MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by customguy | 2026-03-12 01:09:12+00:00
> Do I prefer low-effort, off-the-top-of-my-head reactions, as long as it is human? Or do I want an insightful, well-thought-out response, even if it is LLM-enhanced?

For me it's the first one every time. If only because LLM don't learn from responses to it (much less so when the response is to a paste of their output). It's just not communication. From that perspective, the quality of even the most brilliant LLM output is zero, because it's (whatever high value) multiplied by zero.

Even a real person saying something really horrible and too dense to learn from any response at least gives me a signal about what humans exist. An LLM doesn't tell me anything, and if wanted the reply of an LLM, I would simply feed my own posts into an LLM. A human doing that "for me" is very creepy and, to my sensibilities, boundary violating. Okay, that may be too strong a word, but it feels gross in a way I can't quite put my finger on, but reject wholeheartedly.
by nine_k | 2026-03-12 01:09:39+00:00
If you do not partake in a war when a war is waged against you, you lose, and you either get subdued, or perish altogether. This is why pacifism for some part of a society is only possible when another part of the society is willing and capable of using lethal force to defend the society as a whole.

Due to this, it's important to always have sufficient quantities of very efficient weapons, exactly so that you would never have to put them to use.
by dathinab | 2026-03-12 01:09:46+00:00
not low-signal, but no sign at all

This isn't a defense of this people at all.

It is just also not an argument against their intellect either.

Just look at what they nonsense they say all the time, and how they arguments and reasoning is commonly full of hols and messy entangled problems often stump them.

Similar for many cases where it's publicly visible its very clear that their success story commonly highly relies on stuff like knowing the right people and luck of having the right think at the right time with the right supporter.

But it would be a mistake to assume that non of them are very intelligent (or that non are quite dump), that would run at risk of underestimating how dangerous they can be. Both in "clever dangerous" and "idiotic dangerous" ways.

The reason I care about this is because if you ignore the US for a moment in a lot of places the same kind of "all connections often little substance" elite exist, just with having bothered to learn to use "extra" eloquent language to the as arrogant if not even more arrogant look down on people.

Which brings us to another reason why it isn't a good indicator: In the same way that "elites" use eloquent language to differentiate them self form common people do the "elites" around the trump camp differentiate them-self by explicitly not using it.
by MarkusQ | 2026-03-12 01:09:54+00:00
Which is why we need people "doing science" to also focus on getting rid of bad ideas rather than just coming up with more. The present incentive structure is such that we reward people for coming up with shocking new ideas even if they are obviously rubbish and don't do enough to reward the ones who put in the effort to debunking existing bad ideas.

Coming up with ideas is the easy part of science, but most new ideas are wrong. Getting rid of the ones that aren't actually correct is hard, yet we shower praise on people doing the easy part and ignore the ones doing the hard part.
by 000ooo000 | 2026-03-12 01:10:18+00:00
Anything in particular? I first used it about 10 years ago, on prem, and am currently using the cloud version. Current edition is clunky, slow, and constantly badgers me with Rovo shit I can't disable. IMHO, it reeks of a product once built by and for technical people that eventually got dumbed down by POs to the point of being painful for the original users. Obviously I'm no longer the target user because I assume someone somewhere appreciates these changes.
by gnabgib | 2026-03-12 01:10:20+00:00
No. No it wasn't. It has been despised at least 10 years

2017: Trello, “Jira Sucks”, and Tool Dysfunction https://cutle.fish/blog/trello-jira-sucks-and-tool-dysfuncti...

2019: Over 16 reasons why Jira and Confluence suck https://jackthenomad.com/15-reasons-why-jira-and-confluence-...

2020: Everyone hates Jira, but no one stops using it https://www.reddit.com/r/ExperiencedDevs/comments/izu5u3/eve...

2020: 7 reasons why use of Jira can be frustrating, part 1 (lol the domain) https://community.atlassian.com/forums/Jira-articles/7-reaso...

2020: jira is bad https://quietlife.net/2020/06/30/jira-is-bad

2021: Why Does Jira Suck and What to Do About It https://chrisdwan.medium.com/why-does-jira-suck-and-what-to-...

2022: I fucking hate Jira https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/vgvt3m/i_fucki...
by slopinthebag | 2026-03-12 01:10:34+00:00
> It was very helpful, but my total productivity gains were around 10-15%, which is pretty much what the study found. Once Opus came out in November though, it was like someone flipped a switch. It was much more capable at autonomous work and required way less hand-holding, intervention or course-correction. 4.6 has been even better.

How did you track these gains?
by sarchertech | 2026-03-12 01:10:52+00:00
1. Plenty of people have problems with any screening that requires work on the candidate side but nothing on the employer side. In that regard both of these options are equally bad.

2. Automated code screens usually have an objective right answer. With an AI interview you have no idea what the how you did or how your answers could trigger an LLM to reject you.

And there’s the fact that you have to talk to it like it’s a human which many maybe most people find at least a bit dehumanizing.
by sally_glance | 2026-03-12 01:12:00+00:00
I honestly hope someone will read this comment and vibecode an Atlassian 2.0 platform, preferably open source. But really, I will take closed source and paid as well - just give me something that's on par in terms of features and integration but without the terrible UX.

To be clear, I agree with the terrible products part - but currently they are not dying because there is no alternative platform which is flexible, scalable and feature-complete enough. You may find alternatives for niches, like GitHub for software engineering, but the Atlassian stuff allows for knowledge transfer and familiarity across many many domains. I've seen it used anywhere from government burocracy to customer service and construction companies. They nailed the abstraction for flexible issue management, just the implementation is terrible.
by crazygringo | 2026-03-12 01:12:45+00:00
> That is your reading and not the comment... different people share different context.

That makes as much sense as saying that the comment being written in English is just my "reading" of it, and that in a different context all the words could have entirely different meanings. That is technically true, but also completely useless when you're engaged in a real-life conversation with the rich context of the year 2026 on planet Earth... I tried to explain to you the shared context in case you were somehow ignorant of it. If you insist on denying that, then you're going to have a very hard time communicating with others, as you seem to be having with this conversation. Good luck.
by Havoc | 2026-03-12 01:12:59+00:00
Loved the idea of it but hated that there are multiple ways of doing things. In the main config , in flakes and one other way I forgot rn. Very beginner hostile because whatever problem you’re trying to solve if you google it you likely get the wrong flavour of answer. A bit like trying to solve a kde issue and the results are all gnome

I’ll probably give it another go at some point because I could see the vision but that above really dented my enthusiasm.
by Muromec | 2026-03-12 01:13:33+00:00
If you have to go to a specific DMV at a specific time, it's a link to a ZIP code and economical situation (i.e. having enough time during work hours just for that). That's a good enough proxy for race. Bonus points if you can also make a specific DMV for a specific ZIP code shittier experience on purpose. Nobody would ever try to do that in a-country, right.
by plastic041 | 2026-03-12 01:14:06+00:00
Is this an openclaw alternative that is installed on my mac but runs on their cloud? Or just a VDI?

It's difficult to understand what this is because its name is "Personal Computer", and it seems like their definition of Personal Computer is very different from everyone else's.

Also it's funny that it shows making a revenue report with their brand template. AI can replace HR jobs but they still have to make reports for noble executives? They are basically saying "We won't replace CEOs/executives".
by teki_one | 2026-03-12 01:15:26+00:00
My only problem with the Neo is that the base config has a good price, but if I want 512GB storage it reaches into the usable PC category.
Usable for me: 16GB/512GB, Arc/RDNA 3.5 GPU
Different tradeoffs obiously: light, good screen & touchpad versus Linux compatibility and backlit keyboard.
by xt00 | 2026-03-12 01:15:39+00:00
When you say "this is NOT from Hastings" I had to double check my post again -- I guess you are saying that the Pade approximation is not from Hastings, but the polynomial approximation that the OP referenced from nvidia from A&S and ultimately from Hastings, definitely is in Hastings on page 159 -- I think you were referring to the Pade approximation not being in Hastings, which appears to be true yes. In the article it is interesting that the OP tried taylor expansion and pade approximation, but not the fairly standard "welp lets just fit a Nth order polynomial to the arcsin" which is what Hastings did back in the day.
by matheusmoreira | 2026-03-12 01:16:17+00:00
> Could you imagine a registered nurse being asked to expain why they have a blog about astronomy and not nursing?

That hits pretty close to home... I'm a doctor who has a small blog about the implementation details of the lisp I made.

> Managing Type 2 Diabetes isn't interesting enough for you to blog about?

If someone asked me this point blank I think I'd laugh out loud. It's interesting enough for me to keep up with the latest evidence, thanks.

> Whens the last time a nurse did a whiteboard interview?

To be fair, healthcare professionals have some pretty gruelling training and difficult licensing examinations. Some amount of preselection is taking place. Nobody needs a license to write software.
by falcor84 | 2026-03-12 01:16:24+00:00
That's a very nice analogy. I agree and thinking about my previous comment, I suppose I just lashed out because I really dislike Jira the product and don't think that it can be salvaged, but I don't have anything against the engineers working there, and agree that they can be mentored and reassigned to a product where they'd be able to create something good.
by ryan14975 | 2026-03-12 01:16:31+00:00
This makes a lot of sense. Cloudflare already has the rendered content at edge — serving a structured snapshot from cache would eliminate redundant crawling entirely.

What I'd love to see is site owners being able to opt in and control the format. Something like a /cdn-cgi/structured endpoint that respects your robots.txt directives but gives crawlers clean markdown or JSON instead of making them parse raw HTML. The site owner wins (less bot traffic), the crawler wins (structured data), and Cloudflare wins (less load on origin).
by altairprime | 2026-03-12 01:16:39+00:00
> This sounds like you're chastising me

Nope. (For an example of that, see any comment I posted to this discussion that starts with “Please don’t”.)

> "Can I cite an AI search result?"

Ah. An AI response is neither a primary source nor a reference source, and HN tends to strongly prefer those. Linking to a Google /search?q= isn’t any more welcome here than linking to an AI /search?q=; neither are stable over time and may vary wildly based on algorithmic changes. Wikipedia, as a curated reference source, is not classifiable as equivalent to either a search engine or an AI response at this time, and evidences much stronger stability, striving towards that of a classical print encyclopedia (but never reaching it).

Perhaps someday Britannica will release an AI that only provides fully factual replies that are derived in whole from the Britannica encyclopedia, but as of today, AI has not demonstrated the general veracity and reliability that even Wikipedia, the very worst of possible reference sources, has met over the years.

(Note that an Ask-A-Librarian response would be more credible than a Wikipedia page and much more credible than today’s AI attempts to replace that function; but linking such a response would still be quite problematic, not the least of which because the primary value of that response is either directly quotable and/or is citations that should be incorporated into the post itself. But if that veracity differential changes someday once the AI hallucination problem is solved at the underlying level rather than in post-filters, I’m happy to revise my position.)
by jongjong | 2026-03-12 01:16:50+00:00
As I've said before, AI is a force multiplier. A 10x developer is now a 100x developer and a -10x developer (complexity maker/value destroyer) is now a -100x developer.

I can understand why a lot of companies are cutting junior roles. What AI does is it automates most of the stuff that juniors are good at (coding fast) but not much of the stuff that the seniors are good at.

That said, I've worked with some juniors who managed to navigate; they do this by focusing on higher order thinking and developing a sense of what's important by interacting with senior engineers. Unfortunately, it raises the talent bar for juniors; they have to become more intelligent; not in a puzzle-solving way, but in a more architectural big-picture sort of way; almost like entrepreneurial thinking but more detailed/complex.

LLMs don't have a worldview; this means that they miss a lot of inconsistencies and logical contradictions. Also, most critically, LLMs don't know what's important (at least not accurately enough) so they can't prioritize effectively and they make a lot of bad decisions.

It's kind of interesting for me because a lot of the areas where I had a contrarian opinion in the field of software development, I now see LLMs getting trapped into those and getting bad results. It's like all my contrarian opinions became much more valuable.
by rishflab | 2026-03-12 01:18:08+00:00
Security does not depend on code review. They have stronger sandboxing and have granular permissions that the user must allow.
My point is running untrusted code securely should be the operating systems job. It is possible to do this at the operating system level, a browser is not required. The problem is the security model for desktop operating systems is ancient and has not kept up with today's requirements.
by schipperai | 2026-03-12 01:18:10+00:00
According to Anthropic auto mode uses an LLM to decide whether to approve each action. nah uses primarily a deterministic classifier that runs fast with zero tokens + optional LLM for the ambiguous stuff.

Auto-mode will likely release tomorrow, so we won't know until then. They could end up being complementary where nah's primary classifier can act as a fast safety net underneath auto mode's judgment.

The permission flow in Claude Code is roughly:

1. Claude decides to use a tool
2. Pre tool hooks fire (synchronously)
3. Permission system checks if user approval is needed
4. If yes then prompt user
5. Tool executes

The most logical design for auto mode is replacing step 4, instead of prompting the user, prompt a Claude to auto-approve. If they do it that way, nah fires before auto mode even sees the action. They'd be perfectly complementary.

But they could also implement auto mode like --dangerously-skip-permissions under the hood which fire hooks async.

If I were Anthropic I'd keep hooks synchronous in auto mode since the point is augmenting security and letting hooks fire first is free safety.
by eschaton | 2026-03-12 01:18:23+00:00
No, you’re still either being intentionally obtuse or unintentionally clueless.

A condition of making a contribution to one of my projects is that you haven’t used an LLM to create that contribution. By making a contribution, you are agreeing to this restriction, even without having any formal document signed.

If I then found out that you may have defrauded the project by lying about the origin of your contribution—say because you said openly and publicly “I would just lie about using an LLM”—then I would first give you a chance to declare that no, really, you didn’t commit fraud in these cases because even though you publicly said you would just lie, I’m betting that you wouldn’t lie in signing a multipage contract with specific penalties for breach.

If you wouldn’t sign that contract, then I would sue you to address the damage your fraud caused the project, which would include removing all of your contributions and anything depending upon them from not just the present codebase but the project history, as well as documenting and hiring someone from outside the project to clean-room recreate anything I deem important that did depend upon them.

These damages are not nebulous or ill-defined: Because of the untrustworthy provenance of your contributions, they *must* be removed, and they also taint anything dependent upon them.

In all of your replies on this topic you really sound like a teenager who hasn’t quite understood that your actions really can have consequences.

If you look into why it was historically very difficult to find GNU emacs code for older versions, it’s because of a situationexactly like this: Stallman just copied some code from Unipress (Gosling) emacs into GNU emacs, presumably thinking he could get away with the copyright violation. (He evidently hadn’t learned from getting smacked down for directly copying Symbolics code into the LMI codebase.) The end result is that FSF and mirrors had to stop distributing the versions of GNU emacs containing the Unipress-originated code.

This is not a LARP, this is stuff that actually happens in the software industry including in Open Source, and anyone involved in the industry needs to actually take it seriously because to do otherwise is to invite substantial liability.
by coderenegade | 2026-03-12 01:20:06+00:00
There needs to be a measure (or measures) of the entropy of a codebase that provides a signal of complexity. When you're paying for every token, you want code patterns that convey a lot of immediate information to the agent so that it can either repeat the pattern, or extend it in a way that makes sense. This is probably the next wave of assisted coding (imo), because we're at the stage where writing code works, the quality is mostly decent, but it can be needlessly complex given the context of the existing repo.
by monksy | 2026-03-12 01:20:10+00:00
"It's cute you think you can tell what's human and what's not. Honestly, the average HN comment is indistinguishable from a poorly written AI prompt anyway. This rule just lowers the bar for what passes as 'intellectual discourse.'"

Sorry everyone, I couldn't help but to ask Gemma3-27B-it-vl-GLM-4.7-Uncensored-Heretic-Deep-Reasoning-i1-GGUF:q4_K_M to respond. Sorry dang. :)

PS It followed it up with:

> Disclaimer: "Slightly insulting" is subjective on HN. The mods there are sensitive.

These Heretic models are fun.
by rmunn | 2026-03-12 01:20:13+00:00
I'd argue that `new Date()` returning the current time is a design mistake, and it should at least have been something like `DateTime.now()`. (Especially because it's called a date but it actually returns a timestamp: the footgun potential is large). C#'s date API isn't the best design (otherwise [NodaTime](https://www.nodatime.org/) wouldn't have been necessary) but it at least got some things right: you don't get the current time by doing `new DateTime()`, you get it by referencing `DateTime.UtcNow` for UTC (almost always what you want), or `DateTime.Now` for local time (which is sometimes what you want, but you should always stop and think about whether you really want UTC).

And even with C#'s date API, I've seen errors. For example, a library that formatted datetime strings by merely writing them out and adding a "Z" to the end, assuming that they would always be receiving UTC datetimes — and elsewhere in the code, someone passing `DateTime.Now` to that library. (I'm guessing the dev who wrote that was in the UK and wrote it during winter time, otherwise he would have noticed that the timestamps were coming out wrong. If he was in the US they'd be 4-7 or 5-8 hours wrong depending on whether DST was in effect. But in the UK during winter, local time equals UTC and you might not notice that mistake).

This is another reason why Temporal's API making clear distinctions between the different types, and requiring you to call conversion functions to switch between them, is a good idea. That C# mistake would have been harder (not impossible, people can always misunderstand an API, but harder) if the library had been using Nodatime. And Temporal is based on the same design principles (not identical APIs, just simmilar principles) as Nodatime.
Show HN: SwarmClaw – Manage a swarm of OpenClaw agents from one self-hosted UI
by jamesweb | 2026-03-12 01:20:25+00:00
Built this because I had multiple OpenClaw instances running with no good way to manage them together. SwarmClaw is the control plane.
Connect to OpenClaw gateways and 14 other providers (Anthropic, OpenAI, Gemini, Groq, Ollama, DeepSeek, Mistral, xAI, Claude Code CLI, Codex CLI and more). Build agents with custom tools and personalities, run multi-agent LangGraph workflows, queue work on a Kanban board, and bridge agents to Discord, Slack, Telegram, WhatsApp, Signal, Teams and others.
Under the hood: per-agent FTS5 + vector memory, sandboxed Deno/Python execution, JS plugin hooks, and MCP server support per agent.
MIT licensed. One-line curl install, npm, or Docker. Happy to answer questions.
by SirensOfTitan | 2026-03-12 01:20:41+00:00
This reads as incredibly damning to me. PR throughput should be a metric that is very supportive of the AI productivity narrative, but the effect is marginal.

Before everyone gets at me: smoking cigarettes increases your risk of lung cancer by 15-30x. Effect size matters. As does margin of error: what is the margin of error? This "increase" could easily be within noise.

PR throughput is also not a metric I would ever use to determine developer productivity for a paradigm shifting technology. I would only ever use it to compare like-to-like to find trailheads: is a team or person suddenly way more or less productive? The primary endpoint for software production is serving your customer or your mission, and PR throughput can't tell you whether any of that got better. It also cannot tell you the cost of your prior work: the increase in PR throughput could be more PRs to fix issues introduced by LLM-assisted work.
by clxxx | 2026-03-12 01:20:53+00:00
Ads aren’t inherently fascist but the modern implementation of ads put forth by companies like meta and google are. Having terms that allow companies to spy on your daily routine and habits in order to sell that info to companies that would then push their products to you is dystopian and fascist. This is not a simple billboard. The mechanism that ad companies use infringes upon our basic rights for privacy with manufactured consent.
by ProllyInfamous | 2026-03-12 01:20:59+00:00
Same. I got the 2024 15" Macbook Air when CostCo had it for $849.00*

Hadn't purchased a laptop new since college scholarship decades ago. This machine continues to make an immediate impression. The entire thing is thinner than just the bottom of my college CoreDuo. It also lasts 8x longer, on battery.

I just use mine as a tertiary machine (i.e. bedtime reading/podcast), but if you ever want to run the machine hard long-term, you can use 1mm thermal pads between the heatsink and bottom of external case (and then it'll never throttle).