MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by fc417fc802 | 2026-03-01 04:29:57+00:00
It's weird because while the second comment felt like slop to me due to the reasoning pattern being expressed (not really sure how to describe it, it's like how an automaton that doesn't think might attempt to model a person thinking) skimming the account I don't immediately get the same vibe from the other comments.

Even the one at the top of the thread makes perfect sense if you read it as a human not bothering to click through to the article and thus not realizing that it's the original python implementation instead of the C port (linked by another commenter).

Perhaps I'm finally starting to fail as a turing test proctor.
by pan69 | 2026-03-01 04:30:03+00:00
I have been thinking about this and I think it might work well for established code bases that already exhibit specific patterns that are used over and over again. E.g. a CRUD app with a OpenAPI spec, a controller layer, a service layer, a repository layer, or even good old MVC for that matter. With these established patterns it wouldn't be unthinkable to provide an orchestrator agent a set of requirements that are detailed enough for a group of agents to implement, each agent focusing on a different type of task including an Q/A agent. I'd imagine you end up with one or more PRs for you to review and squash & merge when you're happy with it.

Edit: What I mean is that these agents would work autonomously until their task is accomplished. They can ask for clarification if they require it.
by koalux | 2026-03-01 04:30:39+00:00
I’ve always admired hand-drawn doodle sketches that fill every inch of white space with words and characters. As another weekend project, I decided to recreate that satisfying "doodle" feeling using text strings. By adapting the concept of a word cloud and letting it slowly fill the screen, I found it surprisingly relaxing to watch the words transform into typographic art.
by aizk | 2026-03-01 04:30:53+00:00
America / Israel's partnership goes a lot deeper, it started in the cold war, and it's quite interesting.
It heightened significantly after 9/11, where Israel spied (and still does) on all of America's enemies to prevent another 9/11, doing a lot of dirty work, giving intel as part of a partnership.
I can't imagine both countries ever wanting to get rid of that partnership.
This part of the equation is often left out in the conversation, presumably because it's hush hush ultimately.
by throwdbaaway | 2026-03-01 04:32:04+00:00
I don't quite get the low temperature coupled with the high penalty. We get thinking loop due to low temperature, and we then counter it with high penalty. That seems backward.

For Qwen3.5 27B, I got good result with --temp 1.0 --top-p 1.0 --top-k 40 --min-p 0.2, without penalty. It allows the model to explore (temp, top-p, top-k) without going off the rail (min-p) during reasoning. No loop so far.
by giancarlostoro | 2026-03-01 04:34:22+00:00
Remember when Google did this and it failed because PC gamers dont want 1700 stores for games. They just want Steam or GOG.

These companies do not know their customer base and it costs them.

I do see these devices making way more sense for enterprise on the other hand, to the dismay of many. But for the average consumer maybe not. I assume they are going to recycle the same tech they are using to let you stream Xbox games.

If Windows wasnt so damned bloated this wouldnt cost them much. Every Windows laptop that was nearing its end of life became magically better and still in my house all 15 years later after I installed Linux. Wild.
by remarkEon | 2026-03-01 04:34:30+00:00
Very slick.

It loads fast, which gets whoever made this a double bonus.

One complaint, however. The "Severity" scale needs to be inverted. For most of us, a "Severity 5" means "not paying attention until someone asks", but on this site it's the highest impact category. Consider the DEFCON scale[1] as an example.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFCON
by chronc2739 | 2026-03-01 04:35:20+00:00
> how leadership at the same company can simultaneously believe all of "network egress is a staggeringly expensive component of data center rollout" yet "we should stream real-time input and video instead of shipping client software"

The leadership doesn’t believe egress is expensive.

And neither do the customers believe it.

However the customers are okay paying the egress price. So it stays, regardless of what leadership or customers say.
by a2128 | 2026-03-01 04:35:57+00:00
You are misrepresenting the situation. The debate isn't about whether they should go with another vendor or not. Everybody can agree that they would have the right to pick a different vendor. That's not what they're doing, they're instead trying to force Anthropic into doing what they want by applying a designation previously only reserved for Chinese companies like Huawei as punishment for taking their stance, with an unspoken agreement that if Anthropic backs down and allows full usage then the designation will be removed
by aaplok | 2026-03-01 04:38:05+00:00
That the credit for the theorem belongs to Cantor is not under question. This is acknolwedged in the article:

>The revelation about Cantor’s result doesn’t undermine his legacy. He was still the first person to prove that there are more real numbers than whole ones, which is what ultimately opened up infinity to study.

What he is alleged to have plagiarised are the proofs, or at least one of the proofs. The original article by Goos [0] contains a lot more details about this, including a partial transcription of the letter by Dedekind that Cantor is accused of plagiarism. The story is complex.

1. Cantor's paper has two theorems: the countability of algebraic numbers and the uncountability of reals.

2. The proof of the former appears in Dedekind's letter, and Cantor acknowledges this in his response to the letter. Dedekind mentions in his letter that he only thought about proving this because of Cantor's prompt and only wrote it with the hope of helping Cantor. Dedekind felt that the proof by Cantor is "word for word" his, although it is quite the case. It is essentially the same proof though.

Cantor also felt that Dedekind's proof that the set of algebraic numbers is countable is essentially the same as his own proof of the countability of tuples. It remains that he didn't think of adapting that proof himself, and that Dedekind was the first to prove the theorem is not under question.

3. Dedekind was not the first to prove the uncountability of real numbers. However, he gave a number of ideas to Cantor in that same letter. Namely, he suggested proving the uncountability of the interval (0,1), and it seems that gave a pointer towards how to build the diagonalisation argument, although how this statement was useful to Cantor (page 76 of Goos' paper) escapes me.

4. Cantor proved the uncountability of reals shortly afterwards, and shared his proof with Dedekind. Dedekind simplified the proof in his reply, and Cantor seems to have come up with a similar simplification on his own. None of these letters are analysed in Goos' article.

5. Cantor published the two theorems; the first proof is essentially the same as Dedekin's, and the second proof is possibly the one Dedekind's simplified version of Cantor's. Dedekind is not acknowledged at all in that paper, due to academic politics.

Goos' paper is very detailed and quite readable. I recommend it. The site is pretty annoying and you can't download the article without creating an account, but you can read the article online.

Even if the most important theorem of the two is unquestionably creditable to Cantor, the first one should likewise unquestionably be credited to Dedekind, at least partially. This is where the accusation of plagiarism stems from.
Beyond the question on plagiarism, there is no question that Cantor and Dedekind worked together on this. The lack of acknowledgement by Cantor is certainly quite unfortunate.

[0] https://www.scribd.com/document/977967855/Phlogiston-33#page...
by nikcub | 2026-03-01 04:39:33+00:00
so we're all going to hold onto sequoia like we did snow leopard. only reason i'm not buying a new mac at the moment is because it would force me to upgrade.

the situation is absurd ..

fwiw switching to the sequoia beta channel in system settings killed the nag notifications for me (I believe the profile as defined in OP will stop all updates - which you probably don't want)
by greggsy | 2026-03-01 04:40:35+00:00
To be fair it’s a notoriously difficult thing to plan for. It’s less about incompetence, and more about having a strong understanding of user requirements, and a streamlined way to allocate costs to each business area based on their needs. That’s really hard for any company or MSP to do.

Variable costs means you never want to over invest in unused cores and memory, which leads to over subscribing those cores and memory… that’s fine for normal working hours, except Monday mornings when everyone starts logging in at once.

You can’t really queue logins that in a way that doesn’t make users think they’re using an infuriatingly slow machine.
by Jashwanth01 | 2026-03-01 04:41:17+00:00
Good Point..
Right Now the benchmarks are mostly tables, So I agree graphs would be much better to understand.. I'll work on adding Visuals( accuracy vs latency, maybe memory too ) similar to ann-benchmarks style. If you've got any datasets or libraries you think i should compare it against, let me know. So far i have mostly tested it against GBMS and Linear models.. but open to trying more.
by blakec | 2026-03-01 04:42:34+00:00
The proxy-based secret injection approach mentioned upthread is solid for network credentials, but it doesn't cover the local attack surface — your SSH keys, GPG keys, AWS credentials sitting in dotfiles. Those are the actual high-value targets for a compromised agent on a dev workstation.

I run Claude Code with 84 hooks, and the one I trust most is a macOS Seatbelt (sandbox-exec) wrapper on every Bash tool call. It's about 100 lines of Seatbelt profile that denies read/write to ~/.ssh, ~/.gnupg, ~/.aws, any .env file, and a credentials file I keep. The hook fires on PreToolUse:Bash, so every shell command the agent runs goes through sandbox-exec automatically.

The key design choice: Seatbelt operates at the kernel level. The agent can't bypass it by spawning subprocesses, piping through curl, or any other shell trick — the deny rules apply to the entire process tree. Containers give you this too, but the overhead is absurd for a CLI tool you invoke 50 times a day. Seatbelt adds ~2ms of latency.

I built it with a dry_run mode (logs violations but doesn't block) and ran it for a week before enforcing. 31 tests verify the sandbox catches attempts to read blocked paths, write to them, and that legitimate operations (git, python, file editing in the project directory) pass through cleanly.

The paths to block are in a config file, so it's auditable — you can diff it in code review. And it's composable with other layers: I also run a session drift detector that flags when the agent wanders off-task (cosine similarity against the original prompt embedding, checked every 25 tool calls).

None of this solves prompt injection fundamentally, but "the agent physically cannot read my SSH keys regardless of what it's been tricked into doing" is a meaningful property.
by nine_k | 2026-03-01 04:43:11+00:00
Even more interesting is how much did the effort cost.

Unlike the development work of old (pre-2025), work with high-end models incurs a very direct monetary cost, one burns tokens which cost money, and you can't have something as powerful to be running locally (even if you happened to have a Mac Pro Ultra with RAM maxed out).

Some of my friends burned through hundreds of dollars a day while doing large amounts of (allegedly efficient) work with Claude Code.
by 0xbadcafebee | 2026-03-01 04:43:14+00:00
Since this post is about art, I'll embed here my favorite LLM art: the IOCCC 2024 prize winner in bot talk, from Adrian Cable (https://www.ioccc.org/2024/cable1/index.html), minus the stdlib headers:

#define a(_)typedef _##t
#define _(_)_##printf
#define x f(i,
#define N f(k,
#define u _Pragma("omp parallel for")f(h,
#define f(u,n)for(I u=0;u<(n);u++)
#define g(u,s)x s%11%5)N s/6&33)k[u[i]]=(t){(C*)A,A+s*D/4},A+=1088*s;

a(int8_)C;a(in)I;a(floa)F;a(struc){C*c;F*f;}t;enum{Z=32,W=64,E=2*W,D=Z*E,H=86*E,V='}\0'};C*P[V],X[H],Y[D],y[H];a(F
_)[V];I*_=U" 炾ોİ䃃璱ᝓ၎瓓甧染ɐఛ瓁",U,s,p,f,R,z,$,B[D],open();F*A,*G[2],*T,w,b,c;a()Q[D];_t r,L,J,O[Z],l,a,K,v,k;Q
m,e[4],d[3],n;I j(I e,F*o,I p,F*v,t*X){w=1e-5;x c=e^V?D:0)w+=r[i]*r[i]/D;x c)o[i]=r[i]/sqrt(w)*i[A+e*D];N $){x
W)l[k]=w=fmax(fabs(o[i])/~-E,i?w:0);x W)y[i+k*W]=*o++/w;}u p)x $){I _=0,t=h*$+i;N W)_+=X->c[t*W+k]*y[i*W+k];v[h]=
_*X->f[t]*l[i]+!!i*v[h];}x D-c)i[r]+=v[i];}I main(){A=mmap(0,8e9,1,2,f=open(M,f),0);x 2)~f?i[G]=malloc(3e9):exit(
puts(M" not found"));x V)i[P]=(C*)A+4,A+=(I)*A;g(&m,V)g(&n,V)g(e,D)g(d,H)for(C*o;;s>=D?$=s=0:p<U||_()("%s",$[P]))if(!
(*_?$=*++_:0)){if($<3&&p>=U)for(_()("\n\n> "),0<scanf("%[^\n]%*c",Y)?U=*B=1:exit(0),p=_(s)(o=X,"
 %s%s 
",s?
"":"
\n"S"\n
\n\n",Y);z=p-=z;U++[o+=z,B]=f)for(f=0;!f;z-=!f)for(f=V;--f&&f[P][z]|memcmp(f[P],o,z););p<U?
$=B[p++]:fflush(0);x D)R=$*D+i,r[i]=m->c[R]*m->f[R/W];R=s++;N Z){f=k*D*D,$=W;x 3)j(k,L,D,i?G[~-i]+f+R*D:v,e[i]+k);N
2)x D)b=sin(w=R/exp(i%E/14.)),c=1[w=cos(w),T=i+++(k?v:*G+f+R*D)],T[1]=b**T+c*w,*T=w**T-c*b;u Z){F*T=O[h],w=0;I A=h*E;x
s){N E)i[k[L+A]=0,T]+=k[v+A]*k[i*D+*G+A+f]/11;w+=T[i]=exp(T[i]);}x s)N E)k[L+A]+=(T[i]/=k?1:w)*k[i*D+G[1]+A+f];}j(V,L
,D,J,e[3]+k);x 2)j(k+Z,L,H,i?K:a,d[i]+k);x H)a[i]*=K[i]/(exp(-a[i])+1);j(V,a,D,L,d[$=H/$,2]+k);}w=j($=W,r,V,k,n);x
V)w=k[i]>w?k[$=i]:w;}}
by blakec | 2026-03-01 04:43:44+00:00
The FTS5 index approach here is right, but I'd push further: pure BM25 underperforms on tool outputs because they're a mix of structured data (JSON, tables, config) and natural language (comments, error messages, docstrings). Keyword matching falls apart on the structured half.

I built a hybrid retriever for a similar problem, compressing a 15,800-file Obsidian vault into a searchable index for Claude Code. Stack is Model2Vec (potion-base-8M, 256-dimensional embeddings) + sqlite-vec for vector search + FTS5 for BM25, combined via Reciprocal Rank Fusion. The database is 49,746 chunks in 83MB. RRF is the important piece: it merges ranked lists from both retrieval methods without needing score calibration, so you get BM25's exact-match precision on identifiers and function names plus vector search's semantic matching on descriptions and error context.

The incremental indexing matters too. If you're indexing tool outputs per-session, the corpus grows fast. My indexer has a --incremental flag that hashes content and only re-embeds changed chunks. Full reindex of 15,800 files takes ~4 minutes; incremental on a typical day's changes is under 10 seconds.

On the caching question raised upthread: this approach actually helps prompt caching because the compressed output is deterministic for the same query. The raw tool output would be different every time (timestamps, ordering), but the retrieved summary is stable if the underlying data hasn't changed.

One thing I'd add to Context Mode's architecture: the same retriever could run as a PostToolUse hook, compressing outputs before they enter the conversation. That way it's transparent to the agent, it never sees the raw dump, just the relevant subset.
by nunez | 2026-03-01 04:44:22+00:00
Not surprising for Samsung to do this. Hacking on their devices (which are second to Apple at a hardware level) went downhill fast after they implemented eFuse-secured bootloaders.

What's interesting is that they tried hard to cater to the tinkerers before going in this direction. They "bought" (acqui-hired) CyanogenMod, contributed to open-source and had developer builds of their ROMs. I think they even had clean AOSP builds with the HAL and ABIs for their hardware baked in at some point. SafetyNet made it realistically impossible to daily a rooted phone in 2026 if you want to use banking, healthcare or most music apps, so it's safer for OEMs to tighten the screws on access to their hardware in kind.

My take is that they saw all of this as a risk to profits they could make from catering to regulated industries who would deploy their hardware en masse. It also didn't make sense to continue this investment after banks and healthcare put pressure on Google to step up privacy in Android, especially after Apple implemented Secure Enclave.

It's a pyrrhic victory regardless, in my opinion. If you're going to run a super-locked down Android device, you might as well go all-in with Apple. Their hardware ecosystem is better, their cloud services are better, they get first-priority for mobile apps, you get Blue Bubble Benefits, and their support (in-store and online) is on another level. Even MDM is better with Apple devices (through iOS Profiles). Shoot, even privacy-minded folks are better off on iOS with Lockdown mode.
by Archonical | 2026-03-01 04:44:53+00:00
Palantir is a glorified data aggregation/data visualization platform. Hooking up Claude to different data systems, with safeguards turned on in Claude Gov, is different than what the government is asking from them now. Similar to if the government had Claude hooked up to Tableau/some salesforce derivative and then asked it to be autonomous in the kill loop/spy on US citizens.
by nbouscal | 2026-03-01 04:46:47+00:00
This is incorrect, their existing contract had these red lines and more until this January 9th memo: https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/12/2003855671/-1/-1/0/ART... which led to DoW trying to renegotiate under the new standard of “any lawful use”. Anthropic never tried to tighten standards beyond what had been in their original contract; DoW tried to loosen them.
by rootusrootus | 2026-03-01 04:48:13+00:00
> Minisforum likes to turn itself off every couple of weeks, not sure why yet

AFAICT, the answer is "because Minisforum". I don't know if they have a design principle that they should run their systems near the edge of the thermal envelope or what, but Minisforum is the only brand I've had consistent trouble with stability on. My last one got to where it stopped booting altogether, just looped. Since then I've written off Minisforum as a brand, just not worth the hassle.
by matrixgard | 2026-03-01 04:49:04+00:00
The context rot problem is where most vibe-coded projects start unraveling. You get clean results on the first twenty files, then the agent starts confidently rewriting things it already handled correctly because it's lost the thread. I've watched non-technical builders burn weeks at this exact stage. Not because the idea was wrong, but because the model needed more scaffolding than they knew how to give it.

Your insight about hook-enforced delegation versus polite suggestions via Claude.md is spot-on. The Claude.md file is documentation the agent treats as optional under pressure. What you built is closer to how a real multi-person team works: not "hope everyone read the doc," but hard-coded routing that actually fires. The fact that you arrived at this without a formal engineering background makes the story more interesting, not less.

What's the actual product you were trying to ship when you realized you needed this? The plugin makes sense as a byproduct of something bigger.
by matrixgard | 2026-03-01 04:49:17+00:00
350 users in week 1 from Telegram and Reddit is real traction. That's people actively going out of their way to try something new, which is harder than it looks. The thing that usually follows is what happens when they start asking for something the Lovable stack doesn't support natively. No-code builders are great for the first version but start fighting you when you need custom logic, non-standard data relationships, or edge cases that break the template model.

The India pricing at ₹99/mo is interesting at scale. Getting to meaningful revenue there means volume, and volume usually means you need more control over the infrastructure than a no-code build gives you. Not necessarily right now, but worth thinking about before you're mid-feature and stuck.

What's the single thing your most engaged users are asking for that you haven't been able to build yet?
by matrixgard | 2026-03-01 04:49:26+00:00
The 4-6 week pilot is the right move. The biggest mistake first-time education founders make is designing the full curriculum before they've sat in a room with the students. What you think the problem is in week one almost never matches what's actually happening by week three, and the more you build upfront the harder it is to change direction.

On credentials versus demonstrated ability: for a math circle, the gap is real but bridgeable. A few olympiad problems solved in writing, maybe a short video of you working through something difficult out loud. Parents making decisions about their kids want to see how you think, not a teaching certificate. The first cohort is almost always recruited through personal trust anyway.

What age range are you targeting for the pilot, and do you already have a handful of parents in your network who'd let their kids be your first group?
Show HN: I put Claude Code inside a Telegram bot for voice memos
by buryhuang | 2026-03-01 04:50:34+00:00
I never listen to my voice memos. Hundreds of recordings on my phone, all dead.

I built a Telegram bot that transcribes them (AssemblyAI, speaker labels, any language) — and then wired up Claude Agent SDK so you can talk to your files later.

Claude Agent SDK gives your bot the same tools Claude Code has — Read, Glob, Grep — running autonomously against your stored transcripts. Ask "what did my manager say about the deadline?" and it spawns an agent that browses your files, reads the relevant ones, and answers. Not keyword search. An actual agent reasoning over your data.

Self-hosted, your own API keys, MIT licensed. Runs anywhere Docker runs.
by idle_zealot | 2026-03-01 04:51:15+00:00
> I think apps like Photoshop have since figured out what people really want here: a UI layout ("workspace") selector, offering different UI layouts for new users ("Basic" layout) vs. experienced users ("Full" layout); and even different UI layouts for users with different high-level use-cases such that they have a known set of applicable user-stories. A Ribbon is perfect for the "Basic" layout; but in a "Full" layout, it can probably go away.

In the linked case study on Windows 95 they specifically tried this, creating a separate beginner mode for the Windows shell. Their conclusion was that it was a bad idea and scrapped it because it doesn't allow for organic learning and growth of a beginner into a power user on account of the wall between modes. Instead they centralized common tasks into the Start menu. I'm not sure how you would translate that learning to the design of Office or Photoshop though. Maybe something like Ribbon, but as a fixed "press here to do common actions" button in the app? Then next to that "start button" put the full power user index of categorized menu buttons?