MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by fka | 2026-03-12 22:40:06+00:00
A distributed app store for projects built with AI coding agents. Each store is an apps.json in a GitHub repo. A build script aggregates them into a unified catalog on GitHub Pages. No backend or database needed. just JSON.

Adding your apps: create an apps.json, open a PR. Or tell your AI agent to do it the spec is designed for that.

Built on Appétit (https://github.com/f/appetit), a standalone App Store UI in vanilla HTML/CSS/JS you can deploy as your own store. WVW federates multiple Appétit instances into one catalog.

Source: https://github.com/f/wvw.dev
by XCSme | 2026-03-12 22:40:10+00:00
In my tests it's worst with adding extra formatting or output: https://aibenchy.com/compare/anthropic-claude-opus-4-6-mediu...

For example, sometimes it outputs in markdown, without being asked to (e.g. "**13**" instead of "13"), even when asked to respond with a number only.

This might be fine in a chat-environment, but not in a workflow, agentic use-case or tool usage.

Yes, it can be enforced via structured output, but in a string field from a structured output you might still want to enforce a specific natural-language response format, which can't be defined by a schema.
Fresh Open Claw Documentation
by manos-saratsis | 2026-03-12 22:40:26+00:00
if you wanna some ai generated documentation for OpenClaw here you go https://orchestrai.dev/documentation/openclaw-4a80f8/user_facing/getting_started/73a6987b-6acc-46b2-b8e5-f0c86aa53534#installation-and-initial-setup
by stego-tech | 2026-03-12 22:40:47+00:00
You’re going crazy because up until this exact moment you’ve never had to confront the reality that these tools, placed into the hands of the common man, are viewed as authoritative and lack any accountability or consequence for misuse.

For anyone who has been victimized by law enforcement or governments before, we’ve been warning about this shit for decades. About the lack of consequence for police brutality. The lack of consequence for LPR abuse. The lack of consequence for facial recognition failures and AI mismatches.

You need to understand that by using these systems correctly and holding yourself accountable, you are in the minority. Most people do not think that critically, and are all too happy to finger the computer when things go badly.

And until you accept that, and work to actually hold folks accountable instead of deflecting blame away from the tool, then this won’t actually change.
by cmrdporcupine | 2026-03-12 22:41:08+00:00
Just like any other Ubuntu machine, really. Just lots (128GB) of RAM and relatively lots of cores (10 efficiency, 10 performance). It's not screaming fast, but it's absolutely fast enough for anything I need to do and it's got insanely fast networking options if I need them.

I like it, and the local AI options make it fun enough, too.

Apart from a few hassles. No pre-packaged Discord or Slack or Chromium or Spotify are the only things I've run into really.
by stefan_ | 2026-03-12 22:41:33+00:00
This is probably just OpenCode nonsense. After prompting in "plan mode", the models will frequently ask you if you want to implement that, then if you don't switch into "build mode", it will waste five minutes trying but failing to "build" with equally nonsense behavior.

Honestly OpenCode is such a disappointment. Like their bewildering choice to enable random formatters by default; you couldn't come up with a better plan to sabotage models and send them into "I need to figure out what my change is to commit" brainrot loops.
by nulltrace | 2026-03-12 22:41:39+00:00
I've seen something similar across Claude versions.

With 4.0 I'd give it the exact context and even point to where I thought the bug was. It would acknowledge it, then go investigate its own theory anyway and get lost after a few loops. Never came back.

4.5 still wandered, but it could sometimes circle back to the right area after a few rounds.

4.6 still starts from its own angle, but now it usually converges in one or two loops.

So yeah, still not great at taking a hint.
by mothballed | 2026-03-12 22:42:42+00:00
I think there has to be at least some level of tolerance for venting when you step out of work, walk up the street to the grocery store for a bite to eat. And on the street are drug addicts trying to sell you their food stamp card, which also means they are eligible for Medicaid, and meanwhile when your own family needs healthcare no one gives a flying fuck and you are on your own but by god you better pay taxes for half of everyone else to get that healthcare. All from personal experience. The message is if you contribute to society then you are left to die of whatever ailments you might get while being forced to cover half of everyone else's, but otherwise society will take care of your health if you choose to seek healthcare.

Regardless of your stance on single payer healthcare, anyone can see what we have is a highly corrupt and contemptable system and what I am receiving is not "socialized" health care.
by pear01 | 2026-03-12 22:43:21+00:00
It's called qualified immunity. Many support its repeal. I hope you join them, and convey the same to your local representatives and candidates. Until it is reformed few if any officers or administrators of criminal justice in the United States will ever feel any type of accountability.

Short of video evidence of blatant gun to the back of the head style homicide qualified immunity means most law enforcement officials are never held accountable for their miscarriages of justice. Criminal charges against officers are exceedingly rare. She should be able to sue this detective directly. Of course she can sue the government too, and should. But without any personal consequences for the people carrying out these acts, taxpayers will continue to bail out these practices without ever noticing. Your own government should not be a shield for a police officer who has violated you or your neighbors.
by caconym_ | 2026-03-12 22:44:44+00:00
As soon as we start to see a pattern of shitty vibe-coded software actually harming people via defects etc. (see: therac-25), I would hope that the conversation is about structural change to mitigate risk in aggregate rather than just punitive consequences for the individual programmers who are "responsible". The latter would be a fantastically stupid response and would do little or nothing to reduce future harm.
by sssilver | 2026-03-12 22:45:05+00:00
Important follow-up to my comment: as fewer people do X -- live music, medicine, education, you name it -- fewer talented people do it as well.

Fields need a large base of participants to produce great ones. This is exactly why software has been so extraordinary over the past 30 years: an unusual concentration of gifted minds across the entire humankind committed themselves to it.

In my view, Bach, Rachmaninoff, Cole Porter equivalents today probably aren't writing symphonies. They've decided to write code for a living. Which is why any Great American Songbook made today won't hold a candle next to one from 1950s.
by dathinab | 2026-03-12 22:45:44+00:00
> The parent controls on devices is terrible.

Which is IMHO my take on what should be done.

1. require functioning parent controls (here its also worth considering the abuse of parent controls). A problem here is the absence of a proper competing market of (phone) operating systems...

2. use parent controls to "anchor"/set the age/age category. I.e. NOT age verification, just age indication.

3. propagate them similar but not the same as with the Californian law, where possible do the decision before starting a program/fully loading the website etc. (1)

4. allow exception to be set (incl. per "origin" i.e. app, but also sub app e.g. browser:<domain>), it's a parenting tool not a state enforced

5. make it explicitly a non goal for this to be "hard to hack" or anything like that, it's a parenting tool not a banking tool. Proper trust management in a parent child relationship still matters and replacing it with "technology" is unlikely to end up well.

6. where possible leave the decision to the parent controls

7. Age categories are geographically/standard/age scoped, for most apps/site they only have one age gate and can just list them, potentially with content group hints, e.g. `us:pg:13,horror;de:fsk:12,horror` if the the user is in idk. uk the parent controls can make the decision, which might involve parent settings. E.g. a German parent probably wants to treat `us:pg:13,violence` as 14+ and very conservative people in the US want to treat `de:fsk:12,non-erotic-nudity` as 16+. For apps which serve content on a feed it's more shitty as they really want to be given the age gate instead of providing the contents age on access. This doesn't mean that they can't check the age gate for every peace of content "when serving it" (pitching back control to the parents controls) but still need a general age category, which will leak parent controls country, most times that will happen anyway by IP country of origin. So should work?

8. IP country of origin != age gate law which should apply. While legally not fully wrong to treat the same parents would be very surprised if their parent control allow/forbid things when they are on a holiday trip or because their child connected to a VPN tunneled hot spot... This loops back to 6. to give the decisions to the parent controls instead of the app/site/service.

9. criminal liability for intentional miss-classification of age gates (the "intentional" part matter a lot here).
by voxleone | 2026-03-12 22:46:39+00:00
These scans seem perfect for fabrication experiments.

I’ve been trying a workflow where the mesh is inverted and used to generate a 3D-printed mold, then I gelcast zirconia ceramic into it and sinter it. The result is a dense ceramic version of the sculpture.

If you downscale the models they work well as small desktop statues or relief friezes, and ceramic casting can preserve surprisingly fine detail from the scan.
by hugmynutus | 2026-03-12 22:46:40+00:00
This is because LLMs don't actually understand language, they're just a "which word fragment comes next machine".

Instruction: don't think about ${term}

Now `${term}` is in the LLMs context window. Then the attention system will amply the logits related to `${term}` based on how often `${term}` appeared in chat. This is just how text gets transformed into numbers for the LLM to process. Relational structure of transformers will similarly amplify tokens related to `${term}` single that is what training is about, you said `fruit`, so `apple`, `orange`, `pear`, etc. all become more likely to get spat out.

The negation of a term (do not under any circumstances do X) generally does not work unless they've received extensive training & fining tuning to ensure a specific "Do not generate X" will influence every single down stream weight (multiple times), which they often do for writing style & specific (illegal) terms. So for drafting emails or chatting, works fine.

But when you start getting into advanced technical concepts & profession specific jargon, not at all.
by LoganDark | 2026-03-12 22:47:02+00:00
You could say that. WebKit is in the dyld shared cache, so all of Safari's subprocesses share the same copy of it (and JavaScriptCore, etc.) in memory. But I would say it's more efficient because it integrates better with the platform's QoS primitives. I'm not sure what Firefox does in that regard, other than stuff from other platforms that don't have QoS (such as the throttling of JavaScript APIs like timers). Safari seems better at prioritizing the tabs you have open and backgrounding everything else, letting things go to swap, killing resource hogs, etc.
by kelnos | 2026-03-12 22:47:06+00:00
We were solid middle-middle class and didn't have a computer until 1989, and it was a "free", 2- or 3-year-old computer from my dad's work that they were going to throw away. We absolutely could not have afforded a computer during the 80s.

Even in the 90s, we kept relying on cast-offs from my dad's employer, and when I was preparing to go to college in '99, my parents scrounged to buy me the parts for a computer to build and take to college. But even then, my dad bought the parts at a discount through a former co-worker's consulting company, and vetoed a couple of my more expensive component choices.

And now that I think about it, my first laptop in 2003 was my dad's old work laptop that had been decommissioned.
by pinkmuffinere | 2026-03-12 22:47:14+00:00
> On Wednesday, the administration announced it would release 172 million barrels of crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The total reserve is 415 M barrels [1], so this is 41% of the reserve!! And refineries use about 16.5 M barrels per day [2], so if refineries used _only_ this reserve oil, it would keep them busy for 11 days. Of course they aren't _only_ using the reserve oil. I'm sure it will still have an effect, but I think it's a shorter-term solution than it first appears. I don't think this will ease prices for more than a couple months. Would be happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken about some of this.

Edit: I suppose that's probably why they're suspending the jones act, as a longer-term solution. I imagine the suspension will be extended once the first 30 days is up. Then again, the article says the Jones act will only save "pennies per gallon, not dimes per gallon" :/

[1] https://www.spr.doe.gov/dir/dir.html

[2] https://www.afpm.org/newsroom/blog/how-much-oil-does-united-...
by bitwize | 2026-03-12 22:47:27+00:00
Some things I noticed:

• When writing for myself, I tend to open a buffer and just ramble. I write like I speak, which is how someone I know irl clocked my Hackernews account.

• My wife appreciates the writing I produce this way. Sometimes I just sit and read aloud to her.

• When presenting material for work, it tends to go across much more clearly when I write like a damn AI.

Inferences that can be drawn:

• Reading for pleasure is a thing

• Some of us prefer long-form when reading for pleasure

• However, when on the job we prefer parsimony and preset structure
by stego-tech | 2026-03-12 22:47:39+00:00
It's the fault of the tool because our society treats the tools as superior judgements than humans and to be trusted completely as a means of deflecting accountability - something any and every minority group has been warning about for fucking decades.

The reason everyone rushes to defend the tool's use is because holding humans accountable would mean throwing these tools out entirely in most cases, due to internal human biases and a decline in basic critical and cognitive thinking skills. The marketing has been the same since the 80s: the tool is superior (until it isn't), the tool shall be trusted completely (until it fails), the tool cannot make mistakes (until it does).

If folks actually listened to the victims of this shit, companies like Flock and Palantir would be gutted and their founders barred from any sort of office of responsibility, at minimum. The fact so many deflect blame from the tool like the marketing manual demands shows they don't actually give a shit about the humans wrapped up in the harms, or the misuse and misappropriation of these tools by persons wholly unaccountable under the law, but only about defending a shiny thing they personally like.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2026-03-12 22:47:59+00:00
I think its the murphy's law/hyrum's law and combine that with rebel nature and you really can't do nothing about it. The only thing one can do is maybe reduce the ease of things for example but I have a feeling that will only make things go through different mediums and I am not sure if banning all mediums might be the correct approach but that's up for debate.

Speaking from personal experience, To leave bad habits, I think that kids need identity change. Maybe one can try changing Identity with incentives and environment but perhaps maybe one can try changing Identity with having a thought process as well.

It's like, "teach a man how to fish and he can eat fish for the rest of his life" My point is, teach kids how to think and yes, even then, these addictions will happen but have faith within kids and give them support systems. Every addiction ultimately derives from a form of insecurity and sometimes its circular because the addiction becomes the point of insecurity and this is why addiction can be hard to get out of too. Ultimately, A kid all wants to know is that even with his flaws, he's accepted within society and that they can be successful (whatever-it-might-mean for them)

That being said, One of the best things the world can probably do is give a life of abundance-in-general to us. Not riches just "enough". Poor kids feel like they are helpless so they get addicted, Rich kids feel like nothing matters so they get addicted, the middle class kids are uncertain about their future and they get addicted as a form of gaining control (in my feelings)

Though, If I have to sum up everything that I wrote, it would be that please try leaving a better world for the next generation (us) and we will appreciate it and hopefully trying doing the same for our next generation too hopefully and many of those actions are individual, often-private. The world is feeling quite chaotic nowadays so I feel like nobody is prepared to deal with it and as such each generation copes up in one way or another and taking control from one another which is also relevant to the article.

The whole discussion is way too nuanced. One can write so much about it and this can also lead to action-paralysis. I had even written more words somehow responding to ya[0]

[0]: My Original Thoughts that got quite long also showing the action-paralysis/nuance of the problem too in a way [Took the most relevant points of discussion from it]: https://web.archive.org/web/20260312223938/https://privatebi...
by kace91 | 2026-03-12 22:48:20+00:00
>I've resorted to append things like "THIS IS JUST A QUESTION. DO NOT EDIT CODE. DO NOT RUN COMMANDS". Which is ridiculous.

Funny to read that, because for me it's not even new behavior. I have developed a tendency to add something like "(genuinely asking, do not take as a criticism)".

I'm from a more confrontational culture, so I just assumed this was just corporate American tone framing criticism softly, and me compensating for it.
by catcam | 2026-03-12 22:48:20+00:00
Thanks! To put some numbers behind the motivation:

Rough Fermi estimate of global impact if this became standard practice:

Assumptions:
- ~1B AI queries/day touch technical docs (Copilot, ChatGPT, enterprise agents, CI/CD pipelines)
- HADS reduces tokens read per query from ~5k to ~1.5k via manifest + targeted block reading (70% reduction)
- ~0.003 Wh per 1k tokens for GPT-4 class inference (per published ML efficiency research)
- ~2 min saved per query from more precise first answers

Results:
- ~3.8 TWh electricity saved/year (~350k US homes, or ~20% of Google's annual data center consumption)
- ~12B developer hours recovered/year
- ~$60B/year in productivity at 10% adoption

These are intentionally rough — could be 10x off in either direction. The point is that documentation structure is
economically material at scale, not just an ergonomics concern.

Full writeup with methodology:
https://medium.com/@catcam_46604/ai-is-now-the-primary-reader-of-your-docs-nobody-told-your-docs-5f7103ea3281
by toobulkeh | 2026-03-12 22:48:59+00:00
1. There’s nothing human about hacker news. Since the telegraph, we lost human to human communication.

We’ve gained a lot. But it’s naive to claim that HN is any semblance of human-to-human communication.

2. You’ve now helped unleash the war that you’re now losing. This pleading is too little too late.

3. Just because something “should” happen doesn’t mean it will. Go build that future. Replace HN with human verification. But complaining about it is not building. It’s the lawyers defense, not the engineers.

I have only the utmost respect in YC and HN—but have heard this same argument for LI or any social media change. The networks’ defenses are crumbling.
by mccoyb | 2026-03-12 22:49:10+00:00
It is large compared to a stripped Zig ReleaseSmall binary with no runtime. With agents, one can take this repo, and create an extremely small binary.

To your point, why even advertise the number? If that particular number is completely irrelevant in practical usage, why mention it? It seems like the point is to impress, hence my response.
by Lerc | 2026-03-12 22:49:52+00:00
This problem predates modern AI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no is built upon the deliberate abdication of responsibility to processes that cannot be held accountable. AI is just letting them do it at scale.

That doesn't mean we should accept it from AI. We should fight the blind yielding to the facade of authority regardless of whether the decision was made by an AI or an insect landing on a teleprinter at the wrong time.
by hungryhobbit | 2026-03-12 22:50:11+00:00
Spoken like a true technophobe.

"There's this incredible new technology that's enabling programmers around the world to be far more productive ... but it screws up 1% of the time, so instead of understanding how to deal with that, I'm going to be violently against the new tech!"

(I really don't get the whole programmer hatred of AI thing. It's not a person stealing your job, it's just another tool! Avoiding it is like avoiding compilers, or linters, or any other tool that makes you more productive.)
by riclib | 2026-03-12 22:50:16+00:00
I've been building AI applications in Go since August 2024 — before "vibe coding" had a name. After 18 months of AI-assisted development on a Fortune 100 project, the argument for Go isn't performance or deployment anymore. It's the compiler.

When the machine writes 90% of the code, Go gives you five layers between the AI and production: compiler, type system, explicit errors, enforced simplicity, and the human. JavaScript gives you one: the human. And good luck.

The machine proposed a wrapper type last Tuesday. `go build` rejected it on line 47. I said five words: "why do we keep both around?" The wrapper died. In JavaScript, it would have compiled (nothing compiles in JavaScript), passed all tests, shipped to production, and coexisted with the original type for six months until someone proposed a `UnifiedStoreInterface` to bridge the gap.

TypeScript helps — but it's a type system that asks permission. `// @ts-ignore` exists. `strict: false` exists. `any` exists. Go has one mode. There is no `go build --please-actually-check-the-types`.

The machine can generate complexity faster than it can recognise it's unnecessary. Go is the language where the human can still recognise it.
by ineedasername | 2026-03-12 22:50:51+00:00
Any document store where you haven’t meticulously vetted each document— forget about actual bad actors— runs this risk. A size org across many years generates a lot of things. Analysis that were correct at one point and not at another, things that were simply wrong at all times, contradictory, etc.

You have to choose model suitably robust is capabilities and design prompts or various post training regimes that are tested against such, where the model will identify the different ones and either choose the correct one on surface both with an appropriately helpful and clear explanation.

At minimum you have to start from a typical model risk perspective and test and backtest the way you would traditional ML.
by phil21 | 2026-03-12 22:50:51+00:00
The engine isn't in the trailer. That is in the tractor, which pulls a trailer.

If OP meant "fueled by unrefined oil" then sure, but I didn't even consider that to be an option.

The heavier crude grades cannot be (realistically, at least) put into trailers or tanker cars - which is what I thought was being implied here for the Gulf oil sources.