MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by cosmiciron | 2026-03-02 04:54:50+00:00
That is a very fair point, and I will absolutely add Typst to the "Why not just use..." section of the README! Typst is a phenomenal piece of software, but it operates in a very different architectural space than VMPrint.

The core differences come down to the runtime environment and the integration paradigm:

1. Edge-Native vs. WASM: Typst is written in Rust. To run it in a serverless environment, you have to ship and instantiate a WebAssembly binary. In strict Edge environments (like Cloudflare Workers or Vercel Edge) where bundle sizes and cold starts are heavily penalized, WASM can be a bottleneck. VMPrint is an 88 KiB pure-JS engine. It drops natively into any V8/Edge runtime with zero WASM bridge, allowing you to synchronously generate and stream deterministic PDFs directly from the edge in milliseconds.

2. Programmatic AST vs. Custom Markup: Typst is a markup compiler—you write in its .typ language. VMPrint is a lower-level layout VM. It doesn't parse markup; it consumes a flat JSON instruction stream (an AST) and spits out absolute X/Y coordinates. It's designed for developers who want to build their own custom document generators programmatically, rather than writing a document by hand.

3. Mid-Flight Pagination Control: My specific pain point was screenplays. I needed strict contextual rules, like automatically injecting (MORE) at the bottom of a page and (CONT'D) at the top of the next if a dialogue block splits across a page break. Achieving that kind of hyper-specific programmatic intervention is tough in a closed compiler. With VMPrint's two-stage pipeline, you have absolute access to the layout tree in native JS to manipulate it before it ever hits the renderer.

In short: if you want a beautiful, incredibly fast LaTeX replacement to write documents, use Typst. If you are a JS developer who needs to build a custom document pipeline and wants a lightweight, native layout VM to run the heavy math at the edge, that's VMPrint.
by brendanmc6 | 2026-03-02 04:56:51+00:00
I agree, and am so captivated with the idea that I decided to build a whole toolkit around it. Would be very keen to get feedback if anyone wants to try it when it’s ready.

https://acai.sh

So far this workflow is the only way I’ve been able to have any real success running parallel agents or assigning longer running tasks that don’t get thrown out.
Show HN: Yakki.ai – Say it. Ship it. Increase your output with your voice
by imazio | 2026-03-02 04:58:20+00:00
I built a macOS menu bar app for capturing and leveraging the audio you produce/generate.

Hold fn, talk, release, your text appears wherever your cursor is. Transcription runs on-device using local models, works offline, and nothing leaves your machine if you do not want to.

I wanted a faster dictation app that was put me in control, but also let me do things like recording my meetings without having to invite any weird guess to the Teams call, generate perfect meeting notes with insights, and allow me to go back to who said what when.

It can also help transcribe my podcasts when I don’t have time to listen to it all, then generate insights and key points.

The focus is on what to do with what you capture, not just perfect dictation.

I have yet to start marketing it and I am struggling with positioning it in a saturated market. Any advice or feedback will be SUPER welcome!
by suprjami | 2026-03-02 04:59:03+00:00
Shouldn't you be using MLX because it's optimised for Apple Silicon?

Many user benchmarks report up to 30% better memory usage and up to 50% higher token generation speed:

https://reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1fz6z79/lm_studio_s...

As the post says, LM Studio has an MLX backend which makes it easy to use.

If you still want to stick with llama-server and GGUF, look at llama-swap which allows you to run one frontend which provides a list of models and dynamically starts a llama-server process with the right model:

https://github.com/mostlygeek/llama-swap

(actually you could run any OpenAI-compatible server process with llama-swap)
Show HN: Interactive 3D WebGL Globe for real-time daylight cycles
by codechibi | 2026-03-02 05:00:40+00:00
Oclock is an interactive 3D WebGL globe that visualizes real-time daylight cycles. Built with Globe.gl and pre-processed spatial data pipeline.

Processing Pipeline

The data generation is handled by timezone_data_generator.py. This script performs the following:

1. Geometry Analysis: Uses shapely to find a representative point inside each country's boundary.

2. Timezone Mapping: Uses timezonefinder to look up the specific IANA timezone string for those coordinates.

3. Data Injection: Injects the timezone and coordinates back into the GeoJSON properties for use by the frontend.

Live Demo: https://azialle.github.io/Oclock/
by CoraleDev | 2026-03-02 05:00:47+00:00
I maintain cryptopp-modern (a modernised Crypto++ fork).
2026.3.0 adds NIST PQC algorithms:
- ML-KEM (FIPS 203), ML-DSA (FIPS 204), SLH-DSA (FIPS 205)
- X-Wing hybrid KEM (X25519 + ML-KEM-768)

Docs + API links are in the announcement.

Feedback welcome, especially packaging priority (vcpkg vs Conan), CI/build friction (MSVC/Linux/macOS), and any missing examples you’d want for real-world adoption.
by fgfarben | 2026-03-02 05:01:07+00:00
> I'm not taking any risks with 170 charged 18650s, if I would so much as drop or bump the bike I would discharge the pack and dismantle it.

I know it was not your intent, but when people hear this stuff about the fragility of EVs, it really makes them feel safer with a gas motor and a tank of liquid that can take a few dents and whacks without completely exploding.
by grayhatter | 2026-03-02 05:02:40+00:00
> So, community: what should we do?

> Is Show HN dead? No, but it's drowning

Is spam on topic? and are AI codegen bots part of the community?

To me, the value of Show HN was rarely the thing, it was the work and attention that someone put into it. AI bot's don't do work. (What they do is worth it's own word, but it's not the same as work).

> I don't want to exclude these projects, because (1) some of them are good,

Most of them are barely passable at best, but I say that as a very biased person. But I'll reiterate my previous point. I'm willing to share my attention with people who've invested significant amounts of their own time. SIGNIFICANT amounts, of their time, not their tokens.

> (2) there's nothing wrong with more people being able to create and share things

This is true, only in isolation. Here, the topic is more, what to do about all this new noise, (not; should people share things they think are cool). If the noise drowns out the signal, you're allowed that noise to ruin something that was useful.

> (3) it's foolish to fight the future

coward!

I do hope you take that as the tongue-in-cheek way I meant it, because I say it as a friend would; but I refuse to resign myself completely to fatalism. Fighting the future is different from letting people doing something different ruin the good thing you currently have. Sure electric cars are the future, but that's no reason to welcome them in a group that loves rebuilding classic hot rods.

> (4) there's no obvious way to exclude them anyhow.

You got me there. But then, I just have to take your word for it, because it's not a problem I've spent a lot of time figuring out. But even then, I'd say it's a cultural problem. If people ahem, in a leadership position, comment ShowHN is reserved for projects that took a lot of time investment, and not just ideas with code... eventually the problem would solve itself, no? The inertia may take some time, but then this whole comment is about time...

I know it's not anymore, but to me, HN still somehow, feels a niche community. Given that, I'd like to encourage you to optimize for the people who want to invest time into getting good at something. A very small number of these projects could become those, but trying to optimize for best fairness to everyone, time spent be damned... I believe will turn the people who lift the quality of HN away.
by nostrademons | 2026-03-02 05:04:16+00:00
Kinda like in Brave New World, or The Giver - or, for that matter, in hundreds of orphanages in real life?

This doesn't really work either. Having been loved by an attachment figure (usually a parent) seems to be essential to normal psychosocial development. Without it, kids can't really form bonds or groups. They never learn to trust, and without the ability to trust, they can't work in concert with other people. They end up violent and criminal.

If you tried to do this society-wide, society would collapse. Everybody would simply try to grab what they could and kill everybody else.
by kirenida | 2026-03-02 05:04:38+00:00
Regarding users creating new accounts on phone setup:

Recently I encountered a user that had created a new Google account when switching to a new device... on their last 5 devices.

So when they switched to the latest one and called me to set up the phone, I had to wrangle the contacts, photos, cloud storage and whatnot from all of those accounts.

Another pain point for me (in the EU/Balkans) is the transfer of Whatsapp and Viber. For reasons unknown, the accounts, contacts, chats, downloaded data can't be transferred during device setup. The only way to transfer data to a new device is to create a cloud backup on the old phone, which requires creating a wapp/viber account and setting up the google drive backup (local backup to a file? lol no. Any other cloud service available? lol no). Of course, when dealing with a media-heavy user (lots of photos, lots of memes/videos from group chats that are automatically downloaded to the phone), often is the case that the cloud storage tied to the google account doesn't have enough space for the backups, because it is filled with the automatic google photos backup that nobody turns off. And the user usually doesn't want to pay for extra space on Google because they don't understand why or just plainly don't want to.

So yeah, the transfer process is slow and complicated and full of traps, but it also offers an insight in to how much the imaginary "average consumer" doesn't care about this stuff and just agrees to everything offered.
by rahimnathwani | 2026-03-02 05:04:44+00:00
I didn't know about llama-swap until yesterday. Apparently you can set it up such that it gives different 'model' choices which are the same model with different parameters. So, e.g. you can have 'thinking high', 'thinking medium' and 'no reasoning' versions of the same model, but only one copy of the model weights would be loaded into llama server's RAM.

Regarding mlx, I haven't tried it with this model. Does it work with unsloth dynamic quantization? I looked at mlx-community and found this one, but I'm not sure how it was quantized. The weights are about the same size as unsloth's 4-bit XL model: https://huggingface.co/mlx-community/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B-4bit/tr...
by saghm | 2026-03-02 05:04:45+00:00
My point is that they have far more knowledge about what the product is capable of and where its limitations lie than the government. A company expressing doubt that their product can be used safely for a given task even knowing the risk to their ability to make a sale for that exact purpose is far more trustworthy than potential buyer who claims they understand but also refuse to agree not to use it for that. I know this isn't a universally popular opinion, but I wish more companies acted responsible by not trying to maximize profits at the expense of social good.

I don't understand any interpretation of this whole saga that claims that Anthropic was acting selfishly here. I could at least understand (but would vehemently disagree with) a claim that it's bad for them not to be trying to sell something that they genuinely did not think was safe for the task it was being purchased for, but the idea that they're somehow "imposing" morals on the others is nonsensical to me. If anything, I'd expect that trying to sell a complex software system for a purpose it's unfit for might even receive scrutiny for potential fraud in a more healthy regulatory environment.
by superposeur | 2026-03-02 05:05:13+00:00
There are several layers of structure here.

Indeed, as you say, Decoherence explains why certain bases are special: when a system is in a pointer basis state, it does not continue entangling with environment (or, at least, does so minimally). When a spinning particle enters a Stern-Gerlach apparatus oriented in z-direction, spin-z is the pointer basis of the system during its time in the apparatus. A spin-up or spin-down particle does not entangle with the environment, but spin +x state would quickly entangle with environment, placing environment in a superposition and "branching" the total state vector of all the stuff in the universe.

Quantum Darwinism is just a refinement of this picture in which the "environment" interacting with the system is itself modeled a series of fragments (i.e. all the different photons that bounce off object). It turns out that the information about which pointer basis state the system is in (spin up or spin down) is redundantly encoded in each of these fragments. Hence, intercepting one photon that interacted with system and reveals "spin-up" (because the particle is in upper path) agrees with other photons that also bounce off object.

BUT, of course, due to linearity of unitary time evolution, there is another "branch" in which spin-down was the outcome of the measurement and everyone agrees on spin-down. This is exactly the Everett picture.
by stackghost | 2026-03-02 05:05:16+00:00
LLM session transcripts as part of the commit is a neat idea to consider, to be sure, but I know that I damn well don't want to read eight pages of "You're absolutely right! It's not a foo. It's a bar" slop (for each commit no less!) when I'm trying to find someone to git blame.

The solution is as it always has been: the commit message is where you convey to your fellow humans, succinctly and clearly, why you made the commit.

I like the idea of committing the initial transcript somewhere in the docs/ directory or something. I'll very likely start doing this in my side projects.
by nwatson | 2026-03-02 05:06:47+00:00
Sounds like "Nate B Jones" from the "AI News & Strategy Daily | Nate B Jones". He's very enthusiastic about the notion that there are "dark software houses" or something like that where no human writes code, reviews code, or writes unit / integration tests. The human's job is to write specs so complete that the AI can't help but write the correctly behaving software, and that the software developer role combines somehow with the product manager role, and that the skills required for this are fundamentally different from traditional software, and that most people are at tier zero, one, or two of the AI-aided software paradigm, whereas they need to be at level five to not be left behind. His videos are thought-provoking at least.

EDIT: fixed a few mistakes
by BrenBarn | 2026-03-02 05:06:51+00:00
Another thing is that part of my liking for the UI of that time is connected with the fact that it was consistent across all apps. Like you could set the font and color for a menu bar and every app would have that. This era of web apps drives me nuts because now it's switched to "this app should look the same for all viewers", when I want it to be "all apps should look the same when I use them".
by fladrif | 2026-03-02 05:09:13+00:00
I think this is a lot of "kicking can down the road" of not understanding what code the ai is writing. Once you give up understanding the code that is written there is no going back. You can add all the helper commit messages, architecture designs, plans, but then you introduce the problem of having to read all of those once you run into an issue. We've left readability on the wayside at the alter of "writeability".

The paradigm shift, which is a shift back, is to embrace the fact that you have to slow down, and understand all the code the ai is writing.
by gwern | 2026-03-02 05:09:14+00:00
The review queue is not going to work, unless you have millions of dollars to spare. No one is interested in providing such extremely laborious skilled labor to be thrown away on one-off tweaks of someone's self-promotion of their AI slop, forgotten within the day, and if they are, the ever-escalating flood will soon burn out their remaining altruism.

My suggestion would be more radical: if it's AI written, the code is increasingly irrelevant. What is relevant is the prompt or spec: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47198562 'Show HN' should ban "code-only" submissions if not majority human-written, and allow only "prompt/doc/test only" 'Show HNs'.

I am interested in a vibecoded project which was a well thought out goal or an interesting methodology or a striking prompt engineering trick (eg. the Anthropic Rust C compiler targeting the Linux kernel); I'm not interested in a obvious idea where I'm supposed to be impressed by a huge pile of rotting-code-debt of unknown quality and likely a lot of bugs, which is going to be written by a LLM in a few months anyway.

> "Show me your flowchart and conceal your tables, and I shall continue to be mystified. Show me your tables, and I won't usually need your flowchart; it'll be obvious." ---Fred Brooks, _The Mythical Man Month_ (1975)
by modeless | 2026-03-02 05:09:30+00:00
Starlink has already demonstrated the capability to do laser communication with a maneuvering spacecraft in a very different orbit from the constellation, during the Polaris Dawn mission. And Starlink has way more than enough downlink capacity for the "staggering" numbers in the article. 85 TB/day is a drop in the bucket compared to the traffic Starlink sees. Starlink will need to expand their downlink capacity in the future, but not because of demand coming from space. Maybe unless space GPUs actually happen.
by jrflowers | 2026-03-02 05:10:22+00:00
> prose and an expository essay -it was doing both.

Putting prose in an essay means there are more valid criticisms of a piece of writing, not fewer. If somebody is breakdancing and reciting the periodic table at the same time it’s ok if somebody notices if they skipped the lanthanides and actinides.

I’m a fan of blending the two! It’s just really really hard to do both well at the same time. My most recent example is Malcolm Harris’ history of Palo Alto, it is incredibly well-done.
by onion2k | 2026-03-02 05:11:07+00:00
Conceptually this is very similar to the question of whether or not you should squash your commits. To the point that it's really the same question.

If you think you should squash commits, then you're only really interested in the final code change. The history of how the dev got there can go in the bin.

If you don't think you should squash commits then you're interested in being able to look back at the journey that got the dev to the final code change.

Both approaches are valid for different reasons but they're a source of long and furious debate on every team I've been on. Whether or not you should be keeping a history of your AI sessions alongside the code could be useful for debugging (less code debugging, more thought process debugging) but the 'prefer squash' developers usually prefer to look the existing code rather than the history of changes to steer it back on course, so why would they start looking at AI sessions if they don't look at commits?

All that said, your AI's memory could easily be stored and managed somewhere separately to the repo history, and in a way that makes it more easily accessible to the LLM you choose, so probably not.
by vintermann | 2026-03-02 05:11:11+00:00
Strictly speaking we don't know that. It may always turn up an extremely rare Y or mtdna variant which was thought to be extinct. Ötzi's mt like was thought to be extinct (Wikipedia page even still says so) but very recently a North African man took a full mtdna test and it turned out he had the same. That could happen with neanderthal variants too for all we know.
by sorcercode | 2026-03-02 05:11:24+00:00
These are all evolving technologies and it's pretty evident that the big AI labs are trying different things to see what sticks. Some of it does and they keep evolving it.

The reason MCPs are so powerful are less a technological advantage over other tools and more how ridiculously easy they are to install and use.

Also given it's an official standard now (AAIF), it's easy for sharing across differently agent harnesses and tools.

Those are the two main reasons imho, they are still a mainstay.

If you'll allow some shameless plugs, my co-host and I talk about it in our podcast:

https://fragmentedpodcast.com/episodes/302/
by CoraleDev | 2026-03-02 05:12:55+00:00
Docs index: https://cryptopp-modern.com/docs/
ML-KEM: https://cryptopp-modern.com/docs/api/pqc/mlkem/
ML-DSA: https://cryptopp-modern.com/docs/api/pqc/mldsa/
SLH-DSA: https://cryptopp-modern.com/docs/api/pqc/slhdsa/
X-Wing: https://cryptopp-modern.com/docs/api/pqc/xwing/
by hakanderyal | 2026-03-02 05:14:14+00:00
I created a system which I call 'devlog'. Agent summarizes what it did & how it did in a concise file, and its gets committed along with first prompt and the plan file if any. Later due to noise & volume, I started saving those in a database and adding only devlog id to commit nowadays.

Now whenever I need to reason with what agent did & why, info is linked & ready on demand. If needed, session is also saved.

It helps a lot.
by stackghost | 2026-03-02 05:15:41+00:00
I read it to my daughter when she was six, and she loved it. We did one chapter a night. I did almost no editing as I read.

By the time we read LOTR she was eight, and we never did finish ROTK because the Frodo and Sam parts really do drag on (I get that he wrote them this way so that the reader would get a sense of just how arduous the journey was, but...)
by brendanmc6 | 2026-03-02 05:16:31+00:00
A few things really leveled up both my software quality and my productivity in the last few months. It wasn’t session history, memory files, context management or any of that.

1. Writing a spec with clear acceptance criteria.

2. Assigning IDs to my acceptance criteria. Sounds tedious, but actually the idea wasn’t mine, at some point an agent went and did it without me asking. The references proved so useful for guiding my review that I formalized the process (and switched from .md to .yaml to make it easier).

3. Giving my agents a source of truth to share implementation progress so they can plan their own tasks and more effectively review.

Of course, I can’t help myself, I had to formalize it into a spec standard and a toolkit. Gonna open source it all soon, but I really want feedback before I go too far down the rabbit hole:

https://acai.sh
by codechibi | 2026-03-02 05:16:38+00:00
I wanted to visualize global time and daylight cycles in a way that moved beyond the typical 2D map or static list. By using a custom spatial data pipeline and a 3D visualization engine, I built Oclock to render the Earth's day-night interface within a real-time, interactive environment. This is an open-source project, and I’d love for the community to check it out!