked at how I put it together and let me know what you think about the mechanics.

Here is the link to my project.
https://imbryk.news/
by jcfrei | 2026-03-11 16:29:51+00:00
Quick fixes have tendencies to break other stuff and just make matters worse. Better to leave it offline for a little longer, fix the definitive root issue and make sure it comes online nicely. If the issue was just a quirk in a recent deployment then these probably can be reverted easily on the endpoints where they were just deployed (I'm sure they are using staggered roll-outs). These long term downtime things are probably not issues related to a recent release.
by jplusequalt | 2026-03-11 16:30:08+00:00
>People are figuring it out in real time.

Where are the stats backing this claim? Obesity levels have not dropped significantly in recent times. Also, any significant change will require government oversight, and we are increasingly heading towards a direction where private interests overrule whats best for the public at large.

>I see no reason to assume the same thing won't happen with AI.

You have the ability to choose what and much you eat. Will you have the ability to forsake AI if your employer forces it upon you, or if to stay competitive in school you have to rely on it? In the same way it's hard to live in society without a smart phone, it's already becoming hard to operate in society without relying on AI. Now extrapolate this out by a decade.

I suggest you watch the AI Dilemma.
Show HN: open source, local CLI that turns your commits into product updates
by baetylus | 2026-03-11 16:30:29+00:00
Hey HN,

This is a local CLI that translates every push into product updates.

They're logged on Debrief (link is available on repo), but you can ostensibly change it to wherever.

I built this as a first-step to helping engineers communicate work real-time. I'm aware many companies have built-in pipelines, but was hoping that this could bridge the gap between what was planned and what was done (e.g. the trade-offs and granular decisions made).

Hope some folks find it useful! -Will

BTW - you can use `local` mode on this, so that you run a script on every push to summarize with your own AI scripts, in case you need anything bespoke.
by mmooss | 2026-03-11 16:30:37+00:00
I generally agree in that I don't see them as particularly brilliant, though I think the average is higher and there is a much higher minimum in some capabilities.

And corruption of power is the cause, I suspect. It has poisoned human minds in all places and times; none of us are immune (which is why we design governments that limit individual power). An early lesson in being in charge was that, having nobody to whom I reported, who would see my work and compel me to a high standard, I let things slip.

Reportees rarely help you: Often don't know what you do; when they do see it, they assume it's acceptable - you know what you want, and you set the standard of quality and establish the norms. Generally they have obvious disincentives against disapproving of you, and not just as some political tactic but for personal comfort: days are much easier if you boss is friendly. They will give positive or at least non-negative responses to most substandard boss work.

I had to learn to think of it in two ways: First, would I accept this work from someone reporting to me? Second, I internalized the medium- and long-term consequences of substandard leadership and management: once your organization has caught that disease, once that's your reputation, it's very hard to change.
by jonathaneunice | 2026-03-11 16:30:51+00:00
Love this!

Have wanted to work on a "better situational awareness while traveling" app, but haven't yet had the chance. Reachability of a POI is a great place to start, and I _feel_ that "it's a lot harder than it at first looks" aspect.

It would also be cool to:

* Become aware of local attractions. Esp. good restaurants, shops, views, hotels, hiking trails, etc. A lot of rating systems seem to give every fast food venue 3 or 4+ stars. Impossible to sift out the truly good and local / unique from the chaff.

* Become aware of time-limited events. Fairs, art shows, VFD chicken BBQs or fish fries, ... all the little "I wish I knew that was happening, I would have stopped by!" I constantly search for the local, the offbeat, the not-yet-another-corporate-outpost. But again, the chaff!

* Be able to navigate on backroads and scenic roads. Mapping apps are so hyper-focused on getting you there fast. They're not good at "get me there happy"—at least not for those of us that value the path less traveled far more than the highest-speed highway.
by esseph | 2026-03-11 16:31:06+00:00
"The internet is super duper extra dead."

I get unreasonably angry when I read this statement, or similar ones.

If you mean "portions of the web I go to or my email inbox", you may be right.

But for the rest of us that hang out in one or multiple private spaces, sometimes with connections between them, the internet is better connected and easier to find people, groups, information, and interests than ever before.
by TheDong | 2026-03-11 16:31:10+00:00
The cost of ownership for an OpenClaw, and how many credits you'll use, is really hard to estimate since it depends so wildly on what you do.

I can give you an openclaw instruction that will burn over $20k worth of credits in a matter of hours.

You could also not talk to your claw at all for the entire month, setup no crons / reoccurring activities / webhooks / etc, and get a bill of under $1 for token usage.

My usage of OpenClaw ends up costing on the order of $200/mo in tokens with the claude code max plan (which you're technically not allowed to use with OpenClaw anymore), or over $2000 if I were using API credits I think (which Klause is I believe, based on their FAQ mentioning OpenRouter).

So yeah, what I consider fairly light and normal usage of OpenClaw can quite easily hit $2000/mo, but it's also very possible to hit only $5/mo.

Most of my tokens are eaten up by having it write small pieces of code, and doing a good amount of web browser orchestration. I've had 2 sentence prompts that result in it spinning up subagents to browse and summarize thousands of webpages, which really eats a lot of tokens.

I've also given my OpenClaw access to its own AWS account, and it's capable of spinning up lambdas, ec2 instances, writing to s3, etc, and so it also right now has an AWS bill of around $100/mo (which I only expect to go up).

I haven't given it access to my credit card directly yet, so it hasn't managed to buy gift cards for any of the friendly nigerian princes that email it to chat, but I assume that's only a matter of time.
by teachrdan | 2026-03-11 16:31:11+00:00
There's also the British penchant for deliberately mispronouncing French words. I have heard "renaissance" pronounced "reh-NAY-sance", "fillet" pronounced "fill-it", "valet" as "val-it" and so on. I think it's a national point of pride to pronounce the words of their neighbor incorrectly.
by algis-hn | 2026-03-11 16:31:16+00:00
Hard caps treat the symptom. If agents call tools they shouldn't need, the root cause is tool set visibility - 80 tools in context means the model tries irrelevant ones, fails, and retries. Pre-filtering to a semantically relevant subset per request (BM25 on the incoming query works well) eliminates most retry loops before they start; the cap stays as backstop for genuinely pathological cases.
by skrebbel | 2026-03-11 16:31:38+00:00
Not really. Even LEGO Classic has way too many different colors (and only a few bricks of each), and too many weird shapes. Even if you buy a lot of it, it's hard to make your own designs that actually look nice (as in, not having that one incorrectly-colored brick in that one place, and so on).

I for the love of God can't comprehend why LEGO Classic has 4 shades of blue. It makes everything worse.
by morpheuskafka | 2026-03-11 16:31:51+00:00
It's very clearly disclosed in the linked docs already, it says that Cloudflare Bot Protection will block it same as all other bots, unless you choose to allow it as an exception. If they didn't do it that way, people would accuse them of either bypassing their own product (possibly anticompetitive) or just having a low quality one.
by whistleblowhy | 2026-03-11 16:32:13+00:00
Here's my reasoning: this material documents a system that operates internationally. The UK (MI5/Kincora), the US (CIA/Vault 7/Epstein), Portugal (McCann), Haiti (Clinton Foundation/UN), France (Rothschild/Macron), Hollywood — these are not isolated national scandals. They are nodes in a transnational network that uses the same documented methodology everywhere: identify compromised individuals, record their activities, use the recordings as leverage.
by recursivecaveat | 2026-03-11 16:32:15+00:00
I think archives with pretty low standards for notability are a good idea. At some point though you have to pick what actually counts as interesting enough to go in the curated list that is actually suggested reading, where the prestige is attached. If there's no curation by Nature then it falls to bloggers or another journal to sift through the fire-hose and make best-of lists. Most of the value is in the curation, not the publishing. Without exclusivity there's very little signal.
by burnchat | 2026-03-11 16:32:20+00:00
Hey, I built this. Quick background: I wanted conversations that actually disappear — not 'deleted from view' but gone from memory. BurnChat has no database. Messages live in a JS Map in server RAM. When you burn the room, the array is zeroed, references removed, GC reclaims memory. Under 10ms. No access logs, no analytics, no cookies, no accounts. Happy to answer technical questions.
by nullcathedral | 2026-03-11 16:32:21+00:00
Do you run a dedicated "AI SRE" instance for each customer or how do you ensure there is no potential for cross-contamination or data leakage across customers?

Basically how do you make sure your "AI SRE" does not deviate from it's task and cause mayhem in the VM, or worse. Exfiltrates secrets, or other nasty things? :)
by nembal | 2026-03-11 16:32:41+00:00
The layered architecture argument is right. Discovery, identity, and authorization should be separate concerns. AgentDNS tries to be all three plus billing and proxying, and that's how you get a single point of failure that controls everything.

We've been building the "narrowly scoped discovery" piece this review recommends. Agent Identity & Discovery (AID) [1] is a DNS TXT record at `_agent.<domain>` — endpoint, protocol, auth hint, optional Ed25519 public key. No registry, no proxy, no billing. Add one DNS record and any AID client finds your agent.

Works with MCP, A2A, OpenAPI, gRPC, GraphQL, WebSocket, local agents (Docker, npx, pip). SDKs in TS, Go, Python, Rust, .NET, Java. The discovery lookup is a single DNS query.

The optional PKA (Public Key Attestation) uses RFC 9421 HTTP Message Signatures with Ed25519 for endpoint proof. It sits underneath SPIFFE and OAuth rather than replacing them. We wrote up the cross-boundary auth problem and the remaining gaps [2].

One thing the review misses: the .agent TLD. The .agent Community [3] (3,000+ members, 700+ companies) is going through ICANN's Community Priority Evaluation in the 2026 round to get `.agent` under community governance instead of corporate control. AID works on any domain today, but a community-governed TLD for agents is worth knowing about if you care about who controls the naming layer. Spec is at v1.2 [4].

Your conclusion — "define minimum interoperable layers and connect them with verifiable trust" — that's what we're after. DNS is the minimum viable trust anchor that already runs everywhere.

If any of this is interesting, you can join the community at agentcommunity.org.

[1] https://aid.agentcommunity.org

[2] https://blog.agentcommunity.org/external_identity_anchor

[3] https://agentcommunity.org/about

[4] https://aid.agentcommunity.org/docs/specification

[5] https://github.com/andre-git/agent-internet-rfcs/issues/1
by thewebguyd | 2026-03-11 16:32:41+00:00
> I'm also genuinely curious how the exemption doesn't by definition make it no longer uniform. How does any exemption at all not violate the uniformity requirement?

That's the part that I'm assuming is going to get fought out in court when this is inevitably challenged. The state will likely try to argue that it's not a property tax, but an excise tax. They used that argument in support of the capital gains tax, and won (Quinn vs. Washington State, 2023), stating that the tax was an excise tax on the privilege of selling assets. The WA supreme court ruled that the tax was a permissible excise tax and not a property tax, so did not run afoul of the constitution.

They'll likely argue that the millionaire tax is an excise tax on the privilege of participating in the state's economy.

Alternatively, they may try to define high income as a new class of property. Property taxes only have to be uniform within a specific class of property, so if they create a new class, then it would be uniform for that class.

Should be an interesting court battle.
by flohofwoe | 2026-03-11 16:32:45+00:00
It's still not a great idea IMHO ;)

(there was also some more recent discussion in here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47295837)

E.g. it feels like a lot of over-engineering just to get 2x faster string marshalling, and this is only important for exactly one use case: for creating a 1:1 mapping of the DOM API to WASM. Most other web APIs are by far not as 'granular' and string heavy as the DOM.

E.g. if I mainly work with web APIs like WebGL2, WebGPU or WebAudio I seriously doubt that the component model approach will cause a 2x speedup, the time spent in the JS shim is already negligible compared to the time spent inside the API implementations, and I don't see how the component model can help with the actually serious problems (like WebGPU mapping GPU buffers into separate ArrayBuffer objects which need to be copied in and out of the WASM heap).

It would be nice to see some benchmarks for WebGL2 and WebGPU with tens-of-thousands of draw calls, I seriously doubt there will be any significant speedup.
by Waterluvian | 2026-03-11 16:32:59+00:00
The worst are methods that both mutate and return values.

I know this gets into a complex land of computer science that I don’t understand well, but I wish I could define in TypeScript “any object passed into this function is now typed _never_. You’ve destroyed it and can’t use it after this.” Because I sometimes want to mutate something in a function and return it for convenience and performance reasons, but I want you to have to reason about the returned type and never again touch the original type, even if they are the same object. Like a sort of:

function foo<T>(bar: T): bar is now Mutated<T>
Show HN: JD Roast – Paste a job description, get it brutally roasted
by genedai | 2026-03-11 16:33:09+00:00
Hey HN,

I run a recruiting AI startup, and the thing that keeps blowing my mind is how
much money companies dump into sourcing tools, ATS platforms, employer branding —
then turn around and publish a job description that reads like it was written by
a committee in 2014.

We kept seeing the same patterns. "Competitive salary" (translation: we don't
want to tell you). "Fast-paced environment" repeated four times (translation:
we're disorganized). Forty-seven bullet points under Requirements (that's not
a JD, that's a CVS receipt).

So I built JD Roast. You paste in a job description, it tears the thing apart
across six dimensions — clarity, honesty, inclusivity, attractiveness, structure,
and conversion — gives you a score out of 100, and roasts each section with
specific suggestions on how to fix it.

The tone is sharp on purpose. We tried a "professional report" version first.
Nobody read it. Nobody shared it. Turns out people actually engage with feedback
when it stings a little.

Some stuff it catches that I think is genuinely useful:
- Requirement inflation ("8 years of Kubernetes" when K8s launched in 2014)
- Gendered language patterns that shrink your applicant pool without you realizing
- The word "synergy." Just... no.
- Missing salary info — which, depending on the state, might actually be illegal now

No login needed. No email wall on the core roast. We gate the full rewrite
behind an email because yes, we're a startup and we need leads — but the roast
itself and the score are completely free. Not "free trial" free. Actually free.

Some context on the tech: it's not just "throw the JD at GPT and see what
comes back." Each dimension has its own detection logic — readability scoring,
gendered language pattern matching, salary transparency signals, requirement
inflation heuristics, etc. The LLM handles the commentary and rewrite, but the
scoring rubric is deterministic.

Try it: https://jd-roast.openjobs-ai.com/

Things I'd love to hear from y'all:

1. If you've written JDs before — does the rubric make sense? Are we weighting
the right stuff?
2. Is the roast tone too much, or about right? We're going for "brutally honest
friend" not "mean for no reason."
3. Missing dimensions? I've been debating adding "Remote Clarity" — whether
remote/hybrid/onsite is actually stated clearly. Seems important in 2026.

Happy to go deep on any technical questions or talk about the recruiting industry
if anyone's curious. I spent years at Boss Zhipin in China (went from 50M to
200M users while I was there) so I have some scars and opinions on two-sided
marketplaces.
by jfengel | 2026-03-11 16:33:16+00:00
The US doesn't want to invade North Korea. North Korea is a Chinese ally. China doesn't want the US on its border. North Korea doesn't need its own nukes to keep the US out.

At least, that was true. Here in 2026, nobody can say what the US will do with its military. Its goals are opaque and its actions often self-defeating.

Even so, if the US invades North Korea, NK's nukes won't be the most important thing. It would instantly become a US/China conflict with much, much, much larger stakes.
by vadelfe | 2026-03-11 16:33:52+00:00
What makes the Gervais Principle interesting is that it frames organizations as systems that are supposed to become pathological over time. Instead of reforming them the economy just replaces them through mergers, layoffs, and new startups.

In that sense, the real “governance mechanism” isn’t internal management at all but the external Darwinian churn of the market.