MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by grishka | 2026-03-06 08:44:35+00:00
For the Mastodon Android app, I also sometimes see crashes that make no sense. For example, how about native crashes, on a thread that is created and run by the system, that only contains system libraries in its stack trace, and that never ran any of my code because the app doesn't contain any native libraries to begin with?

Unfortunately I've never looked at crashes this way when I worked at VKontakte because there were just too many crashes overall. That app had tens of millions of users so it crashed a lot in absolute numbers no matter what I did.
by oytis | 2026-03-06 08:45:05+00:00
> I have stopped writing code, occasionally I jump into the changes proposed by LLM and make manual edits if it is feasible, otherwise I revert changes and ask it to generate again but based on my learnings from the past rejected output

Isn't it a very inefficient way to learn things? Like, normally, you would learn how things work and then write the code, refining your knowledge while you are writing. Now you don't learn anything in advance, and only do so reluctantly when things break? In the end there is a codebase that no one knows how it works.
by keiferski | 2026-03-06 08:46:15+00:00
Sometimes I really don’t know how to reply to comments like these. Because they either seem to completely misunderstand the basic premise of my comment, or they deliberately focus on some tangential thing in order to make some trollish point. But I’ll reply here, and just assume my comment was somehow unclear.

Do you genuinely think that putting money above any other value is an ethical way to operate in the world? I certainly don’t, virtually no ethical theory does, and the vast majority of people don’t either.

This is not saying that making money is inherently a bad thing, but that placing it above every other value without question is definitely a bad thing, or at least a careless and thoughtless one.

To use your example: all sorts of things are in demand but unquestionably make the world worse. Does the fact that people are willing to pay for propaganda or chemical weapons or X other negative thing somehow mean that facilitating their sale is ethical? I really don’t understand the position.

I suppose there are some people out there who seriously have studied ethics and think making money is the ultimate good. It doesn’t seem like a serious position to me.

But I don’t think that’s become the default position because of serious analysis, but rather the total lack of it. Which is what my comment was about: when you refuse to engage in serious philosophical thought about something, you’re just going to revert to base values like the acquisition of money and power, or some variant of that which your local system is optimizing for.
by jstanley | 2026-03-06 08:47:10+00:00
My impression of mistakes was that they were an indicator of someone who was doing a lot of work. They're not necessarily making mistakes at a higher rate per unit of work, they just do more of both per unit of time.

From that perspective, it makes sense that the people who made the most mistakes in the past will also make the most mistakes in the future, but it's only because the people who did the most work in the past will do the most work in the future.

If you fire everyone who makes mistakes you'll be left only with the people who never make anything at all.
by Moldoteck | 2026-03-06 08:47:21+00:00
load following for modern reactors is mostly embedded. For some Gen2 it's possible to adapt ALFC from Framatome (like Germany did in the past). But if you want fastest load follow you need BWR's.

Solar manufactured from coal is irrelevant, it's offsetting that carbon many times over during lifetime. A real problem is on the other hand providing firm power. In some regions like Australia it could be realistic to get by with ren alone. In other regions like say Germany, it's not realistic and confirmed even by Fraunhofer ISE
by iugtmkbdfil834 | 2026-03-06 08:47:22+00:00
I don't want to generalize from my specific situation too much, but I want to offer an anecdote from my neck of the woods. On my personal sub, I agree it is kinda crazy the kind of projects I can get into now with little to no prior knowledge.

On the other hand, our corporate AI is.. not great atm. It was briefly kinda decent and then suddenly it kinda degraded. Worst case is, no one is communicating with us so we don't know what was changed. It is possible companies are already trying to 'optimize'.

I know it is not exactly what you are asking. You are saying capability is there, but I am personally starting to see a crack in corporate willingness to spend.
by MrSkelter | 2026-03-06 08:47:53+00:00
That’s not how speed bumps work. You can drive over a speed bump in a sports car. It’s just uncomfortable and potentially damaging to do so at speed.

Most SUVs ride poorly compared to cars due to solid axles and huge unsprung weight. If you took a speed bump fast you would be very shaken up and possibly launch into the air or tip.

TLDR. Speed bumps aren’t “invisible” to SUVs unless you are in a competition pre-runner or a monster truck.
by interroboink | 2026-03-06 08:48:11+00:00
I recently learned about the fact that Sichuan peppercorns are actually related to citrus, so was looking for where the connection is... As it turns out[1], there is a "citrus family" (Rutaceae[2]) and a citrus genus (Citrus[3], in that family). The Sichuan plant is a member of the family, but not the genus (that would be Zanthoxylum[4]). Confusing!

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47248319
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutaceae
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citrus
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanthoxylum

Also, this is a pretty good page on citrus (both family and genus): https://www.clovegarden.com/ingred/citrus.html
by throwaw12 | 2026-03-06 08:48:35+00:00
I see similar arguments and I don't agree as well, here is why:

> rehire people with the skills we want in a year or two than it is to try and retrain.

before that future comes your company might become obsolete already, because you have lost your market share to new entrants

> We expect the bottlenecks in our org to move from writing code to something else

I would love to tell them, hey lets leverage current momentum and build, when those times come, we offer existing people with accumulated knowledge to retrain to a new type of work, if they think they're not good fit, they can leave, if they're willing, give them a chance, invest in people, make them feel safe and earn trust and loyalty from them

> AI tools are expensive so until the increased productivity translates to increased revenue we need to make room in the budget

1. Its not that expensive: 150$/seat/month -> 5 lunches? or maybe squeeze it from Sales personnel traveling with Business class?

2. By the time increased productivity is realized by others, company who resisted could be so far behind, that they won't be able to afford hiring engineers with those skillsets, if they think 150$ is expensive now, I am sure they will say "What??? 350k$ for this engineer?, no way, I will instead hire contractors"
by SeeMePlease | 2026-03-06 08:48:42+00:00
Hiya. Was hoping to get some guidance from people here who know this community better than I do. I'm helping a user testing startup, called See Me Please scale into the UK and Ireland.

It provides remote, flexible & well-paid user testing opportunities for people from underrepresented groups (blind/low vision, Deaf/HoH, neurodivergent, older adults) and share findings with organisations to help them build more accessible digital products. It's an Australian business now moving into the UK and Ireland. That said, it's more of a side hustle rather than a full time thing.

The floor pay rate is double the open min wage, and we always pay 3 hours (even if it takes an hour).
Interested testers can nominate a higher rate too

Sadly, we had people pretend to have disabilities to access the well paid work when we started in Australia and found the best participants came from referrals.

Any suggestions on where/ how to promote the roles to attract the specific people we're looking for would be greatly appreciated.

Any advice appreciated, seemeplease.com/test-with-us
by AnthonyMouse | 2026-03-06 08:48:52+00:00
> We could argue on the technical feasability all day, as non-kvm qemu does not need any special permission to run a VM (albeit dog slow).

That's assuming the permission is for "use of kernel-mode hardware virtualization" rather than "installation of virtualization apps".

Notice that if the kid can run arbitrary code then any of this was already a moot point because then they can already access websites in other countries that don't enforce any of this stuff.
by PunchyHamster | 2026-03-06 08:48:58+00:00
There is nothing weird with that; the origins of that workflows are on-site CI/CD tools where that is not a problem as both inputs and scripts are controlled by the org, and in that context

> But GitHub Actions instead has this weird concept of "default-branch originated" events (like pull_request_target and issue_comment) that are significantly more privileged than they should be.

That is just very convenient when setting up the workflow

They just didn't gave a shred of thought about how something open to public should look
by simon_luv_pho | 2026-03-06 08:49:51+00:00
Currently the only dependency is zod for schema parsing.

I'm intentionally building on a lightweight, in-page JavaScript foundation to carve out some differentiation from the Python-heavy agent ecosystem.

The "protocol" layer of AG-UI does look interesting. I'll look into it to see if I can reuse something, although it seems to be evolving more toward an integration framework rather than an open protocol.

Really glad this resonates with your use case. Lightweight embedding is exactly my priority scenario. Would love to hear how the work goes!
by r2vcap | 2026-03-06 08:50:06+00:00
I assume you live in the free world. Some socialist states in history, such as East Germany, pushed child-rearing and early education much further into the hands of the state through extensive state-run childcare and kindergarten systems. That model is gone, and for good reason.

Even with schools in place, the basic responsibility for raising children still belongs to the parents. Schools can support, educate, and compensate to some extent, but they cannot replace parental responsibility.

I also see far too much awful news — in my country, Korea, for example — about terrible parents harassing school teachers because their children are out of control.
by bArray | 2026-03-06 08:50:11+00:00
> In the last week we received ~470000 crash reports, these do not represent all crashes because it's an opt-in system, the real number of crashes will be several times larger.

470k crashes in a single week, and this is under-reported! I bet the number of crashes is far higher. My snap Firefox on Ubuntu would lock-up, forcing me to kill it from the system monitor, and this was never reported as a crash.

Once upon a time I wrote software for safety critical systems in C/C++, where the code was deployed and expected to work for 10 years (or more) and interact with systems not built yet. Our system could lose power at any time (no battery) and we would have at best 1ms warning.

Even if Firefox moves to Rust, it will not resolve these issues. 5% of their crashes could be coming from resource exhaustion, likely mostly RAM - why is this not being checked prior to allocation? 5% of their crashes could be resolved tomorrow if they just checked how much RAM was available prior to trying to allocate it. That accounts for ~23k crashes a week. Madness.

With the RAM shortages and 8GB looking like it will remain the entry laptop norm, we need to start thinking more carefully about how software is developed.
by hrmtst93837 | 2026-03-06 08:50:35+00:00
dm-verity only verifies block integrity and the boot chain and does not provide confidentiality or a secure remote key exchange, so someone with physical access can still MITM or tamper with the initramfs and capture a LUKS passphrase during a network unlock.

If confidentiality during remote unlock matters, seal the LUKS key in TPM2 tied to PCR values using systemd-cryptenroll or use Clevis with Tang over TLS with strict server certificate pinning, accept the operational cost of re-sealing keys after kernel or firmware updates, and keep an offline recovery key because trusting the local console is asking for trouble.
by Noyra-X | 2026-03-06 08:51:55+00:00
What's interesting from a practical standpoint: the paper confirms what we're seeing in SME deployments – AI augments, not replaces. But the real productivity gain only kicks in when you redesign the process around the AI, not just bolt it on. Most small businesses skip that step entirely and then wonder why their 'AI tool' isn't delivering. The organizational restructuring is the hard part, not the technology. Anyone here seen teams actually get this right systematically?
by Noyra-X | 2026-03-06 08:52:23+00:00
The point mikehostetler makes – 'agents must be architecturally correct WITHOUT LLMs before they can be correct WITH LLMs' – is underappreciated in most production deployments. We see this constantly: the failure mode isn't model quality, it's undefined operational boundaries and missing human-in-the-loop checkpoints for edge cases. Supervision trees as a first-class design primitive rather than an afterthought seems exactly right. What's your experience with teams that skip the architectural correctness step and go straight to LLM integration?
by simianparrot | 2026-03-06 08:52:33+00:00
Let's not forget No Man's Sky here. Or Elite Dangerous' planet-scale procedural generation using solar system properties to fuel the deterministic but procedural generation of tectonic plates that again seed how a planet's surface is deterministically generated, even down to impact craters over millennia, for a universe of billions of consistent deterministically generated full-scale planets you can land on. Something you couldn't do without proc-gen because there's not enough disk space to store it.
by qsera | 2026-03-06 08:53:09+00:00
Imagine you are stranded in your home with all your loved ones, and you get a call from your "warmonger" president and the matter is urgent; he says "We have received intel regarding a enemy plan to bomb your house in 30 mins. This report is not x% reliable, but we have the exact location of the enemy and we have birds in air that can hit them in 5 mins. This might escalate into a larger conflict, Do you want us to proceed? "

What would your response be? What is the value of `x` at which you will approve of the pre-emptive attack?

Just curious.
by Gareth321 | 2026-03-06 08:53:53+00:00
> This will just be one more step in that cat and mouse game, and if the AI really gets good enough to become a complete intermediary between you and the website? The website will just shutdown.

They'll just change their business model. Claude might go fully pay-as-you-go, or they'll accept slightly lower profit margins, or they'll increase the price of subscriptions, or they'll add more tiers, or they'll develop cheater buffet models for AI use, etc. You're making the same argument which has been made for decades re ad blockers. "If we allow people to use ad blockers, websites won't make any money and the internet will die." It hasn't died. It won't die. It did make some business models less profitable, and they have had to adapt.
by syl5x | 2026-03-06 08:53:58+00:00
I've tested it just now, very Opus-like experience. The speed is also there so far I think I even like the response of GPT5.4 better than Opus (although very close) I might not distinguish them just yet.

I tried several use cases:
- Code Explanation: Did far much better than Opus, considered and judged his decision on a previous spec that I made, all valid points so I am impressed. TBF if I spawned another Opus as a reviewer I might got similar results.
- Workflow Running: Really similar to Opus again, no objections it followed and read Skills/Tools as it should be (although mine are optimized for Claude)
- Coding: I gave it a straightforward task to wrap an API calls to an SDK and to my surprise it did 'identical' job with Opus, literally the same code, I don't know what the odds are to this but again very good solution and it adhered our rules of implementing such code.

Overall I am impressed and excited to see a rival to Opus and all of this is literally pushing everyone to get better and better models which is always good for us.
by PunchyHamster | 2026-03-06 08:53:59+00:00
It appears that under their system all forks belong to same repo (I imagine they just make _fork/<forkname> ref under git when there is something forked off main repo) presumably to save on storage. And so accessing a single commit doesn't really care about origin(as finding to which branch(es) commit belongs would be a lot of work)
by purplehat_ | 2026-03-06 08:54:27+00:00
I'm surprised zero-knowledge proofs have not been mentioned. This is a technique where (for example) the government signs your digital license, then you can present a proof that you are over 18 to a site without revealing anything else about yourself. ZKPassport exists, Privacy Pass is an implementation being standardized by the IETF, and Google is working on a similar implementation. Granted, these are not yet widely used, but I'd be very interested in hearing HN's thoughts on this.

Let's try to figure out what a good policy solution looks like:

- entities with harmful or adult content must require proof of the user being over 18

- entities cannot ask for, store, or process more detailed information without explicit business needs (this should be phrased in a way that disallows Instagram from asking for your birth year, for example)

- entities cannot share this data with other sites, to avoid privacy leaks, unless there is an explicit business need (this is tricky to get right; someone might try to set up a centralized non-anonymous age-verification service, erasing many benefits)

- entities must in general not store or process information about the user that is not strictly relevant to their function

- there ought to be different treatment for anonymous users (which ideally these protocols will allow, just submit proof of work plus a ZKP that you are a human and authorized to access the resource) compared to pseudonymous and non-anonymous users, who are more at risk of being censored or tracked.

There's some loopholes here, but if the government can enact good policy on this I personally think it's feasible. Please share your thoughts, if you have a minute to do so.

There's also an interesting political split to note among the opposition here. I see a lot of people vehemently against this, and as far as I can see this is largely for concerns regarding one of 1) privacy abuses, 2) censorship, or 3) restriction of general computing. Still, there is a problem with harmful content and platforms on the web. (Not just for minors, I don't think we should pretend it doesn't harm adults too.) The privacy crowd seems to be distinctly different from the computing-freedom crowd; the most obvious example is in attitudes towards iOS. As I personally generally align more towards what I perceive as the privacy-focused side, I'm very interested in what people more focused on software freedom think about zero-knowledge proofs as a politically workable solution here.
by merlindru | 2026-03-06 08:54:50+00:00
what about children being fed unhealthy things? childhood obesity is dangerous and also affects their mental and physical health.

let's install cameras in all supermarkets that ensure parents cannot buy unhealthy things for their children.

of course, adults can continue to purchase anything they want for "themselves". but the facial scanning in supermarkets is imperative for child safety!
by magicalhippo | 2026-03-06 08:55:01+00:00
> I have never in my life worked with a database table that had 700 columns

Main table at work is about 600, though I suspect only 300-400 are actively used these days. A lot come from name and address fields, we have about 10 sets of those in the main table, and around 14 fields per.

Back when this was created some 20+ years ago it was faster and easier to have it all in one row rather than to do 20+ joins.

We probably would segment it a bit more if we did it from scratch, but only some.
by Frieren | 2026-03-06 08:55:41+00:00
> does not have native VAT support

If citizens do not have access to high quality tools that allow them to exercise their rights that rights are "de facto" invalidated.

If corporations are allowed to implement regulations in faulty ways the economic system stops working and fraud is easier than ever.

Part of the problem is governments trying to look "pro businesses" have become just "anti regulation". Organized crime is rising in Europe as it is increasingly easy to move money around in uncontrolled ways thru big platforms. But asking big platforms to adhere to standards and
If citizens do not have access to high quality tools that allow them to exercise their rights that rights are "de facto" invalidated.

Part of the problem is governments trying to look "pro businesses" have become just "pro fraud". Organized crime is rising in Europe as it is increasingly easy to move money around in uncontrolled ways thru big platforms. But asking big platforms to adhere to standards and regulations is something that corruption does not allow for.
by AnthonyMouse | 2026-03-06 08:55:42+00:00
> Now you have a system where every blog entry, every Facebook post needs a lawyer consultation.

You have that with any form of any of these things. They're almost certainly going to be set up so that you get in trouble for claiming that adult content isn't but not for having non-adult content behind the adult content tag.

Then you would be able to avoid legal questions by labeling your whole site as adult content, with the obvious drawback that then your whole site is labeled as adult content even though most of it isn't.

But using ID requirements instead doesn't get you out of that. You'd still need to either identify which content requires someone to provide an ID before they can view it, or ID everyone.

That's an argument for not doing any of these things, but not an argument for having ID requirements instead of content tags.
by shevy-java | 2026-03-06 08:56:16+00:00
> I find neither approach to be ideal. It is often impossible to gain consensus of all copyright holders since some may be unreachable.

Well, licences are not universal wonder tools. They have restrictions about their use cases. But, narrowing this down solely to "GPL xyz" versus "GPL xyz - or later fancypants", I always found the variant WITHOUT the "or later" to be better. It simply adds more complexity when a licence can willy-nilly be changed, at a later time, when a change happens. I understand the use case for the "or later" part, as the GPL is very strict as well as an ideological tool against abuse from corporations (let's be honest here; and I think the GPL is a good licence, despite this too), but even then I find it better to stick to the simpler variants. It is one reason why I may use GPLv2. I also use MIT/BSD when I essentially don't care much. I don't think I have had a use case for GPLv3; and not for "or later" either. LGPL is also fine.

> It’s patently clear that the license allows this, and it surprises me that this is rarely brought up in debates about GPL-3.0-only and GPL-3.0-or-later.

I was unaware that a proxy can be designated upfront; so that's another complexity with regards to the "or later" part. What can proxies do? I dislike the "or later" clause; it really just makes this way more complicated than it should be.