MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by SllX | 2026-03-12 03:06:30+00:00
Over the years since the M1 has launched I’ve cycled through Firefox, Safari, Arc, Zen, Orion and Vivaldi. For the past year my primary browser has been Orion on one M1 Mac, and Firefox has been the main on another M1 work machine for the past 5 years with frequent dips into Chrome on that one, but I don’t leave it sitting in the background when I’m done with it either.

What actually kicked off my browser exploration on the personal was dissatisfaction with Safari’s performance, and 20 tabs or less was enough to make it drag at the time even with disciplined use. I don’t think it had any significant advantages over a Chromium-based browser that particular year except probably battery life but battery life has not been an issue for me these entire 5 years. RAM and swap are something I do end up monitoring more each year (and I’m not in Tahoe yet for either of them), but I’m planning to drive these into the ground before replacing them.
by dragonwriter | 2026-03-12 03:07:22+00:00
It seems like that it is all contracts managed by the the Office of Industry Partnerships, within DHS's Science and Technology Directorate, which exists, per its website, to "engage industry and facilitate partnerships with private sector innovators to advance commercial technology solutions that address homeland security challenges."

This is consistent with the explorer having a drop down filter for "Program" with options exactly matching three of the four programs listed as OIP programs o their webpage, excluding "Targeted Broad Agency Announcements”, which from the description OIP participates in but are specifically for some other particular DHS component (which, might handles the actual contracting, which would explain why the data wasn't in the OIP leak, OTOH, the list of current opportunities in that category on the web is empty, so its possible that it is a category that exists in theory but is not actively being used currently.)

This is very much not all DHS contracts, and even the claim that it is "ICE/DHS" contracts seems mostly misleading clickbait trading on the degree of attention to and awareness of ICE even though these contracts are through and for a non-ICE component of DHS.
by sfink | 2026-03-12 03:07:35+00:00
Considering how prolific anba is, the only way we know he isn't an LLM is because he'd have to be several generations more advanced than the current SOTA. (It is possible that he might be an LLM from a few decades in the future, considering the connection to Temporal.)

anba implemented all of Temporal single-handedly, plus fixed up numerous places in the spec, plus migrated the implementation over some massive changes after other implementers discovered what a monster it all is. The original version of the spec kind of forced two separate internal implementation paths for everything, one for custom calendars and one for the built-in stuff, just to make the built-in one reasonably performant. That was a lot of work to implement, and a lot of work to remove. (I think ptomato shepherded the spec side of that?)

Fortunately, anba knows how to take a break, relaxing occasionally with minor tasks like rewriting large swathes of the JIT code generator to optimize the support on various platforms. He also gets plenty of nutrition, by ingesting entire specs and mind-melding with them.
by dataflow | 2026-03-12 03:07:36+00:00
I explained this in a bit more depth in an adjacent reply (feel free to take a look) but obtaining the source from AI doesn't achieve the same thing. For example, there might be other links that contradict that source, which the AI wouldn't cite. Knowing that AI picked the "best" one vs. a human is incredibly relevant when assigning and weighing credibility.
by marysminefnuf | 2026-03-12 03:07:57+00:00
I think we should allow users to add a set of like 5 tags personally on our account to content. And we can see what people are also tagging stuff as at large. So if a blog thats written with ai is something you want to ignore you can just tag that url and it wont show and you can see what people tagged that blog as too.
by azakai | 2026-03-12 03:08:11+00:00
Sorry, I'll ask my question in a better way: what applications written in wasm that exist today would benefit from this?

Now, maybe there aren't many because of performance - maybe they haven't used wasm because it was too slow. But I would appreciate seeing data on that - an application that tried wasm and gave up after seeing the overhead, at the least. But I would also expect to see apps that use wasm even despite some DOM overhead, because of the speedup on non-DOM code - and I'd like to see data on how much DOM overhead they are currently suffering.

I am asking because I'm familiar with a lot of apps ported to wasm, and they don't do this. That may just be because I am seeing one particular slice of the ecosystem! So I am very curious to learn about other parts.
by tlogan | 2026-03-12 03:08:15+00:00
And?
Do you agree with the point or the idea the poster said? Or not?

I remember that in the early days of HN there were people who would downvote comments just because they had grammar mistakes, without even trying to understand the idea or what the poster was trying to say.

I guess this thread looks like a bunch of grammar Nazis crying because they have lost their ammunition :)
by danhite | 2026-03-12 03:08:39+00:00
Rather than just looking at Apple's motivations as to address ~new customers, I'd like to point out Mr. Gruber surprised himself:

> I am in no way arguing that the MacBook Neo is an iPad killer, but it’s a splendid iPad alternative for people like me, who don’t draw with a Pencil, do type with a keyboard, and just want a small, simple, highly portable and highly capable computer to use around the house.

My wife and I prefer iPads around the house as she is a pencil centric artist and loosely speaking I prefer touch to keyboards. But his framing points out Apple is expansively addressing broad market work/school/home computing needs/preferences and thus also brings up a question I think is under discussed...

What is Apple's user experience roadmap for Apple TV mass market home computing? And for home computing in general?

We are overdue for a leap up there, where Apple, as with the Neo, exploits their ability to profitably deliver higher end hardware which enables features at prices below any comparable competition.

I know folks are fond of pointing to Apple struggling to deliver Siri/AI advances but I view that like their Apple Maps fiasco: an ongoing priority roadmap that they will keep working at until it is better than good enough.

I believe Apple will soon accelerate the power ramp up in Apple TV both because they could now ~ Neo that device into very $/performance competitive vs game consoles but also because they likely predict an ever increasing demand for home compute by consumers.

Not just speech i/o and AI conversation but also active realtime cheap private application of compute, such as personalizing your sports game feed, for example:

a) continually show me where the ball is by [dynamic method]
b) rewind to when player X had the ball
c) freeze there and show me what might have happened if they had passed to Y
d) dress all the players in tutus
e) change to my cooking show but warp me back to this game if someone scores
f) etc etc etc.

Their 5+ year planning and commitment to the Apple Watch and Vision Pro show that they are ardent bettors on personal computing continuing to evolve very rapidly if they can concoct a profitable multi-year course from niche to ubiquitous. [not just for a product but for their synergistic products]

Remember they build elaborate fake homes as test centers, and not just to film product promos. I would be very surprised to learn their current 5 year outlook ignores robotics. Look around the edges of their public activities and imagine how what you notice might also fit together with something new but hidden.

They are ambitious. Very Ambitious. What's next?
by BeetleB | 2026-03-12 03:09:28+00:00
> The majority of the cases where I would say "according to AI, <blah>" are where <blah> actually does cite sources that I feel appear plausible. Sometimes they're links, sometimes they would be other publications not necessarily a click away. Sometimes I could independently verify them by spending half an hour researching (which is), sometimes I can't.

In my experience, LLMs hallucinate citations like crazy. Over 50% of the times I've checked, the citation either didn't exist, or it did but didn't support the LLM's assertions.

This is true not just from the chat, but for Google AI summaries.

When the references are more often wrong than not, you can understand why many will simply downvote you for bringing LLM citations into the conversation. Why quote a habitual liar?

(If you look at my other comments, I'm actually in favor of using LLMs in some capacity for HN comments. Just not in this case.)
by nine_k | 2026-03-12 03:10:21+00:00
The cost of doing something wrong still is high. Even if bad code is produced instantaneously, its detrimental effect on production remains the same. Yes, yes, what fell on the floor and was picked up in five seconds is still considered fine to eat! Does not apply to eggs though. Customer trust is usually such an egg.

Writing code has become much faster. Writing correct and reliable code has become somehow faster, but not nearly as much. Understanding what code to write has barely become faster.

The more novel is the code you're writing, the smaller are gains from AI writing it.
by Springtime | 2026-03-12 03:10:40+00:00
Does this account for them reading the article though? There are pre-existing opinions that could be easy to rapidly post based on topical discussions but here it also has to be considered the time to parse technical submissions.

They read this article, called out a specific discrepancy then commented on a paper on Arxiv in a 70-odd word post then the same minute another 70-odd word post on a different technical post. Maybe like you suggest they're just wired differently.
by bathtub365 | 2026-03-12 03:10:46+00:00
There’s an interesting talk that relates to this: Trevor Paglen’s “Seeing the Secret State: Six Landscapes”[0]. He investigates some of the front companies involved in the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program. They mostly have unassuming names, presumably by design.

[0]: https://youtu.be/lvEMSRKniWk
Ask HN: Im looking for indie hackers or small teams to test AI analytics tool
by m2fauzaan | 2026-03-12 03:10:50+00:00
I’m the founder of Pluk, a native AI database client.

I’ve been working on a new feature that lets you create agentic data notebooks on top of your own databases, and then turn those analyses into interactive dashboards. You can ask questions in plain language, run deeper SQL or Python-style workflows when you need to, and keep everything—from quick explorations to “real” reports—in one place.

The key difference: Pluk runs locally on your machine, directly against your own data. That means:
- Your data never has to leave your environment for some third‑party cloud service.
- You don’t need yet another expensive per‑seat analytics subscription just to explore or share metrics.
- Performance is predictable and under your control, instead of being limited by a multi‑tenant SaaS backend.

My goal is to make it feel like you have a powerful AI analytics workspace—agentic notebooks, charts, and dashboards—but without the usual overhead of spinning up a whole separate cloud platform.

I’m looking for indie hackers and small teams who want to try this out early, use it on their real data, and give candid feedback on what works and what’s missing :)
by TheDong | 2026-03-12 03:11:20+00:00
I mean, clawbots are inherently insecure. Using a better model is defense in depth.

Obviously you should also take precautions, like never instructing it to invoke the browser tool on untrusted sites, avoiding feeding it untrusted inputs where possible in other places, giving it dedicated and locked-down credentials where possible....

But yeah, at this point it's inherent to LLMs that we cannot do something like SQL prepared statements where "tainted" strings are isolated. There is no perfect solution, but using the best model we can is at least a good precaution to stack on top of all our other half-measures.
by I_dream_of_Geni | 2026-03-12 03:11:40+00:00
Yes, these are MY questions and feelings too. In the past, if I just HINTED at asking these kinds of questions, I was downvoted into oblivion (in other accounts. I have to say THAT specifically because some people here dive in to my account and get super anal about my age, my previous comments, my moniker, ad nauseum)
by foxglacier | 2026-03-12 03:12:10+00:00
The cover is a strange thing to judge a book by. SAIC isn't somehow worse because they couldn't think of a witty name 60 years ago. IBM couldn't either, nor General Motors. Basic descriptive names are actually pretty good compared to meaningless "Meta" or "Google" that have no idea what industry they even want to appear to be in.
by adgjlsfhk1 | 2026-03-12 03:13:42+00:00
> I do agree that it'd be reasonable to just assume fast misaligned ops, but for whatever reason gcc and clang just don't, and that's what we have for defaults.

This very much has a "for now" on it. Once there is actually widespread hardware with the feature, I would be very surprised if the compilers don't update their heuristics (at least for RVA23 chips)
by brucehoult | 2026-03-12 03:13:55+00:00
> P550 is, like, what, only a year old?

No, it was released to customers in June 2021, almost five years ago.

https://www.sifive.com/press/sifive-performance-p550-core-se...

It has take a while for this core to appear in an SoC suitable for SBCs, as Intel was originally announced as doing that and got as far as showing a working SoC/Board at the Intel Innovation 2022 event in September 2022.

Someone who attended that event was able to download the source code for my primes benchmark and compile and run it, at the show, and was kind enough to send me the results. They were fine.

For reasons known only to Intel, they subsequently cancelled mass production of the chip.

ESWIN stepped up and made the EIC7700X, as used in the Milk-V Megrez and SiFive HiFive Premier P550, which did indeed ship just over a year ago.

But technically we could have had boards with the Intel chip three years ago.

Heck we should have had the far better/faster Milk-V Oasis with the P670 core (and 16 of them!) two years ago. Again, that was business/politics that prevented it, not technology.
by nineteen999 | 2026-03-12 03:14:12+00:00
Now if they'd just release an update to 26.3.1 (23D8133) which PERMANENTLY broke Apple Carplay for me I'd be happy.
It's been getting steadily worse since iOS 26 was released.

Apple is rapidly becoming the new Microsoft. I mean, Microsoft has fallen so much further, so I guess that just opened up a new gap in the shitty technology spectrum for Apple to descend to.
by mostertoaster | 2026-03-12 03:14:18+00:00
The word monotheism didn’t even exist until the 17th century.

I’m doubtful of some of the article’s claims, that seem to project our modern ideas onto the ancient world.

But I think ancient israel saw there were many “gods”, but they viewed Yahweh as “God most high” or even “creator God”.

It’s like saying “Hinduism” is this singular religion, that is actually full of different gods and different practices, but we just lump it all together as one thing.

We just really like taxonomies.
by SllX | 2026-03-12 03:14:33+00:00
Browser use on the modern web is enough to put you in swap territory early and often on 8GB of RAM. My much more RAM efficient M2 iPad Pro with the non-desktop OS and 8GB of RAM frequently has to page out apps I had open two minutes ago if I’m doing anything with the web and like one or two other applications. This things eventual replacement in like 4 or 5 years is going to need twice or thrice the RAM for me to consider it an upgrade.
by Spooky23 | 2026-03-12 03:15:37+00:00
When I worked for the government, we had a requirement to get a certification for every model of device Dell had on our contract. This excluded consumer devices. They had >350 SKUs, with probably millions of configurations.

Apple a decade ago had like 10. Now probably 20-30 Mac configurations, and even those probably share alot of components.

Honestly, I don’t understand how Dell does it.
by RevEng | 2026-03-12 03:15:37+00:00
I agree on the editing. We use these things all the time - chances are many of you are using it right now as you type on your phone and it checks your spelling for you.

By the same token, what if I have a human editor help me out? What if we go back and forth on how to write something, including spelling, grammar, tone, etc. For example, my wife occasionally asks me to review her messages before sending them because she thinks I speak well and wants to be understood correctly.

The problem is that we are punishing the technology, not the result. Whether it's a human or an LLM that acts as your editor should be irrelevant; what matters is that you are posting your own work and not someone else's. My wife having me write all of her messages for her would be just as dishonest as her having an LLM write all of her messages for her if she always presented them as her own writing. But if she writes the copy and I provide suggests for changes, what's the harm in that? And why should it matter if it's a human or an LLM that provides that assistance?
by GianFabien | 2026-03-12 03:15:54+00:00
I don't use WASM as a replacement for JS. I never have a need to manipulate DOM, etc from WASM. JS is perfectly fine and performant for those purposes.

As I see it, WASM is used to augment the JS/WebAPI ecosystem. For example, when you need to do heavy bit manipulation, complex numerical processing. The round-trip JS->WASM->JS is an overhead. So the WASM modules should perform a substantial amount of processing to offset that inefficiency.

I frequently find that V8 optimisations yield sufficient performance without needing to delve into WASM.

IMHO if you want to write WebApps in Rust, you're holding it wrong.
by nunez | 2026-03-12 03:16:25+00:00
HN cargo-cults heavily for sure. That's more of a reflection of SV culture than something unique to HN.

2016-2018 was Docker and Kubernetes. 2020 was COVID. 2021-2022 was WFH good, RTO bad...and lots of Web3 and crypto stuff. 2023 was the dawn of AI, and it hasn't let up since. These are vibes and likely inaccurate.
by kshri24 | 2026-03-12 03:18:06+00:00
This probably only works properly in the developed countries. In developing countries like India we suffered through decades of "booth captures" [1] where armed gangs would take over a polling booth and cast votes for their political candidate at gun point. Villagers would be disallowed from casting their votes. In many instances, the polling booth itself would be set on fire, ensuring that those votes are never counted.

With EVMs the polling officer can just deactivate the machine (which stops the counting at that moment) making booth capturing pointless.

Not saying this is not possible in developed countries. It could very well happen sometime in the future where armed gangs take over polling booths (especially if the candidate in question is bound to lose due to corruption/scandal and needs to cling onto political power to prevent himself/herself from going to prison).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booth_capturing
by ninjagoo | 2026-03-12 03:18:10+00:00
A significant part of my friends and family conversations already involve referencing LLMs for scoping, explanations, deeper dives, insights etc. And it's not just me, they use LLMs more than I do. It helps move discussions along. Where before conversation would get bogged down in disputes, now we cover more ground.

If it helps, my friends and family tend to have at least a master's, and the majority have PhDs.

> Would you hang out with a friend over coffee or something who, rather than conversing with you, recorded your side of the conversation directly into an LLM and then played you back the result?

I think the difference is that you're imagining the LLM replaces the conversationalist, but as I said above, my lived experience is that the LLM provides grounding to the discussion, effectively having replaced internet search as a better, faster, broader, smarter library. It doesn't kill the conversation, it makes it better.
by azakai | 2026-03-12 03:18:23+00:00
> Figma is one site. There are also a handful of other sites that use wasm. But most of the web does not use wasm.

Most of the web also doesn't use the Video element, but it isn't 'a dud' either.

Video and wasm are critical for a small subset of the web. That subset includes YouTube and Netflix for Video, and Figma and Photoshop and Unity games for wasm.
by throwaway85825 | 2026-03-12 03:18:27+00:00
And what percent of diesel emissions are from diesel passenger vehicles?

Emissions reduction efforts would be better spent ensuring repairability. The sunk cost emissions of landfills filled with junk created by planned obsolescence is much worse.

Diesel pick ups are not practical vehicles. Let's be honest, it's a hobby. It's always going to be niche and cutting down the last 10% is always the hardest. General aviation still uses lead.
by BeetleB | 2026-03-12 03:19:15+00:00
> To clarify my thoughts on this, I'm not against using AI to research/hone your arguments. It's no different to using Wikipedia or googling.

> I don't think that's what this new HN guideline is against either.

This is actually how many commenters here are interpreting it, though - and that's what I'm pushing back against. They are actively advocating against using LLMs this way.

I don't have the LLM write the comment for me. I (sometimes) give it my draft, along with all the parents to the root, and get feedback. I look for specific things (Am I being too argumentative? Am I invoking a logical fallacy? Is it obvious I misinterpreted a comment that I'm replying to? Is my comment confusing? etc). Adding things like (Am I violating an HN guideline?) are fair game.

Earlier today I wrote a lot of comments without using the LLM's feedback. In one particular thread I repeatedly misunderstood the original context of the discussion and wasted people's time. I reposted my draft to the LLM and it alerted me of my problematic comment. Had I used it originally, I would have saved a lot of people time.

Incidentally, since I started doing this (a few months ago), I've only edited my comment once or twice based on its feedback. Most of the time it just tells me my comment looks good.