MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bayarearefugee | 2026-03-11 18:31:14+00:00
> forgot they were disposable laborers, and confused themselves for capitalists.

I agree with this, but it isn't just limited to software engineers. Most of the supposed "middle class" in the US fits this description.

We currently have the highest level of wealth inequality in history which is still growing at runaway rates and plenty of laborers who view themselves as "temporarily embarrassed billionaires" willing to prop up the system, seemingly unaware that those at the top will gladly wipe them off their boot when given the chance.
by saagarjha | 2026-03-11 18:31:21+00:00
> The Neo doesn’t have a hardware indicator light for the camera. The indication for “camera in use” is only in the menu bar. There’s a privacy/security implication for this omission. According to Apple, the hardware indicator light for camera-in-use on MacBooks, iPhones, and iPads cannot be circumvented by software. If the camera is on, that light comes on, and no software can disable it. Because the Neo’s only camera-in-use indicator is in the menu bar, that seems obviously possible to circumvent via software.

iPhone and iPad does not have a hardware indicator light
by officeplant | 2026-03-11 18:31:45+00:00
> I have no idea how Lenovo's ThinkPad T series differs from ...

My personal rundown and how they get assigned:

E - Educational / Lower office personnel spec

L - Office personnel you hate spec, but don't offer the E because they might complain.

T - Give this to all the technicians because they can't take care of anything and it will survive typically.

P - Give this to the engineers who believe having an RTX gpu will actually help them so that they are happy, and to the CAD operators who actually need it.

X - Smaller/Ultrabooks before the term got started, now somewhat a blurry line because T series have gotten lighter/thinner. But the X1 Carbon sure is a great way to spend a ton of money for a light laptop when a T-series would suffice.

Personally I stick to older used X series (currently x250) because I just enjoy a small laptop and they are dirt cheap now.
by xp84 | 2026-03-11 18:31:53+00:00
That's really interesting. Although my worry is the freezing having bad effects down the line after the function returns.

a = [1, 2]

def check_this(arr)
raise "doesn't start with 1" unless a.first == 1
end

check_this(a)

a << 3 # Raises "FrozenError (can't modify frozen Array)" because check_this froze `a`

Now, if you could temporarily freeze, and then unfreeze only the ones you froze, that could be really cool.
by goodmythical | 2026-03-11 18:32:07+00:00
“Who wouldn’t be going after the Epstein files if you’re the Russians or somebody interested in kompromat [espionage]?” said Jon Lindsay

The only sad thing is that this is an article posted today about an attack reported back in Febuary that was conducted in 2023, with no indication of public contact with the hacker, and so no indication of any asscociated release.
by trevwilson | 2026-03-11 18:32:12+00:00
Wow, what an odd story. It really sounds like the attacker did not at all realize what they'd actually managed to access. How do you end up accidentally hacking the FBI?

From the original Reuters article (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/foreign-hacker-2023-comprom...):

>The person familiar with the breach said the intrusion was carried out by a foreign hacker who did not appear to realize they had penetrated a law enforcement server. The hacker expressed disgust at the presence of child abuse images on the device and left a message threatening to turn its owner over to the FBI, the person said.

>The source said bureau officials defused the situation by convincing the hacker that they actually were the FBI, in part by having the hacker join a video chat where they flashed their law enforcement credentials in front of a web camera.
by JohnFen | 2026-03-11 18:32:18+00:00
> If your potential employer is dehumanizing you before you’re on the payroll, how will they treat you once hired?

For me, this is the key point. If a company can't even be bothered to show up for my interview -- when everyone is trying to put their best foot forward -- that bodes very ill for how I'll be treated if I were to work there.
by jpeloquin | 2026-03-11 18:32:51+00:00
Post-mandate, I've been submitting to closed access journals and getting OA on the side for free due to the mandate. Pre-mandate, I only submitted to paid OA journals, and paid ~ $3k each time for it.

The article claims the solution is "every government grant should stipulate that the research it supports can’t be published in a for-profit journal. That’s it! If the public paid for it, it shouldn’t be paywalled." That's an equivocation fallacy. Whether a for-profit journal publishes the work at some point is orthogonal to whether it is available un-paywalled, which it now must be.

You say that publishers replaced subscription fees with APC charges, but I haven't seen this happening when I've submitted papers recently. Journals need new submissions or they lose mindshare. Authors are price-sensitive and will shop around. Starting a new journal isn't that hard (it can been done as a side project) so high margins will likely be undercut. I have no idea why the author chose to pay a $12k APC; they probably didn't need to. Finally, closed-access journals will have residual subscription income from their closed-access archives for many decades; if the author wants to kill that income stream off, their proposed solution will not do it. So while I agree with the article's condemnation of the publishers, who are certainly no friends of science, I think it's wildly off-base on pretty much every other point.

Author-pays APCs are even potentially a good thing as long as they aren't much higher than the cost of publication. Universal APCs would provide some pressure against publishing many low-value papers that aren't really worth the time it takes to read them. The paper spam is kind of getting out of control.
by underlipton | 2026-03-11 18:33:14+00:00
Some "fun" reading on the subject of Mr. Maxwell:

https://sarahkendzior.substack.com/p/red-lines

tl;dr He is the bridge that uncomfortably links Biden's former Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, to Jeffrey Epstein and Mossad. Hence, *gestures at the last couple of weeks and years*. Dude was just, like, Fraud Central, apparently.
by ninjagoo | 2026-03-11 18:33:17+00:00
From the paper website [1], the code is here [2] model weights are here [3]

[1] https://loger-project.github.io/

[2] https://github.com/Junyi42/LoGeR

[3] https://huggingface.co/Junyi42/LoGeR
by yangro | 2026-03-11 18:33:25+00:00
Nice to see more PM tooling built on Claude Code. A few patterns we found building 70+ PM skills: the ones that get used repeatedly are brutally opinionated about when to trigger them — skills that try to do too much end up doing nothing well. The highest-retention skills encode a specific framework (Teresa Torres' opportunity extraction, Gibson Biddle's DHM model) rather than a generic "help me think" prompt.

The real unlock is context persistence though — without loading company/product/persona context first, even a well-crafted skill produces generic output. Without that, you're just doing prompt engineering faster. What's your approach to context loading in Goodthinking?
by tcfhgj | 2026-03-11 18:33:41+00:00
> no DOM access meant the only viable use cases were compute-heavy workloads like codecs and crypto,

no, it didn't mean that, because the overhead is not a deal breaker:

1) you don't have to do the glue code (libs can do it for you)

2) there's overhead due to glue, but the overhead is so small that WASM web frameworks easily can compete with fast JS frameworks in DOM heavy scenarios.

Source: Analysis of the creator of Leptos (a web framework based on WASM):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KtotxNAwME
by yangro | 2026-03-11 18:33:48+00:00
The Markdown coordination pattern is underrated. We use it for PM agent teams — competitive analysis across 5 competitors in parallel, batch interview synthesis, market sizing — each agent works one slice and reports back to a lead via a shared handoff file.

Your "CEO agent" incident is funny but real. We hit the same wall until we stopped giving agents broad mandates and started defining strict output formats. The insight: agents need a definition of "done" more than they need instructions. An agent without a clear completion state is an agent that over-engineers.

The parallel task execution pattern you described (frontend design first, extract requirements, then backend) works for code. For PM research, the equivalent is: each agent gets one competitor/one interview slice and outputs a fixed-schema summary. Then the lead synthesizes. Small scope + fixed output = predictable results.
by ativzzz | 2026-03-11 18:34:03+00:00
We as engineers are still paid to create working software. As such, you are responsible for the genAI code you ship to production. That is, our customers are paying us for working software, so we should all understand what the AIs are writing. This is slower and we become the bottlenecks, but it's a part of the offering of our business.

If I was working at a startup or working on a personal project, I wouldn't read the code but instead build a tighter verification loop to ensure the code functions as expected. Much harder to do in an existing system that was built pre-AI
by gs17 | 2026-03-11 18:34:49+00:00
> The Gallica scans are linked in the wikipedia article. Each of those chapters has hundreds of pages.

I went through a bit of it and saw no instance of the symbol. If it's in there, would you mind saying which chapter and which page? Or some hint about what context people could find it in? The maps I saw (maps were pretty easy to find, too, since most of the page numbers for them are "NP") didn't seem to use this symbol.
by Tharre | 2026-03-11 18:35:10+00:00
I don't get it. The point of OpenClaw is it's supposed to be an assistant, helping you with whatever random tasks you happen to have, in natural language. But for that to work, it has to have access to your personal data, your calendar, your emails, your credit card, etc., no?

Are there other tasks that people commonly want to run, that don't require this, that I'm not aware of? If so I'd love to hear about them.

The ClawBert thing makes a lot more sense to me, but implementing this with just a Claude Code instance again seems like a really easy way to get pwned. Without a human in the loop and heavy sandboxing, a agent can just get prompt injected by some user-controlled log or database entry and leak your entire database and whatever else it has access to.
by theredsix | 2026-03-11 18:35:10+00:00
Great insight! ABP exposes display resolution controls right now. I've noticed almost zero reCAPTCHAs during testing compared puppeteer stealth or other packages. Regarding the freezing mechanic, virtualtime is paused as well and the entire browser clock is captured so it would be very hard for a page's JavaScript to notice the time drift unless they were querying an external API clock.
by steve_adams_86 | 2026-03-11 18:35:35+00:00
I've been noticing lately that the discussion around LLMs and using them for programming has begun to expose people for how little they understand programming or what software developers do in general. I think I generally agree with the author as a result. A year ago I might think this was more naive, but today... I think software development has more of a moat than I thought, for more reasons than I originally perceived.

There are a lot of senior developers who discuss how they use LLMs and why, for example, and it exposes that even with a decade or so of experience, people can have extremely thin and weak understandings of what they're doing, and why. That isn't to cast shade at all, and I've been (and will be) the experienced yet clueless person at times. I could be right now.

A reductive description is that it's turning a lot of people in expert beginners, and the coworker they collaborate most now has no way of compensating for it. LLMs are useful and powerful tools, but they can't make up for these kinds of deficiencies yet. It doesn't seem like they will very soon, either. As they get better at generating code, they seem to simultaneously widen gaps in their ability to identify or anticipate bugs or poorly fit solutions.

I can't imagine the messes people are creating with LLMs when they have no experience at all, though. They might feel empowered (and to a degree they certainly are) but when it comes to complex, large, mission-critical, and/or distributed systems... These tools are nowhere near where they need to be.

I've also found that important software can now become more ambitious. We seem to model the risk developers face based on the software of today, but what I'm seeing is that I'm able to build and maintain more ambitious projects than ever. I'll be pushing the limits of what's possible for myself for a while yet, and I suspect it will continue to produce value for the people I work with. I could have these tools do the work I used to do (or help me do it faster) and leave it at that, but the reality is that I don't just stop there. I keep going, I continue refining, I discover more ways to make it more valuable, I iterate faster and maintain a tighter feedback loop with the people who use the things I create.

So, why would I be eliminated from that process? Do people really believe that my position in that loop will be eliminated by AI? This seems to disregard a myriad of qualities that allow software developers to be effective and valuable team members.

If that happens, frankly, I believe far more roles than software would be eliminated at that point. The implications would go far beyond software.
by jseabra | 2026-03-11 18:35:42+00:00
The "professional report version nobody read" observation is important and undersold. Feedback only works if people actually process it, and sharp tone forces processing in a way that polite summaries don't. The risk is overshooting into mean-for-laughs rather than mean-for-change, but that's a calibration problem not a direction problem.
The requirement inflation catch is the most genuinely useful thing here. "8 years of Kubernetes" is funny as an example but the underlying pattern, requirements copy-pasted from a previous hire's resume rather than derived from what the role actually needs, is endemic and causes real damage. It shrinks the pool, filters for credential-holders over performers, and signals to good candidates that nobody thought carefully about the role. A roast that makes that legible is doing something useful.
On the architecture decision: separating deterministic scoring from LLM commentary is the right call and worth explaining more prominently. It's what makes the scores comparable across JDs, which is the thing that would make this actually useful at scale for recruiting teams rather than just a one-off novelty. Right now it reads like a fun tool. That separation is what makes it a platform.
Remote clarity is worth adding. In 2026 "hybrid" without defining what hybrid means is its own category of dishonesty.
by natpalmer1776 | 2026-03-11 18:35:45+00:00
There is a vast difference between a student reading from a textbook and a researcher / scientist reading studies and/or papers.

As a student you are to be directed* in your reading by an expert in the field of study that you are learning from. In many higher level courses a professor will assign multiple textbooks and assign reading from only particular chapters of those textbooks specifically because they have vetted those chapters for accuracy and alignment with their curriculum.

As a researcher and scientist a very large portion of your job is verifying and then integrating the research of others into your domain knowledge. The whole purpose of replicating studies is to look critically at the methodology of another scientist and try as hard as you can to prove them wrong. If you fail to prove them wrong and can produce the same results as them, they have done Good Science.

A textbook is the product of scientists and researchers Doing Science and publishing their results, other scientists and researchers verifying via replication, and then one of those scientists or researchers who is an expert in the field doing their best to compile their knowledge on the domain into a factually accurate and (relatively) easy to understand summary of the collective research performed in a specific domain.

The fact is that people make mistakes, and the job of a professor (who is an expert in a given field) is to identify what errors have made it through the various checks mentioned above and into circulation, often times making subjective judgement calls about what is 'factual enough' for the level of the class they are teaching, and leverage that to build a curriculum that is sound and helps elevate other individuals to the level of knowledge required to contribute to the ongoing scientific journey.

In short, it's not a bad thing if you're learning a subject by yourself for your own purposes and are not contributing to scientific advancement or working as an educator in higher-education.

* You can self-study, but to become an expert while doing so requires extremely keen discernment to be able to root out the common misconceptions that proliferate in any given field. In a blue-collar field this would be akin to picking up 'bad technique' by watching YouTube videos published by another self-taught tradesman; it's not always obvious when it happens.
by sriramgonella | 2026-03-11 18:36:06+00:00
One interesting takeaway here is how quickly AI agents expose weaknesses in internal systems.

Many enterprise tools were designed assuming human interaction, where authentication flows, manual reviews, and internal processes add implicit safeguards.

But once you introduce autonomous agents that can systematically probe endpoints, missing authorization checks or misconfigured APIs become much easier to discover and exploit.

I suspect we’ll see a growing need for automated validation layers that continuously test internal AI tools for access control, data exposure, and unintended behaviors before they’re widely deployed.
by paxys | 2026-03-11 18:36:47+00:00
This reads like a fanfic.

"My manager wants to get rid of me because I'm too good with computers and he is jealous."

No, he wants to get rid of you because you are an operating expense for the company. If they can achieve the same outcome without paying your salary then why wouldn’t they fire you? The same has happened to a thousand other professions, and software engineers aren't immune to the march of technology.
by pillsburycat | 2026-03-11 18:36:56+00:00
I've been working on something along those lines (multi-agent orchestration IDE) for the last few months as a personal project.

There are also a lot of projects out there approaching this from many different angles.

Curious what features people would like to see in an Agentic IDE? Would you like to instruct multiple agents in real time (like vibe coding on steroids) or dispatch autonomous agents to solve a long-running task? Something else?
by hrmtst93837 | 2026-03-11 18:37:18+00:00
Immutability is often promoted to work around the complexity introduced by state management patterns in modern JS. If your state is isolated and you don't need features like time travel debugging, mutable data structures can be simpler and faster. Some so-called immutable libraries use hidden mutations or copy-on-write, which can actually make things slower or harder to reason about. Unless you have a specific need for immutability, starting with mutable structures is usually more sane.
by embedding-shape | 2026-03-11 18:37:20+00:00
> meant the only viable use cases were compute-heavy workloads like codecs and crypto

And games, which the web is now a viable platform for a huge range of them, albeit not the top of the range, AAA and all that (yet?). Also some new graphical editors taking advantage of it, probably Figma being the most famous example so far.
by m3047 | 2026-03-11 18:37:27+00:00
Seems like it was just hours ago they started reaching out to my edge servers from their address space (Me: why is a reverse proxy service banging my servers when I'm not a customer? did some miscreant sign me up somehow?) and it was for Apple, privacy, mom and pie (a VPN service, dressed in noble aspirations). It never quite smelled like pie to me.

If you're doing threat hunting / risk enumeration, Cloudflare is no longer a passive service that miscreants hide behind, they now actively reach out and grab your privates.
by bjackman | 2026-03-11 18:37:36+00:00
I see this at my $megagorp job. The top brass don't do that much written communication, but when they do they are absolutely shooting from the hip. It's not as bad as Epstein but it's a strong "I've already started reading the next email while I'm typing this one" vibes.

FWIW I don't have a problem with it at all. As the article mentioned there's an aspect of power politics (I'm important enough not to have to worry about formatting). But to me instead of <I wish elites weren't so callous with text> I feel <everyone should feel empowered to write like that> (again, maybe not quite to the level of Epstein, but e.g. capitalisation is just unimportant. Signing off emails with "best wishes" is not a good use of anyone's 500 milliseconds).
Show HN: Social Media, Reset
by novateg | 2026-03-11 18:37:38+00:00
Zeta was built for one simple reason: Social media should not control the narrative. Algorithms shouldn’t manipulate opinions. Platforms shouldn’t silence people. Zeta is a non-biased social network where ideas compete freely. No political agenda. No shadow banning. Just open conversation. Welcome to the reset. Website: meetzeta[dot]com
by Terr_ | 2026-03-11 18:38:07+00:00
> Generative AI goes further. It changes evaluative capacity. A director who cannot read an architecture diagram can still form a direct judgement about a summary, a search result, a recommendation, a draft, or a chatbot answer.

It may technically be a "direct" judgement... except it's judging a very indirect artifact, one that likely has absolutely no review or validation by any human with any domain-knowledge or involvement.

We should be careful to distinguish between the capabilities it actually gives people versus the capabilities they assume they've obtained.

> The board does not need a technically valid comparison to demand an explanation. It only needs a comparison that feels legible.

Right, whether the "summary" is correct or not, it's presence will affect what happens. I'm reminded of the British television comedy "Yes Minister", where certain manipulative bureaucratic characters are very aware of how such things can shape outcomes.
by Jtsummers | 2026-03-11 18:38:10+00:00
> Counterpoint -- capital owners see SWEs as their asset, and owners do not like to see their assets go away (with intellectual property in their heads).

The same is true for other knowledge workers, not just programmers. That doesn't mean that if corporate owners and managers had a magic wand that could replicate the worker on demand they wouldn't use it and toss the knowledge worker aside. They would do so happily, especially if it saved them money.

The reason that programmers (few are actually engineers, no reason to bullshit we're among friends and can be honest) have been treated so well is that they were hard to replace. If that barrier gets lifted, or is perceived to have been lifted, they'll get rid of the programmers in a heartbeat.