MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by OutOfHere | 2026-03-01 09:41:55+00:00
I actually was in the emergency in October last year. I had bicarbonate in the upper range of normal. This caused decreased extracellular potassium, still borderline as per hospital specs. Even so, this drop in potassium had been triggering worrying arrhythmia, specifically extreme tachycardia upon waking, possibly SVT.

Calcium is easy to get from supplements, and phosphorus from food, but don't mess with bicarbonate.

It turned out that my bicarbonate rise was driven by contributions from: potassium citrate (70%), alkaline water (8%), calcium bicarbonate (8%), calcium citrate (2%), and magnesium citrate (2%). I switched to calcium glycinate and magnesium glycinate capsules.

So no, my rise in bicarbonate was not driven by atmospheric CO2, but for a month, I got a taste of what happens even with a mild rise to the upper edge of the normal range.
by gladgate8812 | 2026-03-01 09:42:19+00:00
I looked at the miles/points tracker market and noticed something: every existing app (AwardWallet, CardPointers, MaxRewards) is US focused.

Singapore has a vibrant miles/points community, but zero trackers built for them. Everyone's using spreadsheets or don't track it at all.

So I built ChopeMiles (chopemiles.com) to fill that gap.

What it does:

Track points/miles across all your cards in one dashboard
Track conversion rates and calculate transferable vs. locked miles (e.g., "I have 23k miles but can only transfer in 10k blocks")
Sign in with Google or email
Works on mobile and desktop

Why I built it:
The niche is wide open. Every miles tracker is built for US. Singapore credit card users are stuck with spreadsheets. There are probably 50-100k potential users in SG, but zero competitors.

Current status:

Free to use up to 5 cards
Core features for tracking cards
Paid tier ($9.99/year for extras) is in progress
Deployed and stable

I'm a solo dev in Singapore building this as a side project. I'd love feedback on what users think about this.

Check it out at chopemiles.com - happy to answer any questions here.
by Fire-Dragon-DoL | 2026-03-01 09:43:18+00:00
i eat an apple with a teaspoon of pistachio butter (sometimes two) for breakfast. If I am still hungry, I eat 150g of blueberries with some vegan organic protein powder (2 teaspoons) and cottage cheese.

How can I tell if oatmeal would have more fiber?

I also eat basically an entire romaine earth at lunch and cooked veggies at dinner.

Fiber is definitely the only things that makes me full without making me fat.
by Ray20 | 2026-03-01 09:43:26+00:00
> your fellow citizens to get killed by a foreign Power so that your political views can prevail

What does the assassination of DICTATORS have to do with all of this? Dictatorship is less about citizenship and more about a form of slavery. Resisting the killing of a dictator in any way, regardless of who is trying to kill him or why, is treason to a nation.
by replooda | 2026-03-01 09:43:26+00:00
Vilification, and arguing against common interests, isn't exactly one-sided.[0] And what's the great divide, anyway? It never seemed to me to be an disagreement about the four freedoms. Some hate that Microsot could just use BSD's TCP/IP stack and make millions, some shudder to think of the pain and suffering that would have been inflected upon humanity had they developed their own.

0. https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119730630513821&w=2
by andy12_ | 2026-03-01 09:43:56+00:00
The model could report the confidence of its output distribution, but it isn't necessarily calibrated (that is, even if it tells you that it's 70% confident, it doesn't mean that it is right 70% of the time). Famously, pre-trained base models are calibrated, but they stop being calibrated when they are post-trained to be instruction-following chatbots [1].

Edit: There is also some other work that points out that chat models might not be calibrated at the token-level, but might be calibrated at the concept-level [2]. Which means that if you sample many answers, and group them by semantic similarity, that is also calibrated. The problem is that generating many answer and grouping them is more costly.

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.08774 Figure 8

[2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.04869 Figure 1.
Show HN: Finger GAMES Crossfingers on the same phone
by santiss | 2026-03-01 09:44:11+00:00
Fingree is a tiny, party game you play on a single phone or tablet:
- Put the phone on the table.
- Player 1 put the finger on the circle. Do not leave the circle!
- Player 2 put the finger on the circle. Make the move in max. 5 seconds.
- Every move brings you 10 points.
- The fun begins when your fingers are crossed in an odd way

Free, no accounts, no setup — it works in a browser in a few seconds, on Fingree.com
by qalmakka | 2026-03-01 09:44:35+00:00
This. Windows 9x-2000 GUIs were probably the pinnacle of OS UX, but were utterly ugly and boring as UIs. Their looks were unimpressive and boring, but they got the job done and they were easy to use and worked well. Windows 95 was like a 90 cents spoon - not particularly appealing, but extremely useful
by matkoniecz | 2026-03-01 09:44:37+00:00
And I have no problem with position "war crimes are not OK".

War crimes are bad, but using ATP land mines is not a war crime by itself.

For example ATP land mines with reliable self-destruction used properly are OK (yes, some failure rate will exist - in case of war you rarely have 100% sunshine and rainbows solutions).

While dropping randomly land mines over city to target civilians is bad, evil, war crime and terrorism.
by shykes | 2026-03-01 09:44:42+00:00
I understand where you're coming from, but this is a flawed analogy.

The legal framework for the Palestinian Authority's existence is a bilateral treaty. Israel did not unilaterally create this flawed administrative entity: it was jointly created with the PLO, as an interim step towards a fully sovereign Palestinian state. The negotiations that followed were also bilateral. These negotiations failed, leaving both sides with an incomplete interim solution. As a result Palestinians are neither citizens of Israel, nor of a wholly sovereign state. They are stateless, that is undeniable. But the reason they are stateless is not that they "have no vote or say". They had a say at the negotiation table in Oslo. They also had a say in Camp David in 2000, when Yasser Arafat walked away from a deal that would have given him a state with its capital in Jerusalem, and started the second intifada instead. They had a say in 2005 when they elected Abbas over reformist alternatives. They had a say in 2006 when they elected Hamas in Gaza. And they have a say now, as Abbas maintains the "pay to slay" program that rewards attacks against Israeli citizens with welfare payments to the attacker's families. There's a reason Israel insisted on overriding security control in the interim state. They couldn't trust the PLO, the very group that killed countless Israeli civilians in shootings, stabbings and bombings, to become the sole guardians of Israeli safety overnight. In Oslo the Palestinian Authority accepted the responsibility to prevent terrorist attacks against Israel. They are free to deliver on that commitment anytime.

My issue with your framing ("the PA is like an HOA"), the parent comment's framing ("Israel solely controls the fate of Palestinians"), and the original comment that started this whole debate ("Palestinians are a disenfranchised part of Israeli population"), is that it strips Palestinians of agency and shared responsibility. It's annoying when you do it. But it's tragic when Palestinians do it to themselves. By perpetuating this myth that they are helpless, blameless victims of external forces, they are making internal reform impossible ("what is there to reform? All our problems are Israel's fault") and any resolution to the conflict impossible ("we are the rebels, Israel is the empire. The only resolution is to blow up the death star").

To tie this back to the original topic of disenfranchisement: even in the flawed interim state created in Oslo, Palestinians have had the opportunity to vote. Not in a state, but in an institution created specifically to chart a path to a state. They elected a president, who then proceeded to cancel presidential elections (the last one was in 2005). They elected a legislative body, who started a civil war and established one of the most violent theocracies in the world. None of this was Israel's doing. To the extent that Palestinians are disenfranchised - denied the opportunity to vote - it is by their own leaders. If anything, it makes me glad Palestine isn't a full-blown state: with leaders like that, the more limits to their power, the better.
by Kye | 2026-03-01 09:45:05+00:00
AI writing you can recognize as AI writing is obvious. Newer models are better about this and the line will only get more blurry. Here's a benchmark where good writers make the assessment rather than different LLMs ranking each other: https://surgehq.ai/leaderboards/hemingway-bench

The top models are also the latest:

Gemini 3.1 Pro: still a bit of a gremlin, but will probably stay on top until the other model makers go xkcd 810 and target this benchmark

Gemini 3 Flash: current favorite of writers using it as a helper for its speed and decent prompt following
by acchow | 2026-03-01 09:45:32+00:00
> Claude code always give me rate limits

> 50+ tps with qwen3.5 35b a4b on a 4090

But qwen3.5 35b is worse than even Claude Haiku 4.5. You could switch your Claude Code to use Haiku and never hit rate limits. Also gets similar 50tps.
by martopix | 2026-03-01 09:45:34+00:00
I think this is an oversimplification of a much more general social phenomenon. In much of the world, the mainstream social message is still that kids are what you should get your life's purpose and fulfillment from. Maybe not so much for men, but very much so for women. There is a reaction to that social expectation, which is independent of Reddit (it's true even in China etc).

I'm myself very happy I don't have children. I'm gay and can't adopt in my country, so I'm also happy I don't have any desire to have children, because that would be a problem. However I do really like working with teens, and it's very important to me on a gut level.
by DavidSJ | 2026-03-01 09:47:00+00:00
In microgpt, there's no alignment. It's all pretraining (learning to predict the next token). But for production systems, models go through post-training, often with some sort of reinforcement learning which modifies the model so that it produces a different probability distribution over output tokens.

But the model "shape" and computation graph itself doesn't change as a result of post-training. All that changes is the weights in the matrices.
by entrustai | 2026-03-01 09:47:22+00:00
"Confidently drifting into a structurally stable manifold" — that's the harder failure mode. The geometry looks clean because the model isn't collapsing, it's just navigating to a coherent but factually detached region of latent space. Geometric drift detection is blind to it by design.
This is exactly where output-layer validation becomes non-negotiable rather than complementary. If the structural signal is absent, the semantic signal is all you have. Rule-based checks on absolute claims, unattributed statistics, and banned assertions catch the confident hallucination that geometry misses entirely.
The hybrid architecture you're describing — SIB for process detection, rule-based for output validation — covers both failure modes. Worth also considering confidence scoring at the rule level: flagging outputs where the geometric signal is clean but semantic violations cluster, since that pattern may itself be a reliable indicator of the stable-manifold drift you're investigating.
Solid research direction.
by deaux | 2026-03-01 09:47:41+00:00
The reply about knowledge about their job and familt made me think.

The only thing I can now think of is using it as a personal therapist. Or asking how to approach their kids. And they're a bit embarrassed about it, because it's still outside the Overton window -especially on HN - which is why they aren't sharing it.

If someone has different usecases, please do prove me wrong! Maybe I just lack imagination.
by jacquesm | 2026-03-01 09:47:44+00:00
Indeed, it is worth noting that Sam Altman got his chance through PG/YC and that YC was totally fine with both Musk and Zuckerberg giving them a platform long after it became evident that they had some screws loose in the ethics department.

Effectively the message is 'we don't mind you being an asshole, as long as you're rich'.
by 0xEF | 2026-03-01 09:48:02+00:00
Right. But HN, among other platforms, is full of users who will confidently run their mouths about something they don't fully understand while believing they do. I think the previous commenter was being too shy in pointing out that even exceptionally smart people sometimes forget where the limits of their own knowledge are, not to mention consider themselves immune to any propaganda that surrounds the subject at hand.
by entrustai | 2026-03-01 09:48:38+00:00
The models anticipating the protection layer before execution is a genuinely interesting signal — it suggests the governance constraint is becoming part of the agent's operational context rather than an external surprise. Whether that makes the system more robust or creates new circumvention vectors worth red-teaming is an open question worth exploring as you add features.
Good foundation. Looking forward to seeing where it goes.
by mock-possum | 2026-03-01 09:49:01+00:00
> I have friends like this, their only purpose in life is to have no responsibilities, FIRE, and never give to anyone but themselves. Seems like a terribly depressing way to live

Does it?? That sounds like the perfect life for me - I don’t need to contribute to others to make myself happy, I’m already happy on my own.

To me, this sounds like there’s something wrong with you - your capacity to just be happy by yourself is broken, you need the happiness of others to validate your life, and that’s a terrible way to live, always desperate to get what you need from others.
by martopix | 2026-03-01 09:50:50+00:00
> There’s an entire generation of mostly childless adults who are shocked to find they enjoy contributing to others’ happiness.

This is very well put.

I think the culture today is what pushes us towards that: we have a very individualistic culture, which I think comes from the US. I'm from southern Europe, where family used to be very important, whereas now we've adopted a much more individual-centered view.

We have "freedom" as a value, but it's hard to tell what to do with it. You are privileged, therefore you can do whatever you want. But what is it that I want? What do I do with my freedom, privilege, options? We also need an objective, and "to be happy" is not a good objective, because we humans are very bad at predicting what will make us happy. Seeing stereotyped photos of happy people on tropical beaches on Instagram makes it even harder to remember what happiness is.

For happiness you need objectives, things you believe in, a sense of purpose.
by geokon | 2026-03-01 09:51:04+00:00
In absolute terms sure, but the token stream's confidence changes as it's coming out right? Consumer LLMs typically have a lot window dressing. My sense is this encourages the model to stay on-topic and it's mostly "high confidence" fluff. As it's spewing text/tokens back at you maybe when it starts hallucinating you'd expect a sudden dip in the confidence?

You could color code the output token so you can see some abrupt changes

It seems kind of obvious, so I'm guessing people have tried this
by vladms | 2026-03-01 09:51:09+00:00
> and programmers turn those instructions into code that does something somewhere, usually after finding ways to avoid bad or unfeasible ideas, while still complying with the instructions.

Some do, but not all did that. With work-from-home I was staying at a friend of a friend that was a programmer and had a meeting. I was amazed about the level of simple things he was discussing, like "please add an error check, now you made a form where you can insert wrong data; make sure form is visible on a small screen, now it is not; etc.". And they talked ~2 hours about each, with the other person showing the guy exactly what it was not working. I do not know the history (maybe he was reconverting or something), but if this was what was he was doing usually, it was very inefficient and quite simple.

Most of my work was more similar to what you describe (fighting vague instructions and push back unfeasible ideas), but I wonder how much of "the industry" does this.

On the management I worked with all kinds, the employees have a small part of responsibility to look and select good organizations, otherwise power-hungry idiots arrive on top and start dictate and nothing crumbles because everybody just stays.
by matkoniecz | 2026-03-01 09:51:20+00:00
War crimes are bad, but using ATP land mines is not a war crime by itself.

For example ATP land mines with reliable self-destruction used properly are OK (yes, some failure rate will exist - in case of war you rarely have 100% sunshine and rainbows solutions).

While dropping randomly land mines over city to target civilians is bad, evil, war crime and terrorism.

Yes, in case of war it is very likely that murdering soldiers of other side will become necessary. It does not make executing PoW acceptable, but guns/mines etc will be used.
YARA rules to detect Palantir Gotham data federation
by OussamaAfnakkar | 2026-03-01 09:51:34+00:00
I've been analyzing the architecture of the 2025 federal data consolidation (SSA/IRS/DHS) under Palantir Gotham. I couldn't find any public detection rules, so I wrote a set of YARA rules to identify these specific data structures and the entity resolution patterns.
by orbital-decay | 2026-03-01 09:51:37+00:00
Like many, the author seems to be confusing determinism with unrelated LLM phenomena. He talks about two entirely unrelated things:

1. Same input = same output. This can be called determinism, and it's technically rather trivial to achieve in the lifetime of a single model snapshot - it's just a matter of business need, because you pay extra for worse batching. It's harder if you need to extend the guarantee into the future, as you need to keep the snapshot and inference method the same. It's also a relatively niche thing, only required for build reproducibility, supply chain security, this kind of stuff.

2. Zero error rate with arbitrary inputs and outputs. This is not determinism and it's NOT achievable in any model at all because the domain LLMs (and humans!) operate in is fundamentally ambiguous. If you want to enforce the formal rules, verify your inputs and outputs formally! Trying to solve it purely with intelligence (human or machine) is a fool's errand. You can keep the error rate low enough, but you can't guarantee the absence of errors due to the nature of intelligence.
by entrustai | 2026-03-01 09:52:40+00:00
The math proof analogy is the most precise framing I've seen for this problem. LLM generates the plausible argument, Lean verifies it deterministically — neither tool alone is sufficient. That architecture is exactly right, and it generalizes further than most people realize.

The injection attack example is particularly well chosen because it illustrates why "better prompting" is a category error. Prompting is an instruction to a stochastic system. A linter is a deterministic enforcement mechanism. These are not two points on the same spectrum — they are fundamentally different computational categories. No amount of prompt improvement closes the gap between probabilistic and deterministic.

The same architecture applies one layer up, at the output layer of deployed AI systems rather than the code layer. When an LLM generates customer-facing text in a regulated context — clinical summaries, financial disclosures, legal documents — the stochastic nature of the model means you cannot rely on prompting alone to enforce compliance. "Always include a disclaimer" will work 99 times. The 100th is a liability event.

The solution is identical to your lint analogy: a deterministic checker that runs on every output, applies the policy as pure logic, and produces the same verdict for the same input every time. Not a secondary LLM doing the checking — that just compounds the stochasticity. Pure regex and rule weights, same as a linter. The LLM generates. The deterministic gate enforces.

Your closing insight is the key architectural move: don't ask the LLM to follow the rule every time. Ask the LLM to build the enforcement tool once, then incorporate it into the pipeline permanently. That's the shift from stochastic compliance to deterministic infrastructure.

The Lean analogy deserves to be more widely understood in software governance circles. You've articulated it cleanly.
by manarth | 2026-03-01 09:53:11+00:00
It's reported that Ayatollah Khamenei nominated multiple successors for his role and a number of other military roles, to guard against this policy.

"Last summer during the 12-day war with Israel, Khamenei had named three potential successors should he be killed. Reports earlier this month indicated that Khamenei had named four layers of succession for key government and military jobs, in an effort to ensure regime survival in the face of a US-Israeli attack."

- https://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-said-to-pick-three-po...

- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/28/strategic-opti...
by zvr | 2026-03-01 09:54:00+00:00
Decades ago I worked on an ATM that "recycled" money. It did not only had the usual boxes of banknotes that were filled by the bank, but it also accepted deposits. Usually deposits are put in an envelope by the client and an envelope is stored in the machine; this makes reconciliation easy, since a bank employee opens the envelope, counts the money, and confirms the deposit transaction.

But on this ATM, people would deposit their banknotes directly. The machine would recognize and count them, crediting the correct amount to the person's account. And later, when someone wanted to get money out of the ATM, the machine would use these exact banknotes!

It was an innovative design, which saved the bank a lot of money (in ATM-caring trips) and provided people with a real service, since they could use the ATM longer, instead of getting error messages that it was out of cash (well, it never said that it was something more generic like "problem in operation").

As one can imagine, it was an interesting challenge designing the software and thinking of all the tests covering what might go wrong...
by varunsharma07 | 2026-03-01 09:54:17+00:00
The root cause is workflows that grant trust to untrusted inputs: pull_request_target that checks out and executes fork code with repo secrets, ${{ }} expressions that interpolate branch names/filenames into shell commands unsanitized, and issue_comment triggers with no author_association check.

These attacks only work when maintainers opt into dangerous patterns without guardrails.
by ysleepy | 2026-03-01 09:55:53+00:00
I don't know, could you imagine people doing human creative things could be annoyed being confronted by AI everywhere, the thing that is stealing from and destroying artists livelihood?

Yeah, maybe it is a gut reaction on my part.

Read your comment again and tell me that you fully believe in this feature and decided on it because it was important to your carefully crafted experience and human interaction design and not some compromise because everybody is doing it.

The marketing narrative is also jumbled, sorta derisive about artificial text, but telling people to make it their own. Is this the message you want to send? "Our text editor is for people passing off AI slop as their own by slightly rewriting it"?

Your choice of framing and center-staging this feature in the 7 release makes this distasteful.