MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by giantg2 | 2026-03-09 22:35:54+00:00
"under Feiock, such proceedings are sufficiently criminal in form and function to invoke the full protections of due process..."

This makes me question many existing civil things. Obviously child support, as in the case law. But also, things like red flag laws. It seems like any civil law that would apply criminal-type contemt penalties is unconstitutional.
by sofixa | 2026-03-09 22:36:25+00:00
> overpowering

As Iran shows, you don't need overpowering. You need to hit the enemy where it hurts them, like strategic infrastructure.

> "swarms" ... (the obsession with them is also weird - if you had thousands of assets in the air, the last thing you'd do is put them all close together)

On the contrary, a swarm allows you to overwhelm the enemy air defences, which allows you to hit targets, including those same air defences, without having to disable them first. Cf. Iran destroying a THAAD radar.
by syntropicworks | 2026-03-09 22:36:39+00:00
Syntropic is an npm CLI that gives AI coding tools a disciplined development process. It measurably reduces wasted tokens and iteration loops.

npx syntropic audit

That scores your git history against development best practices — zero install, instant feedback. If you want the full methodology:

npx syntropic init

The problem: AI coding tools follow whatever instructions you give them, but most configs are "you are an expert in React/TypeScript." They don't define a development process. Without one, the AI consistently: skips investigation, retries the same failed approach, implements workarounds without asking, and burns tokens on circular debugging.

The methodology ("Evergreen Rules") defines how the AI should work:

- Scale process to task size (full cycle for features, minimal cycle for fixes)
- Hypothesis-driven debugging (state hypothesis, test without code changes, only code if confirmed)
- Pre-flight checks (build passes, no localhost references, verify deployed URL)
- No workarounds without explicit approval
- Session continuity (re-read rules after context resets)

It generates native instruction files: CLAUDE.md for Claude Code, .cursorrules for Cursor, .windsurfrules for Windsurf, copilot-instructions.md for GitHub Copilot, AGENTS.md for OpenAI Codex.

Every cycle shows estimated token savings — typically ~14k tokens saved per full cycle. Socket.dev clean, zero dependencies, MIT licensed.

npm: https://www.npmjs.com/package/syntropic
Research: https://zenodo.org/records/17894441

Built this after months of daily AI-assisted development on a production app. The rules come from patterns that actually prevented bugs — not theory.
by bsder | 2026-03-09 22:36:47+00:00
> While I agree with your sarcasm, this proposal is a least bad scenario: no enforcement is worse as there’s less incentive to respect the lights.

I disagree. This is acknowledging that these are revenue products rather than safety enhancement.

If you want safety enforcement, put a damn cop there. It WILL work. This isn't hard. People are creatures of habit and you don't need to adjust the behavior of very many of them to make the whole group change.

If you don't want to put a cop there, you don't want safety enforcement.
by bityard | 2026-03-09 22:37:20+00:00
I have a theory (and I'm sure I am far from the first one to voice it) that the number of useful open source projects released to the public will be on the decline now that anyone scratch their own itch with a few hours of vibe coding. Why would I spend hours evaluating a dozen different note-taking applications and _maybe_ find one that is _kinda close_ to what I want, if I can instead have Claude vibe me one up _exactly_ the way I want it?

(I actually did write my own note-taking application, but that was before LLMs were any good at writing code.)
Ask HN: General API for accessing bank transactions?
by aykhm | 2026-03-09 22:37:40+00:00
I currently track expenses monthly by downloading credit card/checking account statements as CSVs and importing into excel. It's a bit annoying as I have to 1. wait for statements to post so I can't track the current month and 2. statements don't line up exactly with calendar months.

I'm looking for a general way to access transactions across all my banks, but the ones I've found all have some issues.

- Plaid: seems oriented more for businesses and isn't very friendly for personal use. They do have a personal use version but it doesn't support certain banks (e.g. Chase)

- Teller.io: unfortunately doesn't support one of my accounts (Bilt)

- Fintable.io: syncs transactions to airtable/google sheets which maybe could work, but doesn't have a simple API.

Am I missing any alternatives? Plaid supports all the institutions I want but getting setup as a non-business seems to require too many steps. Maybe any consumer-facing wrappers around Plaid's API?
by kantord | 2026-03-09 22:37:44+00:00
This is not the technical solution you want, but I think it provides the result that you want: https://github.com/devcontainers

tldr; devcontainers let you completely containerize your development environment. You can run them on Linux natively, or you can run them on rented computers (there are some providers, such as GitHub Codespaces) or you can also run them in a VM (which is what you will be stuck with on a Mac anyways - but reportedly performance is still great).

All CLI dev tools (including things like Neovim) work out of the box, but also many/most GUI IDEs support working with devcontainers (in this case, the GUI is usually not containerized, or at least does not live in the same container. Although on Linux you can do that also with Flatpak. And for instance GitHub Codespaces runs a VsCode fully in the browser for you which is another way to sandbox it on both ends).
by paxys | 2026-03-09 22:38:01+00:00
"Hard" or "easy" has never been part of the premise.

A company spends a decade and billions of dollars to develop a groundbreaking drug and patents it.

I think of a cool new character called "Mr Poop" and publish a short story about him with an hour of work.

Both of us get the exact same protection under the law (yes yes I know copyright vs patent etc., but ultimately they are all about IP protection).
by conductr | 2026-03-09 22:38:14+00:00
It’s a huge gamble but they have no choice but to take it. Most their software will be rendered obsolete by AI (I’ve vibecoded replacements saving millions already, companies everywhere are doing this right now).

So they have to hope they’re a part of the future in the AI capacity because their SaaS business is going to take a big hit.

YTD performance didn’t fully bake this reality in. It was seen as them having 2 huge revenue streams, the market is realizing that AI is a threat to SaaS and baking that into stonks
by munk-a | 2026-03-09 22:38:20+00:00
It's absolutely prohibited to copy and redistribute for commercial purposes materials that you're unlicensed to do so with. This isn't an issue when it comes to the copy-left scenario (though it may potentially enforce transitive licensing requirements on the copier that LLM runners don't want to follow) but it is a huge issue that has come up with LLM training.

LLM training involves ingesting works (in a potentially transformative process) and partially reproduce them - that's a generally restricted action when it comes to licensing.
by abustamam | 2026-03-09 22:38:44+00:00
That wasn't my statement. I still agree with it though. Humans do need context to respond. We don't respond to comments in a vacuum. We respond with whatever context we have available to us. Whether or not someone is a bot is not a fact available to us. But the comment or post being replied to is. That is material.

In the comment "engage with (or dismiss) the material, not the pen," I understood the material to be whatever content I'm consuming, and not the mechanism by which the content was produced (the pen).

Edit to add: I don't think prolificness of bots has a true bearing on time wasted. I respond to lots of HN comments, written by humans or bots, that don't get responses or votes (ups or downs). But that has always happened since the dawn of social media. That's just how public forums works.

As long as humans are able to consume the content and similarly engage, I don't really think it matters. Again, we're several comments deep on a piece whose origin is very likely a bot. And we're having fun engaging. Or at least I am. You seem smart and I like chatting with smart people.
by giantg2 | 2026-03-09 22:39:14+00:00
"As an individual and not the government, you can't file a criminal action."

You can file with the police, if they take it. You can also file as a private criminal complaint in many jurisdictions. However, it's up to the DA to approve it most of the time. There can be an appeal process where a judge would make a determination.

But yes, if the whole system is corrupt, then there's not much to do.
by chainletter-nt | 2026-03-09 22:39:24+00:00
When I was a kid I spent a lot of time playing Math Blaster!.
It was one of those games that tried to sneak learning into gameplay.

Recently I realized that LLM context windows are something people struggle to understand intuitively. Most explanations are diagrams or blog posts, but they don’t really capture the feeling of juggling limited context.

So I tried making a small browser game that simulates the experience of managing context while prompting an LLM.

The idea is to make the context into a "heat bar" for a spaceship. Optimal play means rewinding when you fix bugs, splitting when you have multiple unrelated tasks, and avoiding compaction.

I built it using Phaser.

Curious whether people find this kind of “playable explanation” helpful.
by crazygringo | 2026-03-09 22:39:28+00:00
Legally that's been established as acceptable.

Google LLC v Oracle America assumed (though didn't establish) that API's are copyrightable... BUT that developing against them falls under fair use, as long as the function implementations are independent.

Test suites are again generally considered copyrightable... but the behavior being tested is not.

So no, it's not considered to be a work based on the library. This seems pretty clear-cut in US law by now.

Also, the LGPL text doesn't say "work based on the library". It says "If you modify a copy of the Library", and this is not a "combined work" either. And the whole point is that this is not a modified copy -- it's a reimplementation.

In theory, a license could be written to prevent running its tests from being run against software not derived from the original, i.e. clean-room reimplementations. In practice, it remains dubious whether any court would uphold that. And it would also be trivial to then get around it, by taking advantage of fair use to re-implement the tests in e.g. plain English (or any specification language), and then re-implementing those back into new test code. Because again, test behaviors are not copyrightable.
by collabs | 2026-03-09 22:39:34+00:00
I agree with you more than I agree with the parent comment.

To use the hit HBO TV show silicon valley analogy, it is far more likely that "the bear is sticky with honey" will happen at Oracle than at Open AI. Some kind of game of telephone gone wrong at some point and now the people responsible at Oracle must double down in order to kick the can to the next quarter and not appear clueless.

Statutory disclaimer: I am not affiliated with either Open AI or Oracle and have no insider information. All of this is mere conjecture and has no basis in reality.
by Dsuniga14 | 2026-03-09 22:39:45+00:00
Oscilar.com | Sr/Staff Software Engineers & AI PM | REMOTE (US/Canada/Brazil/Poland/UK) | Full-time AI Risk Decisioning™ platform that helps organizations manage onboarding, fraud, credit, and compliance risks
Open roles: - Engineering Manager - (Brazil)

- Sr./Staff Java Backend Engineer (Brazil/North America)

- Sr./Staff Infrastructure Engineer (North America/Europe)

- Staff GenAI Engineer

- Staff SDK Engineers - Web & Android

- Sr./Staff Data Scientist

- Full-Stack Engineer - AI Agent Platform

- AI Product Manager

Apply at: https://jobs.ashbyhq.com/oscilar?utm_source=HackerNews
by pembrook | 2026-03-09 22:39:52+00:00
Yes and those people are wrong. As with any religion, environmentalism has many zealots who do not care about reality or rational thinking and will muddy the waters to advance their beliefs.

The methane leakage problem is often wildly overstated (in no way does it make nat gas worse than coal), and it's trivially solved by stricter standards that can be achieved at 1/1000th the cost of re-wiring our entire energy system around renewables.

And if you say "but we can't trust poor countries to achieve Norway's ultra-low methane performance"...then we're back to the original problem with the net-zero fantasy in the rich world altogether. If poor countries can't be relied upon to properly seal a pipe fitting, then we've demolished the fantasy they'll voluntarily do something far more radical, unproven, expensive and challenging like industrializing 3B+ people using windmills.
by shakna | 2026-03-09 22:40:05+00:00
Pigs are adapted to singular survival. A stressed sow will often eat the piglets. And that stress can be being a mother for the first time.

There are a lot of environmental factors, like snuggling for warmth being unsafe.

But by and large... Pigs give birth in numbers. They can afford for half to die, and still proliferate. They don't need to be 'good parents'.
by sofixa | 2026-03-09 22:40:34+00:00
> "modern combat"

> have no choice

That's my point. Any battlefield today is "modern", but militaries operate with what they have. From Russia to the Houthis passing via the Houthis, we've seen insane amounts of damage done on "a modern battlefield" with anything from Cold War era equipment to cheap drones assembled by a terrorist group living in the mountains with no industrial base.

Yes, if the US wants to fight China, and vice versa, it needs 5th gen jets. Everyone else doesn't need them. They're nice to have to make your job easier (like Israel vs Iran), but don't guarantee you anything (like Israel vs Iran).
by joegibbs | 2026-03-09 22:40:38+00:00
"these tools are causing corporations to blow past their already tepid climate goal; no mention of how the affluent, surveillance-obsessed exec dictating its trajectory enthusiastically cozied up to fascists; no mention of how Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg’s data centers are funneling pollution directly into black neighborhoods; zero mention of the technofascist plan to leverage AI to decimate unions; no mention of the weird and precarious financial shell games powering the sector."

Come on. The article wants to talk about actual harms and then immediately launches into hysterical talking points like these?
by emerkel | 2026-03-09 22:40:45+00:00
I never even thought about that post being anything but legit, why? Because I agree with it, and no matter WHAT my wife and kids might occasionally say, I am no AI :)

I haven’t thought about it, but I just feel that the topic of ai might hit someone my age differently than someone who is building their career rather than coming to the close of it. To someone who is genuinely threatened by the advent of ai (and I don’t say they are wrong) anyone like me who is enjoying the experience of learning how to use it may be mystifying. But at least in my view it’s understandable,
by nkmnz | 2026-03-09 22:40:52+00:00
> AI-output does not qualify for IP protections

I beg to differ. AI-output did not entitle the person creating the prompt for IP protections, so far – but my objection is not directed towards the "so far", but towards your omission of "the person creating the prompt", because if an AI outputs copyrighted material from the training data, that material is still copyrighted. AI is not a magical copyright removal machine.
by KaiserPro | 2026-03-09 22:40:52+00:00
> They don't have to be efficient

Thats the point, the more efficient the less supply line you need, which means more autonomy.

I cant find the source but in Afghanistan a large proportion of the Allied casualties were from protecting supply lines.

The thing about quad copters is that they work at small scale because the rotor have almost no inertia. When you scale that up to 2m, then inertia is a bitch. That means you need tilting blades to make up for that lack of control.

BUT

You also need something to be powerful enough to alter the speed of the rotors to get yaw.

Plus you then also need to get them all to rotate so that you can get the efficiency of normal flight.

The reason why the osprey exists is because it has longer range than a helicopter (~1200 miles vs 400) its also faster.
by jareklupinski | 2026-03-09 22:40:55+00:00
i think the first thing they would program into it is "do not think of this being a simulation"

unless somehow knowledge of the simulation is part of the simulation?

then they would probably program thinking about the simulation into the simulation

like how does my virtualized environment know it's virtualized unless i explicitly set an environment variable somewhere; it just thinks it's 'root' unless it finds something (which may be a lie :) )
by dijit | 2026-03-09 22:41:03+00:00
infests is a nice freudian slip.

When millions of dollars support a feature, that feature beats others- even technically superior ones, on the basis of support and polish.

We’re all playing to the tune of what Google wants because Google has the power.

Imagine a world where theres no Linux because MacOS and Windows paid lip service to people using partially functional derivatives of their OS’s, they’d still push things like liquid ass and windows recall, and those features would be spidered in.

Then people would be saying “don’t use linux, you can just use WinCore” Even though using Wincore is aiding Windows commercial interests over those of the industry as a whole.
Show HN: Git Worktrees Simplified
by ramoz | 2026-03-09 22:41:04+00:00
Worktrees have become an essential part of my agentic coding day-to-day. I'll admit I hadn't really picked up on the Worktree narrative for a while. But the more capable agents become and execute over longer periods of time, the more I find myself wanting to do multiple things with them without interference. Worktrees are the solution - locally at least.

Worktrees are actually really simple. They're just a hard copy of the source that git tracks...

Simplifying git worktrees writeup:
https://backnotprop.com/blog/simplifying-git-worktrees/
by iainmerrick | 2026-03-09 22:41:20+00:00
Clarke’s book The Lost Worlds of 2001 goes into a lot of detail about the process (and is a great read in its own right). His take was that the book should say “a novel by Arthur C Clarke, based on the screenplay by Stanley Kubrick” and the movie should say “screenplay by Stanley Kubrick, based on the novel by Arthur C Clarke”.

I think Kubrick was very much the dominant force in the partnership, but they did work quite closely together.
by _DeadFred_ | 2026-03-09 22:41:25+00:00
OK. I'm not really christian (but grew up catholic) but know a lot and they are all like you. All hate Trump. All seem to hate war (but they do do fundraisers for Ukraine so I don't know if that is supporting war, it's not to me). And all work hard supporting our poor rural community. There's trump christians here too, but they don't define the religion or mean you can make blanket christian belief claims.

Condemning a religious group based on a few is bigotry. We criticize it when it happens to Muslims, but seem to support it for Christians. Demanding a group denounce other peoples actions or a trait you define to be 'inherent to them' is classic bigotry. Saying a religious group is your political enemy has never led to anything good in history. 'I think trump supporting evangelics who want to bring about armageden blah blah' could be a valid point but 'Christians are a doomsday death cult' isn't.
by peteforde | 2026-03-09 22:41:49+00:00
I don't think you should feel like your personal projects need to be vetted by an armchair peanut gallery. It's actually kind of offensive how so many people show up in a thread like this and demand that what sparked joy for you be formally subjected to a gauntlet of moving goalpost validation markers.

Quite simply, I don't think that they are asking or arguing in good faith.
by hazrmard | 2026-03-09 22:41:57+00:00
I should read up on Tailscale more. I have been using ddclient[1] or the router's built-in dynamic DNS[2] to set up my servers / homelab. This leaves the endpoints exposed to the public internet, as the author says.

[1]: https://github.com/ddclient/ddclient
[2]: https://kb.netgear.com/1058/What-is-Dynamic-DNS-DDNS
by shagie | 2026-03-09 22:42:04+00:00
I kind of agree with you on that... and I kind of understand why.

The first book was an exploration of humanity in the stars. While there was contact, it had more the traditional science fiction footing that we're familiar with.

The second book was getting into the exploration of the mind and other minds. While the first book touched on the mind - with spiders being more relatable to how we think... the 2nd book presented us with something more alien in how the octopus thinks... and something even more alien.

The third book was downright confusing until the end and was more of a philosophy book about the mind. Can one mind be in two bodies? What entails thought? What is identity? ... and for that matter, what is reality?

The 2nd and 3rd books are good (and interesting) science fiction, but they go much deeper into exploring philosophy than many other science fiction books and use the scaffold of the universe to explore the mind rather than technological advancement. The upgrade of technology and how that changes things isn't the focus of the story - as one would expect in more traditional science fiction, but rather an exploration of a new mind. That change in the expectation from the first to the second (and third) book has some wish for more of that first book with the challenges of humans (as we can understand them).

Book 1 is a first contact story with survival. Book 2 is a psychological mystery about alien cognition (and a bit of horror to it too - "we're going on an adventure" gives me shivers). Book 3 is much more of a puzzle around unreliable narration and reality.

For me, I enjoyed the first book. I was confused by the 2nd book because of the change in the "it's not about the technology and survival anymore...". The 3rd book confused me on the first pass through it. The second time going through it and understanding where things were leading and being able to pick out the changes made more sense... even though I was expecting a book about the mind rather than science (the first pass through I thought it was more about the crow's minds).
by vansbel | 2026-03-09 22:42:17+00:00
This is a cool set of games! Since you're looking for feedback to see if people enjoy the idea, I ran your landing page through an AI tool I built that 'roasts' websites for conversion and clarity. It might help you spot why people might bounce before trying the daily games. Would you be open to seeing the report? It could help you get more of those free account signups you mentioned.

https://websiteroasters.com/ just check it out :) and if you also think you need help on do it just tell me we can talk!
by munk-a | 2026-03-09 22:42:22+00:00
I want to briefly pick at this:

> you're going to need to pass new laws that may wind up radically redefining intellectual property

You're correct that this is one route to resolving the situation, but I think it's reasonable to lean more strongly into the original intent of intellectual property laws to defend creative works as a manner to sustain yourself that would draw a pretty clear distinction between human creativity and reuse and LLMs.