MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by overgard | 2026-03-06 19:02:38+00:00
I know people will say AI, but I don't think it's that. The whole "everyone should learn to code" bullshit of the last 15 years or so has created a lot of developers that frankly aren't very good, and then you mix in the massive overhiring of the pandemic, and what you're seeing is a hard correction. CEOs love to use "productivity improvements from AI" as a smokescreen and investor catnip but the research shows it's not having the effects claimed.
by petee | 2026-03-06 19:02:49+00:00
In my bortle 8 city, I have been able to get some decent images of the Eastern Veil Nebula with an Optolong L-Pro pollution filter, Zenithstar 73, and about ~2hrs total exposure (color)

Just for poking around, SharpCap has a live stacking mode which helps finding the darker stuff
by devconcierge | 2026-03-06 19:03:03+00:00
Thoughts?
Claim is 100% visibility within the confines of your repo, where that visibility unlocks deterministic coding so the AI can't hurt your codebase.

From the site:

---
Evōk is an understanding engine built for logic.

It efficiently ingests your repo, generating a lossless mathematical digital twin of your codebase, instantly surfacing structural issues, dead code, circular dependencies, unused packages, and much more backed by the fidelity of pure deterministic math.

Zero heuristics. Zero LLMs.
Absolute understanding.
----

The first time you ingest a codebase into Evōk, dead code, broken functions, circular dependencies, external API calls, and unused packages all become visible. Not heuristics. Known mathematical truths, surfaced without a single query.

----
by jascha_eng | 2026-03-06 19:04:38+00:00
FWIW I reported your post to the mods because it reads completely AI generated to me. My judgement was that it might have been slightly edited but is largely verbatim LLM output.

Some tells that you might wanna look at in your writing, if you truly did write it yourself without Any LLM input are these contrarian/pivoting statements. Your post is full of these and it is imo the most classic LLM writing tell atm. These are mostly variants of the 'Its not X but Y" theme:

- "Not whether they've adopted every tool, but whether they're curious"

- "I still drive the intuition. The agents just execute at a speed I never could alone."

- "The model doesn't save you from bad decisions. It just helps you make them faster."

- "That foundation isn't decoration. It's the reason the AI is useful to me in the first place."

- "That's not prompting. That's engineering"

It is also telling that the reader basically cant take a breather most of the sentences try to emphasize harder than the last one. There is no fluff thought, no getting side tracked. It reads unnatural, humans do not think like this usually.
by jghn | 2026-03-06 19:04:46+00:00
I agree that what you're describing is the required skillset now. But two things I've been unsure of are what that looks like in terms of hiring to test for it, and for how long this remains a moat at all.

So much of tech hiring cargo culting has been built up around leetcode and other coding problems, puzzles, and more. We all pay lip service to systems thinking and architecture, but I question if even those are testing the correct things for the modern era.

And then what happens in a year when the models can handle that as well?
Show HN: CloakPipe – Rust privacy proxy for LLM APIs with pseudonymization
by rohansx | 2026-03-06 19:04:47+00:00
CloakPipe is a small Rust proxy that sits between your application and any OpenAI-compatible API.

It detects sensitive entities in requests, replaces them with consistent pseudonyms, forwards the sanitized request to the LLM provider, then rehydrates the response before returning it to your app.

“Consistent” means the same input always maps to the same token (e.g. "Tata Motors" → "ORG_7"). This preserves semantic structure so embeddings and retrieval still work, while ensuring the API provider never sees the real entity values.

The motivation came from looking at typical RAG architectures. A standard pipeline leaks data in multiple places per query:

- Raw document text sent to embedding APIs
- Embeddings stored in cloud vector databases (recent work like Zero2Text shows they can be inverted)
- Query embeddings sent to providers
- Retrieved context sent to LLM generation APIs

Existing approaches tend to fall into three buckets:

- Redaction ([REDACTED]) which destroys semantic meaning and breaks retrieval
- NER-based detection pipelines that add significant latency
- Stateless replacements that break vector search because tokens change between requests

CloakPipe tries to solve this by doing deterministic pseudonymization with a local mapping vault.

Some implementation details:

- Written in Rust as a single binary
- <5ms overhead per request in testing
- AES-256-GCM encrypted mapping vault with zeroize memory safety
- OpenAI-compatible proxy endpoints (`/v1/chat/completions`, `/v1/embeddings`)
- Streaming response rehydration (handles tokens split across SSE chunks)
- Pattern detection for API keys, JWTs, emails, IPs, financial amounts, fiscal dates
- Custom detection rules via TOML config

It's designed to be drop-in: point your client to the proxy by changing `OPENAI_BASE_URL`.

Repo:
https://github.com/rohansx/cloakpipe
by skydhash | 2026-03-06 19:04:50+00:00
> the ability to formulate your thoughts in a clear manner, have become essential skills for engineering

<Insert astronauts meme “Always has been”>

The art of programming is the art of organizing complexity, of mastering multitude and avoiding its bastard chaos as effectively as possible.

Dijkstra (1970) "Notes On Structured Programming" (EWD249), Section 3 ("On The Reliability of Mechanisms"), p. 7.

And

Some people found error messages they couldn't ignore more annoying than wrong results, and, when judging the relative merits of programming languages, some still seem to equate "the ease of programming" with the ease of making undetected mistakes.

Dijkstra (1976-79) On the foolishness of "natural language programming" (EWD 667)
by groby_b | 2026-03-06 19:05:05+00:00
Counterpoint: I've been desperately trying to code myself out of a job for almost 4 decades now. I inevitably ended up (and keep ending up) getting more responsibilities instead.

So have all the great engineers I've been working with - there's a deep desire for growth past the things that you're currently good at.

The people worrying they might code themselves out of a job are in a different skill demographic. (Ironically, that means they won't be able to code themselves out of a job)
by _doctor_love | 2026-03-06 19:05:14+00:00
It always comes down to economics and then the person and their attitude towards themselves.

Some things are worth learning deeply, in other cases the easy / fast solution is what the situation calls for.

I've thought recently that some kinds of 'learning' with AI are not really that different from using Cliffs Notes back in the day. Sometimes getting the Cliffs Notes summary was the way to get a paper done OR a way to quickly get through a boring/challenging book (Scarlet Letter, amirite?). And in some cases reading the summary is actually better than the book itself.

BUT - I think everyone could agree that if you ONLY read Cliffs Notes, you're just cheating yourself out of an education.

That's a different and deeper issue because some people simply do not care to invest in themselves. They want to do minimum work for maximum money and then go "enjoy themselves."

Getting a person to take an interest in themselves, in their own growth and development, to invite curiosity, that's a timeless problem.
by johnnyanmac | 2026-03-06 19:05:29+00:00
Yeah, I don't know if I'd call myself competent (I'm late intermediate/early senior. So the worst of the curve here). But there's a difference between "interviews have gotten a lot harder now" and "I can't even get a response back". It's far, far more in the latter.

My resume isn't bad on paper either. It's not FAANG coded, but it's decent experience.
by morphle | 2026-03-06 19:05:36+00:00
Wood and plant burning requires a longer nuanced answer than the Hacker News format allows. Humanity must not cut forests or grow plants unnecessarily. If you must use wood to build a house -(there are better and cheaper materials in terms of energy and climate change enhancing emissions, see for examples Amory Lovins book Reinventing Fire or his lectures on Youtube) - then first grow those trees in a place that has no natural forest. And then do not burn the wood after you demolish the house. Do not use wood from forest, humans should let the forest manage itself.

Same with clearing the underbush of Meditaranian and hotter climate forest to prevent forest fires. If humanity had not managed those forest (grazing animals, building roads, harvesting) in the first place than there would have been no buildup of excess material that sustain wildfires past its natural rate.
by gugasaiani | 2026-03-06 19:05:42+00:00
Location: Rio, Brazil

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: React, TypeScript, JavaScript, Ruby on Rails, Elixir

Resume/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gusaiani/

Email: gustavo@poe.ma

5 years as SFE at Metabase

before: Circuit (now Spoke), Toptal core team, founded EmCasa.com
by RealityVoid | 2026-03-06 19:05:45+00:00
Oh, I get this point. If you have a sufficiently large amount of data an you monitor the errors and your software gets better and better even low probability cases will happen and will stand out.

But this is sort of the march of nines.

My knee jerk reaction to blaming ECC is "naaah". Mostly because it's such a convenient scapegoat. It happens, I'm sure, but it would not be the first explanation I reach for. I once heard someone blame "cosmic rays" on a bug that happened multiple times. You can imagine how irked I was on the dang cosmic rays hitting the same data with such consistency!

Anyways, I'm sorry if my tone sounded abrasive, I, too, have appreciated the discussion.
by VWWHFSfQ | 2026-03-06 19:05:55+00:00
> before handing the tasks over to the AI agent to continue the recklessness with even more abandon

Which is a funny outcome of this because apparently the AI agent (Claude) tried to talk him out of doing some of the crazy stuff he wanted to do! Not only did he make bad decisions before invoking the AI, he even ignored and overruled the agent when it was flagging problems with the approach.
by freejazz | 2026-03-06 19:05:57+00:00
>Yes "deduced" makes more sense, though I guess the code was not really the point. I really should have said the backend functionality is being reproduced. As copyright doesn't protect functionality, the closest proxy we had was the code itself, and now that is meaningless.

But is was only ever so meaningful because as you point out, copyright does not protect functionality.

>
I haven't followed too closely, but the ruling on AI art seems to leave the door open for "significant human creative input" like "editing, arrangement." This leaves room for photography, but can also be covered by "architecture, followed by iterative prompting and potentially manual editing to refine the code", which is still needed for any non-trivial AI-generated code.

I don't think this kind of analogizing does anyone any benefits tbh.

>Not a lawyer, but I've seen tons of such issued patents out there, and many have even been upheld in lawsuits. §101 is often trivially bypassed adding "computer readable media" or some "non-abstract side-effect" language to claims. Like, one pattern of claims is "A method of - algorithm - algorithm - algorithm - show something to the user / write to a DB / transmit a message / etc."

I can't agree with this observation, unfortunately.
by dakiol | 2026-03-06 19:05:58+00:00
> While this could be done by junior or senior, I think junior usually has the slight advantage in being more AI-native and knowing how to effectively prompt and work with AI, though not always.

But juniors don't (usually) have the knowledge to assess if what the AI has produced is ok or not. I agree that anybody (junior or senior) can produce something with AI, the key question is whether the same person has the skills to asses (e.g., to ask the right questions) that the produced output is what's needed.
In my experience, junior + AI is just a waste of money (tokens) and a nightmare to take accountability for.
by magicalist | 2026-03-06 19:06:22+00:00
> Due to EMTALA, most hospitals have to treat them regardless of ability to pay. This is one of the factors causing the US healthcare financing system to collapse.

They'll only treat you until you're stabilized, though. They won't give you chemo or routine care. If you need to be admitted you're also not covered by the EMTALA.

All emergency medicine, not just that triggered by the EMTALA, is 5-6% of all healthcare spending in the US, so while it contributes, it's not collapsing the healthcare system.

The real problems with it are that it's an unfunded mandate by Congress, just adding to the financial tangling of the healthcare system, and that it's way too often used to treat things that could have been much more cheaply treated in a clinic, but then there are no clinics nearby that take Medicaid and are actually open, so instead, like with so much of our health care system, we choose to solve it the stupid way instead.
by sam0x17 | 2026-03-06 19:06:26+00:00
I see it the opposite way actually with respect to the CS degree. If you earned your CS degree (or any degree) before 2022 or so, the value of that degree is going to grow and grow and grow until the last few people who had to learn before AI are dying out like the last COBOL developers

AI has fundamentally broken the education system in a way that will take decades for it to fully recover. Even if we figure out how to operate with AI properly in an educational setting in such a way that learners actually still learn, the damage from years of unqualified people earning degrees and then entering academia is going to reverberate through the next 50 years as those folks go on to teach...
by zdragnar | 2026-03-06 19:06:38+00:00
Two loaves of bread off the same line are perfect substitutes for each other, and compete to be sold.

Lines of code within the same code base aren't competing to be sold. They either complement each other by adding new features, making the actual product sold more valuable, or one replaces another to make a feature more desirable- look better, work faster, etc.

The market grows if you add new features- your bread now doubles as a floatation device- or you introduce a new line of bread with nuts and berries.

So, the business has to decide- does it fire some workers and pocket the difference until someone else undercuts them, or does it keep the workers and grow the market it can sell to faster?
by JackFr | 2026-03-06 19:06:54+00:00
They said “short duration” not “short term”. The real risk is from spread duration rather than simple interest rate duration, and assuming they don’t lever up, that should be minimal.

The beauty of MBS floaters is that you’re relatively insensitive to prepayments because to a first approximation they’re always priced at par.

From an investor standpoint, as they say, you’re making maybe SOFR + 1.5%. That’s not a very sext return. But let’s say your banks repo desk is willing to finance the purchase at 5% down. Then you can lever up your investment 20x and now you’re a big shot making SOFR+30%, which is very sexy. But what’s that, when your lever like that, a tiny decline in price wipes out your entire stake (Welcome to 2008).
by drnick1 | 2026-03-06 19:07:24+00:00
> There are literally 100k deaths in Europe that can be prevented if they lifted restrictions on AC so that they can feel good about making a negligible effect on carbon emissions.

Which restrictions on AC? I know that Europeans don't use AC as much as the US because of a mixture of historical and cultural reasons, but I wasn't aware of any restrictions. What prevents someone in Europe from buying and installing an AC unit in their own home?
by mhalifax | 2026-03-06 19:07:39+00:00
Every child learns differently, so we’ve created a platform where your child becomes the star of their own financial journey. By weaving essential lessons on saving, budgeting, and generosity into a story where they are the main character, we make learning about money fun, relatable, and memorable.

We are on a mission to raise a generation of financially confident kids—one personalized story at a time.
by EdNutting | 2026-03-06 19:07:56+00:00
No staging environment?

No prior attempt to follow best practices (e.g. deletion protection in production)? Nor manual gating of production changes?

No attempt to review Claude's actions before performing them?

No management of Terraform state file?

No offline backups?

And to top it off, Claude (the supposed expert tool) didn't repeatedly output "Are you insane? No, I'm not working on that." - Clearly Claude wasn't particularly expert else, like any principal engineer, it would've refused and suggested sensible steps first.

(If you, dear reader of this comment, are going to defend Claude, first you need to declare whether you view it as just another development tool, or as a replacement for engineers. If the former, then yeah, this is user error and I agree with you - tools have limits and Claude isn't as good as the hyped-up claims - clearly it failed to output the obvious gating questions. If the latter, then you cannot defend Claude's failure to act like a senior engineer in this situation.)
by 10000truths | 2026-03-06 19:07:59+00:00
> The long-term outcome is Iran’s domestic drone production gets decimated.

That is impossible without committing to boots on the ground.

> Of course not. You blow up the factories and inventory.

Where are the factories? Where are the stockpiles? If they don't show up on satellite imagery, how do you find them? Boots on the ground. If they're hidden underground or beneath a mountain, how do you blow them up? Boots on the ground.

> No one has ever effected regime change with just air power. America could absolutely achieve a war aim with air power alone once Hegseth gets around to defining it.

The reason he hasn't gotten around to defining a war aim is that there is no legitimate war aim. Netanyahu wanted to blow shit up and the Pentagon foolishly followed along instead of telling him "you're on your own".
by test001only | 2026-03-06 19:08:24+00:00
Could be lot of reason.
Older European cities with high-density stone buildings and less green space often trap heat more effectively than typical U.S. suburban layouts.
Europe has a larger proportion of elderly residents (aged 80+), who are the most susceptible to heat stress.
You just picked a data and are trying to fit your narrative on top of it without really considering all possible aspects.
by andai | 2026-03-06 19:08:51+00:00
Benchies update:

https://artificialanalysis.ai/

Looks like it costs ~25% more than 5.2, with both on xhigh reasoning.

They only seem to have tested xhigh, which is a shame, since I think that reasoning level is in the point of diminishing returns for most tasks.

Also I was completely wrong earlier. Opus is significantly more expensive. I was looking at the wrong entry in the chart, the non-reasoning version of Opus. The fair comparison is Opus on max reasoning, which costs about twice the price of GPT-5.4 xhigh, to run the AA evals.
by p_ing | 2026-03-06 19:09:15+00:00
https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/15805010

I see x86 on top (the first valid result is 6841, which is x86), if that is the sole benchmark we're going to look at. You can further break that down into the individual tasks it performs, but I'm not going to :-)

> - ARM generally have way bigger L1 caches, mostly due to the larger pagesize, which is a significant architectural advantage.

Larger pages mean more potential for waste.
by lich_king | 2026-03-06 19:09:30+00:00
I'm conflicted about this. On one hand, I think LLMs make it easier to discover explanations that, at least superficially, superficially "click" for you. Sure, they were available before, but maybe in textbooks you needed to pay for (how quaint), or on websites that appeared on the fifth page of search results. Whatever are the externalities of that, in the short term, that part may be a net positive for learners.

On the other hand, learning is doing; if it's not at least a tiny bit hard, it's probably not learning. This is not strictly an LLM problem; it's the same issue I have with YouTube educators. You can watch dazzling visualizations of problems in mathematics or physics, and it feels like you're learning, but you're probably not walking away from that any wiser because you have not flexed any problem-solving muscles and have not built that muscle memory.

I had multiple interactions like that. Someone asked an LLM for an ELI5 and tried to leverage that in a conversation, and... the abstraction they came back feels profound to them, but is useless and wrong.
by overgard | 2026-03-06 19:09:34+00:00
I'm an outsider, but VC looks like it's in a bad place right now. The returns have been pretty bad this decade, and AI companies are eating all the dollars so if you're not doing that it strikes me it'd be hard to get funding. And idk, if you already have an AI startup then you're hoping for the best, but if you were starting a business today I think that bubble looks like it has a lot of needles around it
by INTPenis | 2026-03-06 19:10:14+00:00
And this guy is selling tech courses.

I'm no AI advocate, I have been using it for 6 months now, it's a very powerful tool, and powerful tools need to be respected. Clearly this guy has no respect for their infrastructure.

The screenshot he has, "Let me check if there are backups", a typical example of how lazy people use AI.
by joe_mamba | 2026-03-06 19:10:31+00:00
Did you read anything I said? Who's losing their job when almost all tourism jobs are done by foreign seasonal workers? The locals mostly aren't losing any job because they don't work in tourism due to pay and work conditions.

Are you using the same logic to cry for the western workers making clothes and sneakers who lost their jobs to Asian sweatshops? Do you think they miss that type of jobs and would want them back?
by MarkusQ | 2026-03-06 19:10:50+00:00
So sink them in the ocean. Or better, burn off the hydrogen and use the energy to dry the wood, leaving the bulk of the carbon, and then mix that in with the soil.

Recreating the lignite era process could be as easy as genetically engineering an alternative,presently indigestable version of lignin.

But my point is that the claim above that sequestering wet wood will somehow take meaningful quantities of water (fresh or otherwise) out of the ecosystem is just plain silly.
by sitkack | 2026-03-06 19:11:08+00:00
Will Wright gave at least one great lecture at SIGGRAPH. Wonderful thinker and communicator. #ACM plz unlock this culture.

Ants have fascinated me from a young age, I’d construct a viewing platform so I could watch the hive at work.

My favorite were the carpenter ants, so smart. It feels like they have a theory of mind. I didn’t hurt them, but if you disturbe their nest under a board, the efficiency and expediency they would exhibit while collecting their young was fascinating.
by hvb2 | 2026-03-06 19:11:21+00:00
> What excuse actually is there for building new coal plants

Just that they're still 'developing' and aren't even close to the historical contributions of the US?

Assuming you're American, it's a bit rich to have contributed more in absolute terms and then tell other countries what they can't do.

Explain me why the average car in the US is a tank with horrible fuel economy? In rural I can sorta see it. But in cities, why drive a truck? These are all choices that America makes.
by acdha | 2026-03-06 19:11:33+00:00
It’s complicated: https://news.mit.edu/2025/decarbonizing-steel-tough-as-steel...

This is one of the stronger arguments for a carbon tax: if you can’t ignore externalities, people have strong incentives to use less (e.g. buying a car instead of an SUV or biking) and all of the alternative fuel and process work is going to be easier if the cost comparison is more even.