MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tinyhouse | 2026-03-14 21:23:31+00:00
That's going to happen in all of big tech (already happening at Amazon and Microsoft). These companies have too many employees. It was never really justified and with AI even more so. I've been in big tech and directors often tell everyone to hire when they can rather when they need. For example, if they know a hiring freeze is coming, they will try to hire as many people as they can before it happens. It's rare to find people in big tech where their incentives align with the company. (and the blame is not always on the people themselves)

As for Meta, I give Mark credit for trying, even if he failed so far with all the VR stuff. The main disappointment is about Llama cause it's clearly an execution problem. With Meta's investments in AI throughout the years, not being able to compete with Anthropic and OpenAI is a big failure.
by primex | 2026-03-14 21:23:35+00:00
Our team recently ran into a surprising billing situation with Cursor’s Teams plan.

While managing seats, we briefly added a third user by mistake and removed the seat almost immediately (within seconds). The seat was never used and there was no activity on it.

Despite this, the system immediately billed us for a full annual seat (~$450).

Importantly, when adding the seat there was no warning or indication in the UI that this action would immediately trigger a full annual charge.

We contacted support and explained that the seat existed only momentarily and had never been used. However, support confirmed that this is expected behavior: adding a seat triggers billing for the entire billing period, even if the seat is removed immediately.

After several follow-ups asking for the charge to be refunded to the original credit card, Cursor declined and maintained that the charge stands due to their billing policy.

Another confusing aspect of the pricing is the Teams plan itself. The plan costs $40 per user/month, but it includes only $20 of AI usage credits. The remaining cost appears to be for team features and administration. This wasn’t obvious to us when we initially chose the plan.

From a user perspective several things feel problematic:

There was no warning in the UI that adding a seat would immediately trigger a full annual charge.

A seat that existed for seconds and was never used resulted in a $450 charge.

The pricing presentation suggests $40/month value, but only $20 of that is actual usage credit.

To be clear, this isn’t about avoiding paying for legitimate usage. It’s about accidental seat additions, refund handling, and pricing transparency.

I’m curious if other teams using Cursor have run into similar billing behavior.

If other teams experienced similar billing issues with Cursor, it might make sense to coordinate and explore legal options together.
by s0ulf3re | 2026-03-14 21:24:13+00:00
I’ve always felt like MCP is way better suited towards consumer usage rather than development environments. Like, yeah, MCP uses a lot of a context window, is more complex than it should be in structure, and it isn’t nearly as easy for models to call upon as a command line tool would be. But I believe that it’s also the most consumer friendly option available right now.

It’s much easier for users to find what exactly a model can do with your app over it compared to building a skill that would work with it since clients can display every tool available to the user. There’s also no need for the model to setup any environment since it’s essentially just writing out a function, which saves time since there’s no need to setup as many virtual machine instructions.

It obviously isn’t as useful in development environments where a higher level of risk can be accepted since changes can always be rolled back in the repository.

If I recall correctly, there’s even a whole system for MCP being built, so it can actually show responses in a GUI much like Siri and the Google Assistant can.
by asdff | 2026-03-14 21:24:52+00:00
I think you make perfect sense. And given that one has to take a cynical take to the writings on UBI knowing the voice of the elite establishment will overwhelm any grassroots thinking since it is actually supported by a financial sponsor to ensure the message is received the world over, unlike say you and I blogging to 7 people. So one can expect most points on it in the public discourse to be biased and in favor of elite-benefitting outcomes. Indeed, when you consider most topics in the media, no one has unique perspectives, they regurgitate the same couple perspectives everyone else does, which are probably crafted by PR firms.

The more I think about UBI though the more I come to the sad conclusion that you can't eliminate money. We can't just give everyone everything they could want for free; I don't think the planet can sustain everyone living like elon musk. So there has to be some forcing factor, some hand on top of the cookie jar that tells your monkey brain that just wants to be high, fat, and orgasming all day that it needs to endure a delayed reward or face some physical exertion to keep the party going. And for better or worse, that forcing factor is by making you have to do something to get credits, that you return for your portion of the produced abundance. This mechanism is able to tolerate the fact that someone might work on efforts not directly tied to any one thing and reap a generalized benefit from all the diversity of that which is produced. Whatever comes next, has to get through that hurdle and the more I think about money the more I find reasons why it is actually a great tool for this sort of distribution of resources and incentivizing labor.

I guess the challenge is that there is a lot of lopsided compensation, where people like say elon musk are paid handsomely even though there is realistically only so much a single human can do. When Elon musk does something that say moves billions in real world dollars on his decision, again this isn't because he is a unique superhuman, just that we have set up power on this planet such where one single person can make a decision to move billions in real world dollars, and if it wasn't musk it would have been someone else in that seat because the seat exists at all. So much power shouldn't be accumulated in one position, because again, we aren't superhumans.
by Someone | 2026-03-14 21:25:10+00:00
> Reading and writing constantly with the neck craned far lower than even a keyboard would be placed

I think desks in the pre-typewriter era were higher than keyboard desks. Professional desks may also have been standing desks.

Also, constantly? Writing on paper has frequent interruptions to grab a new sheet of paper/turn a page in a notebook, to dip one’s quill in an ink bottle, to wait for ink to dry before turning a page, likely also short walks to get new stuff to work on.
by PaulDavisThe1st | 2026-03-14 21:25:27+00:00
These are niche behaviors. Most Americans live where they live, plan to remain there (with the possible exception of what is left of the trans community in nominally red states, and some women in similar states). If and when the shit truly hits the fan (to the extent that it has not already done so), most Americans will be right where they are now, without bunkers and having filed their taxes.
by CharlieDigital | 2026-03-14 21:25:32+00:00
> I have no idea what I'm missing.

The questions I'd ask:

- Do you work in a team context of 10+ engineers?
- Do you all use different agent harnesses?
- Do you need to support the same behavior in ephemeral runtimes (GH Agents in Actions)?
- Do you need to share common "canonical" docs across multiple repos?
- Is it your objective to ensure a higher baseline of quality and output across the eng org?
- Would your workload benefit from telemetry and visibility into tool activation?

If none of those apply, then it's not for you. Server hosted MCP over streamable HTTP benefits orgs and teams and has virtually no benefit for individuals.
by fredkisss | 2026-03-14 21:26:12+00:00
Today I’m very excited to tell you about the latest version of my self hosted PaaS that I’ve been working on for 2 years.

But first, what is ZaneOps: it’s a self hosted platform based on docker swarm and caddy (for the proxy), it comes with a lot of features for deploying and monitoring applications like blue/green deployments, preview environments, application logs, http logs and more and in the latest version: support for docker compose files and templates.

Feel free to check it out.

Link: https://zaneops.dev/changelog/v113/
by Findecanor | 2026-03-14 21:26:31+00:00
Use the ellipse selection tool and hold Shift to make it a circle. Hold Ctrl to pull from origo. Then use Stroke Selection or Fill Selection.

Although, I miss being able to create a selection from a point on the ellipse/circle instead of just origin or bounding box corner.

I would also like to stroke on the inside or outside of the selection instead of just its middle.
I have often had to first fill the circle and then select again from the same origin point to cut out the inside.
by phlakaton | 2026-03-14 21:26:32+00:00
I disagree on several points here:

1. I think attributes absolutely should exist. They're great for describing metadata related to the tag: e.g. element ID, language, datatype, source annotation, namespacing. They add little in complexity.

2. The point of a close tag with a name is to make it unambiguous what it's trying to close off.

It sounds to me like what you want is not a better XML, but just s-exprs. Which is fine, but not quite solving the same problem.

3. As far as schema support, it seems to me that JSON Schema is well-established and perfectly cromulent – so much so that YAML authors are trying to use it to validate their stuff (the poor bastards) – and XML schema validation, while robust, is a complex and fragmented landscape around DTD, XSD, RELAX-NG, and Schematron. So although XML might have the edge, it's a more nuanced picture than XML proponents are claiming.

4. As far as tabular data, neither XML nor JSON were built for efficient tabular data representation, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they're clunky at this. Use the right tool for the job.
by balamatom | 2026-03-14 21:26:49+00:00
By looking convincing enough to be selling good shit and not bad shit; then by playing to their biases well enough for them to try and get something out of the exchange. Idealism, i.e. not doing this because of selling anything, immediately disqualifies.

Is that anything approaching reason? Hardly. It's just how folks are taught to be persuaded. You could also frame it as a food quality issue.

Now, am I wrong to expect a better standard out of people - or am I wrong to permit underhanded approaches for the sake of getting my meme out? According to some authors, that's an irreconcilable moral dilemma for each to battle alone throughout their lives... Scratch that, though, here's what.

Considering many more people watch the ball games than the lawmaking debates, what is it that sets the baseline societal standard for convincing persuasion?Examples of acts of convincing persuasion displayed to the general public by the devices of mass communication. (And it matters very little, to our learning ape-minds, whether the image of the convincing persuader is framed as "news" or a "movie".)

What is the use of mass communication, then? A broadcasting device brings (a subset of) some Narrative - i.e. some network of meanings that people attribute to the world around them - into the life of each individual recipient, for the purpose of influencing that life.

Now, the device is working; we are shown things on the hellboxes and we reckon with the ideas which the things mean. Given the activity of mass communication is cheap and ubiquitous, and the resulting "culture soup", in which we grow up immersed, is very much non-optional to the individual, and also very much non-malleable by the individual.

So we have these 2 registers of mass communication, "news" to show "what is normal to happen" and "art" to show "what is permissible to conceptualize", which are broadcast to us obligatorily and in unclear proportions, and that rather bizarre datastream is what defines us as "humanity" and "society" to ourselves, and serves as a sort of civilizational baseline outside of any individual's personal life, studied disciplines, etc.

However, funny business with the artifacts underlying this system of organization: (1) the construction of the broadcasting devices; and (2) the construction of those narratives which seem to almost have transcendent powers over everyone affected... what's in that stuff, anyway? Oops, you're not allowed to know - it's a trade secret!

Wait a second, so the stuff which directly teaches me how I will interpret my life and that of others, is a trade secret? Explain to me that we are living in a democracy again?

When the sources from which you learn, and the contents of what you learn, are someone's property, it means that the knowledge in your head is someone's property, which means that becoming fluent in someone's intellectual property makes (part of) you their property.

...I guess those could be the rudiments of a more orderly sort of argument?
by Analemma_ | 2026-03-14 21:27:20+00:00
There's definitely psychology in play, but I think it might be less "trying to get you to spend more" and more "trying to incentivize load-shifting", which (to me at least) is a lot less sinister-- my utility does this too for electricity, and nobody attributes malicious intent to it.

We all know these services see huge load spikes and sometimes service degradation when America wakes up, and I bet they'd appreciate it if as many "chug-and-plug" agent workflows moved to overnight hours as possible.
by 15155 | 2026-03-14 21:27:21+00:00
"Civilian service" - lol.

SpaceX is a privately-owned defense services company. Their #1 client is the United States. Their launches out of Vandenberg occur because the United States Space Force allows them to happen.

Are you on their board? Who are you to make the call that the product they are offering is a "civilian" (only?) service?
Show HN: Han – A Korean programming language written in Rust
by xodn348 | 2026-03-14 21:27:33+00:00
A few weeks ago I saw a post about someone converting an entire C++ codebase to Rust using AI in under two weeks.

That inspired me — if AI can rewrite a whole language stack that fast, I wanted to try building a programming language from scratch with AI assistance.

I've also been noticing growing global interest in Korean language and culture, and I wondered: what would a programming language look like if every keyword was in Hangul (the Korean writing system)?

Han is the result. It's a statically-typed language written in Rust with a full compiler pipeline (lexer → parser → AST → interpreter + LLVM IR codegen).

It supports arrays, structs with impl blocks, closures, pattern matching, try/catch, file I/O, module imports, a REPL, and a basic LSP server.

This is a side project, not a "you should use this instead of Python" pitch.
Feedback on language design, compiler architecture, or the Korean keyword choices is very welcome.

https://github.com/xodn348/han
by nextzck | 2026-03-14 21:27:34+00:00
The 40-line cap not moving rate limits makes sense - plan text is cheap. The cost is in Phase 1 exploration.

Plan mode spins up to 3 explore subagents before the planner even starts, and the heuristic is "use multiple when scope is uncertain." It won't choose fewer - it's being asked to plan, so scope is always uncertain. Nothing penalizes claude for over-exploring and nothing rewards restraint.

Plan mode also ignores session state. A cold start gets the same fanout as a warm session where the relevant files are already in context. In a warm session the explore pass is pure waste - it re-reads loaded files and feeds the planner lossy summaries that conflict with what it already knows.

More tokens, worse plan.

If exploration was conditional on what's already in context..skip it for warm sessions, keep it for cold starts - that does more for both rate limits and plan quality than a hard 40-line cap.

Note: plan mode didn’t always have this 3 subagent fan out behavior attached to it, it was introduced around opus 4.6 launch.
by fartfeatures | 2026-03-14 21:28:08+00:00
I can't go into specifics about exactly what I'm doing but I can speak generically:

I have been working on a system using a Fjall datastore in Rust. I haven't found any tools that directly integrate with Fjall so even getting insight into what data is there, being able to remove it etc is hard so I have used https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/rust-sdk to create a thin CRUD MCP. The AI can use this to create fixtures, check if things are working how they should or debug things e.g. if a query is returning incorrect results and I tell the AI it can quickly check to see if it is a datastore issue or a query layer issue.

Another example is I have a simulator that lets me create test entities and exercise my system. The AI with an MCP server is very good at exercising the platform this way. It also lets me interact with it using plain english even when the API surface isn't directly designed for human use: "Create a scenario that lets us exercise the bug we think we have just fixed and prove it is fixed, create other scenarios you think might trigger other bugs or prove our fix is only partial"

One more example is I have an Overmind style task runner that reads a file, starts up every service in a microservice architecture, can restart them, can see their log output, can check if they can communicate with the other services etc. Not dissimilar to how the AI can use Docker but without Docker to get max performance both during compilation and usage.

Last example is using off the shelf MCP for VCS servers like Github or Gitlab. It can look at issues, update descriptions, comment, code review. This is very useful for your own projects but even more useful for other peoples: "Use the MCP tool to see if anyone else is encountering similar bugs to what we just encountered"
by twelve40 | 2026-03-14 21:29:03+00:00
there are plenty of amazingly lucrative businesses that do really well, like online casinos, tobacco companies, etc. that happily milk their users and don't bother with improving human condition. You can call that "successful product strategy" i guess, but to me that's still pretty repulsive. You can also call this hyperbole, but i really am very much repulsed at this: increasing addictiveness for the weak minds to extract more revenue.
by PaulDavisThe1st | 2026-03-14 21:29:26+00:00
Notice how this information is a publically accessible web server?

This is quite unusual definition of "kompromat".

Look, when it comes to Trump, at this point, there likely is no "kompromat" that would affect him. He could have raped and murdered a 5 year old at the behest of Russian intelligence services, and his MAGA base would defend it as somehow part of God's grand plan for the republic. What is there that could be revealed about him at this point that would actually change anything?

The man was found guilty of sexual assault, recorded boasting about sexually assaulting women, found guilty of real estate fraud .. and re-elected. Maybe you can imagine some sort of of "kompromat" that would actually impact him in a way that diminished his power, but I cannot.
by rtpg | 2026-03-14 21:29:33+00:00
The level of trust required is immense. We’re talking about a position where you get the keys to the kingdom to a very large number of projects

I would say that having roadie level access is equivalent to having access to Django core. I have never seen a recent Django project that isn’t pulling something from jazzband

Despite this I think it’s important to highlight that even in that world jazzband had a lot of infra so that projects could do things like releases cleanly and safely (we aren’t doing direct project releases to pypi but going through jazzband infra to do the release). So release maintainers have a lot less access despite releases “coming from” Jazzband
by steve-atx-7600 | 2026-03-14 21:29:33+00:00
I’ve had bad posture since I was a kid (40s now). I gave up until a few years ago because all I ever heard or read was “stop slouching”. So, when I did try to have good posture, I’d end up just puffing my chest out which never felt like something I could sustain. Finally, I randomly came across “chi running”. I never took up running but watching their videos it finally clicked how to actually get myself into a good standing posture: (1) push the crown of your head to the sky as if being pulled by a string (2) engage your core so that your pelvis is level. The core+pelvis part is key for sustaining good back and neck posture. I realized I never engaged my core when sitting or standing. See https://youtu.be/N8VXrv2KVeE?t=95 .

As far as sitting posture, I keep this picture at my desk to re-evaluate my posture https://1-hp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ergonomics-101.p...

Specifically to try to combat the effects of having forward head posture for decades, I do the chin tuck exercise - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09kHVqOx1Hs&t=25s - from the McKenzie method for neck pain/injury prevention (book https://mckenziemethod.com/product/mckenzie-method-treat-you...)
by somat | 2026-03-14 21:29:36+00:00
Attributes exist due to it's origin as a markup language. XML is actually (big surprise) a pretty good markup language. Where the tags are sort of like function calls and the attributes are args. With little to no information to be gleaned out of the text. The big sin was to say "hey the tooling is getting pretty good for for these sgml like markup languages. Lets use it as a structured data interchange format. It's almost the same thing". Now all the data is in the text and the attributes are not just superfluous but actively harmful as there is a weird extra data axis that people will aggressively use.
Show HN: AI coding agent for VS Code with pay-as-you-go pricing- no subscription
by hhossain | 2026-03-14 21:30:09+00:00
I built LLM OneStop Code—an AI coding agent for VS Code that works like Claude Code or Cursor, but with one key difference: pure pay-as-you-go pricing. No monthly subscription required.

The problem with existing tools:
- Cursor: $20/month for Pro (even if you barely use it)
- GitHub Copilot: $10/month minimum
- Claude Code: Rate-limited by API usage tier + monthly caps

LLM OneStop Code charges only for what you use—billed in credits at cost + 5%. If you code 2 hours this month and 40 the next, you pay proportionally. No quota walls, no "upgrade to continue" prompts.

What it does:
- Multi-model AI agent (Claude, GPT-5, Gemini, etc.)
- Chat-based coding assistance in VS Code
- *Import and continue your existing Claude Code or Cursor sessions*—when you hit your hourly rate limit or quota, just import the conversation and keep working without losing context
- Stateless by design (no code stored on servers)
- Free plan available to try everything (100 credits/month)

Also running LLM OneStop as a unified API gateway—alternative to OpenRouter with accurate multi-modal cost tracking. If you prefer BYO API keys, we have a Connect plan available.

The thesis: developers want AI coding tools that scale with usage, not fixed subscriptions. You shouldn't pay $240/year if you only code on weekends. And when you hit a quota wall mid-debugging session, you shouldn't have to start over or wait until tomorrow.

Would love to hear from folks who've felt locked into coding tool subscriptions or hit quota limits mid-session.

Marketplace: https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=LLMOneSt...
Docs: https://www.llmonestop.com/blog/guides/llm-onestop-vscode-ex...