MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
Validation pipeline that blocks AI-generated files with schema errors
by petrnzrnk | 2026-03-06 15:28:46+00:00
Every time I used an LLM to generate structured knowledge files, the output would drift — wrong enum values, missing fields, dates in the wrong format, tags as strings instead of arrays. The files looked fine until something downstream broke: a Dataview query returning nothing, a CI check failing, a search index corrupting.

The standard fix is post-hoc validation — check after writing, fix manually. That doesn't scale past a few dozen files.

So I built a pipeline where the commit gate is the product:

Prompt → LLM → Validation Engine → Error Normalizer → Retry Controller → Commit Gate → File

The LLM is the only non-deterministic component. Everything else is pure functions. If output fails schema checks, it never touches disk — the normalizer converts error codes into correction instructions and sends them back to the LLM. If the same error fires twice on the same field, it aborts instead of looping — that pattern means your schema has a boundary problem, not the model.

The taxonomy lives in an external akf.yaml — not compiled into the tool:

enums:
domain: [ai-system, api-design, devops, security]
level: [beginner, intermediate, advanced]
status: [draft, active, completed, archived]

Change your ontology without touching code or redeploying.

What it catches: wrong enum values (E001), missing required fields (E002), bad date formats (E003), type mismatches like tags: "security" instead of tags: [security] (E004), domain values outside your taxonomy (E006).

Interfaces: CLI, Python API, REST (FastAPI), MCP server in progress.

pip install ai-knowledge-filler
akf generate "Write a guide on Docker networking"
akf validate ./vault/

Works with Claude, GPT-4, Gemini, Ollama. 560 tests, 91% coverage. MIT license.

GitHub: github.com/petrnzrnk-creator/ai-knowledge-filler
PyPI: pypi.org/project/ai-knowledge-filler

Curious whether others have hit this — what are you doing when AI-generated content drifts out of spec?
by JPLeRouzic | 2026-03-06 15:28:48+00:00
> "The Oxford researchers proposed that the large spontaneous waves of brain activity that occur during deep sleep, or non-rapid eye movement sleep (non-REM), might suppress the brain activity that leads to tinnitus.2

I have a permanent tinnitus and my watch tells that I have a low level of deep sleep. I wonder how I could improve my deep sleep? (I am retired, live on countryside and have some physical activity)
by teddyh | 2026-03-06 15:29:21+00:00
The whole architecure of Mandos is very plugin-based, it will therefore likely not be hard to add. But I am not sure what you are asking for? The Mandos server will, by default, unlock all clients, without asking. There is support for not unlocking immediately and instead wait for external approval for clients explicitly so configured, but what is the scenario? Is the client the one supplying the passkeys/webauthn? Or are you providing that manually on a web page somewhere? The latter is possible; the web page server process would then, when a passkey/webauthn has been verified, send a D-Bus “Approve” message to the Mandos server process, which would then send the client its password.
by guenthert | 2026-03-06 15:29:44+00:00
"inconclusive" only regarding the significant acceleration. The warming part wasn't in question.

The actual abstract reads: "Recent record-hot years have caused a discussion whether global warming has accelerated, but previous analysis found that acceleration has not yet reached a 95% confidence level given the natural temperature variability. Here we account for the influence of three main natural variability factors: El Niño, volcanism, and solar variation. The resulting adjusted data show that after 2015, global temperature rose significantly faster than in any previous 10-year period since 1945."
by stfp | 2026-03-06 15:30:09+00:00
Anecdotally, as I spend time between the US and the EU, the divide is large and clear now. It feels like folks in the US sort of just gave up (me included to an extent), whereas in Europe there seems to be a stronger resolve at a personal level and institutional level, to keep reducing energy use, plastics, driving, waste, etc. The US on the other hand is accelerating overconsumption in all directions.

It's especially depressing for me when it comes to younger folks. In Seattle where I live (not the suburbs, actual Seattle) some teenagers drive to school in 6 seater SUVs and spend their lunch time in there, with the engine on. A minority of students of course but that's still a mindfuck... in Europe they would get so much shit from other kids and neighbors. Drop in the bucket in terms of actual emissions but a very strong symbol of the lack of awareness/motivation.
by zbentley | 2026-03-06 15:30:16+00:00
Okay, assuming that’s the case for the sake of argument, that’s still a huge problem right? Kids raised by bad parents suffer, which is inhumane. And if you don’t care about that, they also cause problems or costs for society at large (especially if there are a lot of them).

Those are bad outcomes. So is it any wonder that we look for policy/regulatory issues to mitigate the harms of bad parenting?
by butILoveLife | 2026-03-06 15:30:18+00:00
The Karl Popper in me says: Its barely useful science because its not falsifiable.

Its like a horoscope, it applies to everyone.

Its closer to a tautology "Its raining or its not" than a contradiction "Its raining and its not".

The closer to contradiction limits the possible realities, which makes it better science.

Imagine if I said "People who skip breakfast are worse at their jobs". Its so vague, its always true.
by ndiddy | 2026-03-06 15:30:53+00:00
I don't see the US doing anything about global warming regardless of who's in charge. China has won on manufacturing cheap wind/solar energy and is scaling up their cheap EV manufacturing right now. Trump is definitely accelerating China's future dominance by completely forgoing anything related to developing or manufacturing green tech in favor of fossil fuels, but I think both parties would rather get into a conflict with China than cooperate with them and purchase their energy tech to deploy domestically. Solar and wind power are already far cheaper than coal or natural gas, and are much quicker to deploy, but the US government would much rather prop up the domestic fossil fuel industry than cooperate with China on renewables because fossil fuel is where all the incumbent money is.
Show HN: Sustn – scans your repo and opens PRs for security issues and tech debt
by flyingsky | 2026-03-06 15:31:09+00:00
Hi HN! I use Claude Code a lot, but my token usage is directly proportional to how long I'm willing to sit there prompting it. If I'm not at my desk thinking up tasks and feeding them in, the tokens just go unusued[which i weirdly feel bad about].

over the past couple of days, I hacked on sustn, a tool that scans your repo, figures out what needs fixing on its own (dead code, missing tests, security issues, etc.), and puts it in a prioritized list. Then it just starts working through the list - whether you're there or not.

When it's done with a task, it either creates a PR automatically or waits for your approval - you choose. You can reorder the list to control what gets picked up next, set a schedule (e.g let it run overnight), set a token budget, and add your own tasks manually too.

Still very early but would love feedback.
by univacky | 2026-03-06 15:32:20+00:00
American here. I have to agree with this sentiment (without getting into the math of our deeply flawed election system).

The administration could not do any of this without the support of Congress, which has not wavered. That support is unwavering because those elected officials are not getting negative feedback from their voters and donors, so they have every expectation that staying this course will work out just great for them.

This administration's actions only continue with the approval of their party who put them and keep them in power.
by abustamam | 2026-03-06 15:32:48+00:00
Yeah, like most startups. I'd argue that a majority of AI startups now will go nowhere as well. That's just how new technology goes. Lots of shiny objects, lots of hype, and maybe 1%, if that, goes on to become a foundation of society.

Jury is still out on if crypto will become a foundation for society (if anything, it would be foundational for something boring and invisible like banking). I wouldn't bet on a startup doing that, but that's the only viable thing I can foresee crypto being useful for. But it doesn't mean that other applications can't be interesting and useless!
by ddxv | 2026-03-06 15:32:55+00:00
Yes, it was probably one of my better decisions and investments in the past years. I run a ton of things I never would have paid to run in the cloud and feel in control. I've even started making money from one of the projects.

Tons of small things feel nice, taking notes and I don't have to use Google Docs if I don't want. Watching a movie from my home media center etc
by bubblegumcrisis | 2026-03-06 15:33:27+00:00
How did you decide to work at Meta?

I'll be honest, just the idea of working there makes me feel like vomiting. For me, they are bizarrely evil. They're not evil like, "we're going to destroy our competition through anti competitive practices," (which they do), but "let's destroy a whole generation of minds."

And now with the glasses. I mean, jeeze. Can there be a stronger signal of not caring for others?

It's as if Meta sees people as cattle.
Though I think a lot of techies see humans as cattle, truthfully.

What was your rationale?

I guess this question is out-of-the-blue, and I don't mean for you to justify your existence, but I've never understood why people choose to work for Meta.
by kami23 | 2026-03-06 15:34:05+00:00
Props to sharing this!

> Claude was trying to talk me out of it, saying I should keep it separate, but I wanted to save a bit because I have this setup where everything is inside a Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) with all resources in a private network, a bastion for hosting machines

I will admit that I've also ignored Claude's very good suggestions in the past and it has bitten me in the butt.

Ultimately with great automation becomes a greater risk of doing the worst thing possible even faster.

Just thinking about this specific problem makes me more keen to recommend that people have backups and their production data on two different access keys for terraform setups.

I'm not sure how difficult that is I haven't touched terraform in about 7 years now, wow how time flies.
by whynotmaybe | 2026-03-06 15:34:46+00:00
The ones I know that have money stopped going there and went further south or in Europe.

Some even go as far as booking a trip to Europe for a music concert instead of going to the US.

The line between "it's expensive" and "the current situation in the US sucks" is blurred.

https://globalnews.ca/news/11075088/canadian-snowbird-couple...
by bombcar | 2026-03-06 15:35:01+00:00
The number of unicode processing bugs that existed (and maybe some still exist) alone is reason to be a bit cautious.

And having emojis work "mostly" but not "everywhere" would have been something Jobs would have entirely been against - if they wouldn't work over normal non-iMessage SMS, for example, or not work reliably.

Remember the "emojigate" issues where the same emoji would display differently on different phones and make a funny message seem threatening, etc?
by tjnaylor | 2026-03-06 15:35:10+00:00
The title is a fair summary. The paper isn't simply confirming the "climate changed [warmed]" since 2015. The paper is showing the climate warmed the past decade twice as fast as it had between the decades from 1960-2000.

"This 58 indicates that the warming trend has been accelerating from a rate of 0.15 – 0.2 ◦C 59 per decade during 1980-2000, to more than twice that rate [0.4°C] most recently."
by lo_zamoyski | 2026-03-06 15:35:27+00:00
That's not quite accurate. Formal languages (which have an old pedigree) can be useful for clarification and inference, but they can also obfuscate the truth, and what's more, subvert it. Every logical formalism necessarily presupposes some metaphysics, and if the metaphysics is bad, or you fail to recognize the effective bounds of that formalism, you can fall into mechanically generated bullshit. Modern predicate logic suffers from known paradoxes and permits nonsensical and vacuous inferences (like those caused by material implication). More subtle effects are expressed in, for example, the problem of bare particulars.

Formalism is a product of prior (semantic) reasoning that isn't formal. And because formalism is syntactic, not only can you still jam your semantic nonsense through it (through incoherent subjects and predicates, for example), but the formalism, stripped of semantics, can itself allow for nonsense. So formalism can actually aid and abet bad reasoning. The danger, of course, is the mistaken notion that "formal = rigorous".

Formalism is also highly impractical and tedious in many circumstances, and it can depart from human reasoning as expressed in the grammar of natural language enough to be practically inscrutable. There is no reason why natural language cannot be clear and well-written. So, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree here.

The problem with LLMs isn't that they're not "formal". It's because they're statistical machines, not reasoning machines, yet many people treat them like magical oracles.
by Esophagus4 | 2026-03-06 15:35:29+00:00
There does exist some purpose for corp-speak: it is a shared language for people in disparate parts of a large organization to communicate with. It is a tool, mostly for managers.

Managers use it with peers because their job is coordination and communication.

Managers shouldn’t talk to their reports in corp-speak, but think of it like a shared protocol for all messages in the corporate message bus.
by atonse | 2026-03-06 15:35:40+00:00
This is true in most scenarios, and the opposite is also true – that Americans are famously friendly, and even though Canadians may not want to visit to make a point, I think even they would agree that most day to day interactions they'd have would be warm and welcoming.

There might be a bit more hockey ribbing for the next few weeks, but I know there's a ton of respect for Canada's team.

At the end of the day, the idea of "My problem is with the government, and not the people" is as old as time.
by kethinov | 2026-03-06 15:35:48+00:00
I'm a fan of UO and I love seeing more projects like this. Nice work!

Obligatory nitpicky aside, a time-honored tradition of HN:

I've long been irritated by the use of the term "server emulator" in gaming contexts. Technically these projects are just reimplementations of a proprietary networking protocol. Nobody calls Samba a "server emulator" because it reimplements the Windows file sharing protocol, because Samba isn't "emulating" anything from the perspective of the traditional definition of "emulator" in computer science.

But for some reason, I guess because "emulator" has colloquially been redefined by non-CS nerd gamer normies as a term for software that lets you play proprietary games on platforms they were not designed for, we have ended up in this new status quo where the term's definition has expanded in this game of telephone way that annoys mainly me and not many other people.

And what's kinda funny is I say that it is a "new" status quo, but it's not even that new. I recall, what, like 20 years ago now I was in an edit war on Wikipedia fighting with people over the "server emulator" article, insisting that the term was technically inaccurate and should not be used. Unsurprisingly in retrospect, I lost that edit war.

Nowadays the whole thing feels like my first "old man yells at cloud" moment, of which I'm sure I'll experience more as I age. I certainly do find new slang introduced by gen Z like "he got the riz!" to be quite cringey, so it looks like I'm well on my way to getting crotchety and terrible about the natural evolution of language! ;)
by triceratops | 2026-03-06 15:35:52+00:00
New coal power installations != increased use of coal for power generation. You have to stop this lie by omission.

Their new coal plants either replace older ones. Or they are left idle. Close to 90% of all their generation growth comes from solar and wind.

They use coal because they have coal. Just like the US uses natural gas and then pats itself on the back for "reducing emissions" by switching from coal to gas. But their current trajectory will see them going to burning very little coal. It's a national security issue for them.
by derektank | 2026-03-06 15:36:02+00:00
Said official herself (Erika McEntarfer) has said that you should continue to trust the numbers, “You should still trust BLS data. The agency is being run by the same dedicated career staff who were running it while I was awaiting confirmation from the Senate. And the staff have made it clear that they are blowing a loud whistle if there is interference”[1]

[1] https://open.substack.com/pub/stayathomemacro/p/trust-in-num...
by unethical_ban | 2026-03-06 15:36:04+00:00
In my social circle of liberal people, the reason is despondence.

Climate change has been known for decades now, and despite the alarms and concerns, the current administration is cheerfully, maliciously removing all initiatives in the US to combat it. Attempting to destroy the solar industry and wind power. Rolling back the most common sense environmental controls for public health.

Meanwhile our country has had its place in the world destroyed irrevocably (for at least a generation) and is turning further and further away from a country that cares for its citizens and its freedoms.

People are losing hope, not interest, because climate change and fascism are are more alarming than ever and our government is complicit.

Long standing problems are not being solved.
by amtamt | 2026-03-06 15:36:15+00:00
One would say

this guy's forked MIT'd version 0 will be as real and valid as version 6 of original chardet.

instead of

> Your fork of version 6 is just as real and valid as the MIT'd version 7!

Supporting for a decade is not a basis for unilateral takeover. In last 3 months there seem to be at least 3 other active contributors, any many dozens in past, who share the copyright on parts (ownership)

> nobody is entitled to this guy's pip account or GitHub account just because he rewrote the library

this guy's also not entitled to takeover what is communal, exactly in the same manner.

Someone answered it long ago in quite some details. Feel free to have a look:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/11455485
by theredsix | 2026-03-06 15:36:22+00:00
The difference is that we make browser use turn-based and return a single structured result per action.

With most other tools, the model is interacting with a live browser and effectively has to reason through a stream of low-level events while the page keeps changing. We instead freeze the page, let the model request one action, execute it, allow all resulting browser events to play out, then freeze again and return one bundled response with everything that happened plus the new stable page state.

So the model isn’t chasing a moving UI or event stream. It gets one grounded step at a time. A big part of the performance gain seems to come from that holistic action envelope.
by rodchalski | 2026-03-06 15:36:25+00:00
Good coverage on the input-side attack surface. One category that's harder to probe statically: what the agent does with its tool call authority once it's running.

Prompt injection can hijack the agent's reasoning, but the real damage happens when the agent then calls a tool it shouldn't — deletes a file, exfiltrates data, escalates its own permissions. The probe finds the injection vector; it doesn't tell you whether your authorization layer would have stopped what happened next.

150 probes is solid for "can the agent be manipulated?" Still leaves open "once manipulated, can it cause real harm?" — which depends on what the tool boundary looks like.

Curious if you've thought about probing tool-call authorization specifically. What scope do your injected prompts try to reach for?
by shadowgovt | 2026-03-06 15:36:35+00:00
At this point, one possible 50-years projection of outcomes here is that China eventually declares the US an existential threat to humanity's continued existence and deploys economic or military power to stop it unless the US gets its act together on carbon emissions. Can't build those AI datacenters if China has physically embargoed the chips.

That may seem extreme, but the Chinese culture is more collectivist than its Western counterparts and (perhaps unlike the US culture) can recognize a threat as complicated as "This entire nation's set of rules they treat the universe by threatens humanity existentially" even when said nation can't recognize it in themselves. Plus, India is hit hard and fast by climate change in the short run so China already has an ally in their backyard who would support them doing something about polluters.
by everdrive | 2026-03-06 15:36:44+00:00
>But don't worry, USA is solving the problem by Biden banning cheap electric cars and Trump ending electric subsidies entirely, forcing coal plants to restart

People really think if they just buy the right products we'll solve this problem. People are really fundamentally unable to solve global warming issues. There are a few fundamental problems:

- Broad, collective action is not possible in just any direction. People can broadly get behind causes that are related to some fundamental human motivation, but generally cannot be guided towards nuanced political topics except via general tribalism and coalitions. (eg: you can go to the moon, but there's only broad support for this in the sense that it has consequences for national pride. You didn't have a whole nation helping the the logistics; you just had broad coalitional support.)

- People think that merely buying the right product will help, but major impacts to climate would require a serious modification in quality of life and material wealth. This will never have broad support. People will always scrape out the most comfort and most material wealth that is possible, and will only allow themselves to be constrained by hard limits. Technology can help here to a degree, but once technology helps, people just advance to the next hard limit. For instance the use of insecticides, industrial fertilizer, and large-scale factory farming just allowed for more population boom. Rather than arriving at a place where where had near infinite abundance, we just ate up the gains with expanded population and luxury products. (sort of how computers don't get faster; once the computer is made faster, the software does more and the actual UI responsiveness just stays in the same place.)

- People would need to intentionally decrease population and find healthy limits with the environment. No living thing does this. If you watch population curves in predators and prey, they occur because the hard limits force starvation and population decline. (ie, if the wolves eat too many deer, then the wolf pups starve, the wolf population declines, and then the deer can rebound.) In other words, nature is not "wise and balanced" but instead the balance is a mere fact of competition and death. The moment we produce an abundance, we use up that abundance. This may not be true in the case of some individuals, but broadly this is true for any population.

- No political body, even an authoritarian regime could force these things. People would revolt. Authoritarians themselves often get into power by promising abundance they can never actually deliver on. No authoritarian has gained power by promising to reduce abundance and material wealth.