MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by pseudalopex | 2026-03-13 23:53:05+00:00
> Sure, but developers are permitted to learn from open source code with restrictive copyrights, and apply those lessons to developing other software which does not comply with the copyright of their 'example'.

This was a different argument. And there is no contradiction to separate LLMs and people.

> As an aside, I do believe that LLM trainers are ignoring and violating many licenses, but open-source software is not a clear example of a violation.

How?
by ivzak | 2026-03-13 23:54:56+00:00
I think we should draw distinction between two compression "stages"

1. Tool output compression: vanilla claude code doesn't do it at all and just dumps the entire tool outputs, bloating the context. We add <0.5s in compression latency, but then you gain some time on the target model prefill, as shorter context speeds it up.

2. /compact once the context window is full - the one which is painfully slow for claude code. We do it instantly - the trick is to run /compact when the context window is 80% full and then fetch this precompaction (our context gateway handles that)

Please try it out and let us know your feedback, thanks a lot!
by cleandreams | 2026-03-13 23:55:48+00:00
Not just many foreign militaries. Our military. General Dan Caine by report advised Trump about the negative consequences of this action. MAGA elected a fantasist and narcissist and we will all bear the consequences. I was no fan of Kamala but the appalling limitations of Trump are of a different order and it is a disgrace that our voters by majority elected him.
by Hobadee | 2026-03-13 23:56:29+00:00
As with everything, I think there is an appropriate middle ground here. There is definitely too much beating around the bush in a lot of professional work, but some of that is actually useful and even good. Context doesn't always matter, but sometimes it does. Manners aren't always important, but sometimes they are.

A proper balance of direct and indirect is the appropriate tack to take.
by zimpenfish | 2026-03-13 23:57:33+00:00
> When Elon asked for something, it was “drop what you are doing and deliver it”, then you got pressed to still deliver the thing you were already working on against the original timeline before the interrupt.

To be fair, I've experienced that in a good 50% of my employment career[0] and I've not once worked for any of his companies.

[0] Ignoring the "servers are melting" flavour of "drop what you are doing" because that's an understandable kind of interruption if you're a BAU specialist like me.
by munificent | 2026-03-13 23:57:57+00:00
> - OSS is valuable for decentralizing power and influence

That was the intention and hope, but I think the past twenty years has shown that it largely had the opposite effect.

Let's say I write some useful library and open source it.

Joe Small Business Owner uses it in his application. It makes his app more useful and he makes an extra $100,000 from his 1,000 users.

Meanwhile Alice Giant Corporate CEO uses it in her application. It makes her app more useful by exactly the same amount, but because she has a million users, now she's a billion dollars richer.

If you assume that open source provides additive value, then giving it to everyone freely will generally have an equalizing effect. Those with the least existing wealth will find that additive value more impactful than someone who is already rich. Giving a poor person $10,000 can change their life. Give it to Jeff Bezos and it won't even change his dinner plans.

But if you consider that open source provides multiplicative value, then giving it to everyone is effectively a force multiplier for their existing power.

In practice, it's probably somewhere between the two. But when you consider how highly iterative systems are, even a slight multiplicative effect means that over time it's mostly enriching the rich.

Seven of the ten richest people in the world got there from tech [1]. If the goal of open source was to lead to less inequality, it's clearly not working, or at least not working well enough to counter other forces trending towards inequality.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires
by TeMPOraL | 2026-03-13 23:58:38+00:00
Also even if they know you are transmitting, it may still be beneficial to prevent them from knowing how much you are transmitting.

Imagine the enemy detects some of your transmission, even knowing it's encrypted, they can still look at the data rate (or estimate order of it):

- 5 bps = probably a random transmitter, maybe audio spy device, maybe remote detonated weapon

- 5 Mbps = probably a feed from military hardware or personnel

Similar inferences can be made about volume, if they can identify distinct transmissions. Etc. If tricks like these can make the enemy confuse 5 Mbps TX for a 5 bps one, it has obvious tactical utility.
by westurner | 2026-03-13 23:58:50+00:00
Furthermore, there are different types of contributors.

So often the people with divergent thinking and creative problem solving abilities aren't apt to stay focused on one thing for so long.

It's normal for more operations-focused folks to handle the day-to-day on things designed by sometimes flighty, absent-minded, distracted, and unreliable chief engineers such as the aforementioned.

Unless they want to stick with a project, you probably don't want to force those types to do the normal operations daily grind that's so normal to most people.

"We'll take it from here"

"Actually I can code, but on that one [...]"
by VirusNewbie | 2026-03-13 23:58:52+00:00
Anyone Google has hired in the last ~8 years was hired onto a team that is growing and has a culture of shipping and producing. Google regularly weeds out low performers, be it new grads or long timers who started doing the rest and vest thing.

Now, I don't think most people at google are literally driving to the office or sleeping there most of the time, you'll certainly have more WLB than xAI.

I'd even say, Google is much better at calibrating the right amount to push people than some other companies.
by d-us-vb | 2026-03-13 23:59:39+00:00
While I agree with the sentiment for the effect its adherents want to have, but...

Why not just

"Communicate clearly"?

- Don't add fluff

- write as plainly as possible

- write as precisely as is reasonable

- Only make reasonable assumptions about the reader

- Do your best to anticipate ambiguity and proactively disambiguate. (Because your readers may assume that if they don't understand you, what you wrote isn't for them.)

- Don't be selfish or self-centered; pay attention to the other humans because a significant amount of communication happens in nuance no matter how hard we try to minimize it.
by andrewflnr | 2026-03-13 23:59:43+00:00
Yeah, skip the fluff about my having a good weekend if you need me to fix something, but a lot of those uncertainty markers aren't fluff, they're essential to honest, accurate communication. Similarly, many times when you say a variation on "I know you're the expert on the codebase" or whatever, that's because it's true and important. Something I think is a problem, which this article wants me to phrase as short declaration, might actually just be a misunderstanding on my part. If I get one of those messages, I'm not going to see my time being respected. I'm going to see an arrogant jerk too lazy to learn what they're talking about before shooting off their mouth.
by PufPufPuf | 2026-03-14 00:00:05+00:00
I converted (not by choice) to Mac. Applications that I need to "fix" macOS:
- MOS (free) / Mac Mouse Fix ($3, has some neat extra features) -- without these, mouse scrollwheel is practically unusable
- Karabiner Elements (free) -- to fix modifier keys layout to be consistent with Linux / Windows
- Ukelele (free) -- modify keyboard layout to match Linux / Windows

First is needed only if you use a mouse with a wheel. Last two are just for my unwillingness to learn the Mac layout, since I still use other systems regularly.

I also used to have an app that would close an app after I closed the last window (curiously most apps on Mac keep running after that and you need to close them from right click menu), but I got used to it.

Window snapping was fixed in macOS 15, special apps are only necessary if you have a 32:9 monitor, otherwise the built-in support is solid.
by qualitymax | 2026-03-14 00:00:45+00:00
Hey HN, I'm building QualityMax — automated security testing for web apps.

This story is based on a real incident shared on LinkedIn. A founder used AI to build his entire SaaS, shipped without any security review, and lost $87,500 to fraud.

The page has a live demo — it actually runs 28 Playwright tests against a deliberately vulnerable app (VibeMoneyPro24) and shows real results in real time.

Curious what security gaps you've seen in AI-generated code. Happy to answer any questions.
by glitchc | 2026-03-14 00:01:21+00:00
Work is and has always been an economic bargain: Your time for their money. Morality is a luxury that only the independently wealthy can afford. Any business that allows it's employees to function according to their own morals becomes uncompetitive against its peers. That's why small companies by individual founders who want to stay true to their mission often stay small. They inevitably get bought out by one of the larger ones.
by kennywinker | 2026-03-14 00:01:51+00:00
> and they reject edits that go against their views

Citation needed. See what i did there ;)

They reject edits that go against their views on tone and sourcing not political views that i am aware of - i am sure it happens from time to time but unless there’s a consistant bias in one direction this isn’t a valid criticism of the political neutrality of wikipedia.

Even if there is rampant bias in wikipedia, that’s a reason to fork it and change the structure and gatekeeping - not to replace it with a techno-authoritarian ai version controlled by a single billionaire.
by kixiQu | 2026-03-14 00:02:04+00:00
> If the payment service went down because a config value was wrong, the incident report should say: the payment service went down because config value X was set to Y when it needed to be set to Z.

The number of junior engineers I have had to coach out of this way of thinking to get the smallest fragment of value out of a postmortem process... dear Lord. I wonder if this person is similarly new to professional collaboration.

The larger personal site is very aesthetically cool, though – make sure you click around if you haven't!
by nwallin | 2026-03-14 00:02:17+00:00
AirGas prioritizes industrial users, in the case of helium, copper welding. Argon is perfectly good enough for almost all welding purposes, but copper is different because of its heat conductivity. The heat from the weld really wants to go anywhere else. Helium has substantially higher heat conductivity than argon, which allows the heat to flow from the electric arc into the metal faster, resulting in better welds.

Obviously you can't have oxygen in welding gas; it would oxidize the shit out of everything.

A little bit of oxygen in party balloon gas is beneficial. Some kid will breathe it, and when they do, you didn't want them to asphyxiate themselves.
by vunderba | 2026-03-14 00:02:49+00:00
Nice article but small note:

>You might be thinking "If spaced repetition is so effective, why isn't it more popular?"

I might have thought that 30 years ago - but I can't remember the last time I used a flashcard app (phone, Desktop, etc) that didn't include SRS as the default algorithm. These days the new hotness is FSRS [1] which Anki uses.

[1] - https://github.com/open-spaced-repetition/srs-benchmark?tab=...
by mannyv | 2026-03-14 00:03:25+00:00
But can you still seek on a video that's being instantly transcoded? To be honest I don't know if anyone does that except YouTube, and it jumps to the time so theoretically you have about a second or two when the request comes into pull the file and start encoding. It sounds like the mezzanine file is chunked, so the time to pull it down is pretty fast.

Since it's your own player you can hint to the backend.

Do you dynamically generate the manifests too? Or do things get transcoded on request?
by casey2 | 2026-03-14 00:03:28+00:00
Drones and atomic bombs have prevented more mass murder than they've been used for.

The people doing the most to actually improve material conditions in the third world are constantly poo-pooed by people who profit off these places remaining impoverished.

I think the NRxers are right here you need to go in there and crack skulls. Few will invest in long term skills if they aren't valuable. The simple fact: In these next 10 years Haiti will see more growth than the last 40 years, thanks in large part to this partnership.
by pnhoang | 2026-03-14 00:03:50+00:00
I’ve been building a small side project called *LingoPop* — a word-connection game inspired by puzzle games like NYT Connections, but for language lovers.

The twist: it works in *195+ languages*.
You connect words that belong to the same category (slang, cooking actions, mental processes, etc.), and the categories adapt to the language you choose.

I actually built it for a personal reason too. I’m an *expat living in Berlin*, my native language is *Vietnamese*, and I wanted a more playful way to practice *German and Italian*. I also play the game in *English*, which sometimes turns out to be harder than expected

So I’m curious to ask this community:

*How many languages do you speak?*
Now try to *prove it by playing LingoPop in those languages.*

I’d love to hear:

* Which language felt the hardest?
* Which word groups surprised you?
* Does the difficulty change depending on the language?

Always happy to get feedback from fellow builders and language nerds!
by 0manrho | 2026-03-14 00:04:37+00:00
Or they're charging people in at-best mysterious if not outright duplicitous/malicious ways because it makes them money without having to do anything (save for send a bill and have the right fine print in the right places. )

It's no accident, it's not just "bad UX", it's deliberate.

> AWS doesn’t charge you in mysterious ways. It charges you in specific, predictable ways that nobody taught you to look for. That’s a knowledge gap.

Observe the mental gymnastics to explain away "mysterious ways" by making it the users fault and calling them - *checks notes* - stupid, for not knowing something AWS is very intentionally keen on you not knowing.

I sure hope OP was getting payed for this AWS ad, imagine shilling for a multi-billion dollar company for free.
by chirdeeps | 2026-03-14 00:05:01+00:00
OpenTelemetry and standard observability stacks are great for seeing the latency and token counts of individual LLM calls, but they break down when you try to debug the coordination between agents.The hardest failure mode we've had to debug isn't a single agent hallucinating; it's Agent A correctly doing its job, but passing slightly malformed state to Agent B, which then confidently executes a destructive action based on that bad state. By the time you see the error, the root cause is three steps up the chain.Tracing doesn't solve this because it just shows you the execution path, not the authority boundary. What you actually need is a way to enforce contracts between agents—an execution layer that says "Agent B cannot accept this payload from Agent A unless it meets X criteria, and if it fails, rollback Agent A's last action." Until we treat multi-agent systems as concurrent state machines rather than just chained API calls, debugging them is going to remain a nightmare.
by kstrauser | 2026-03-14 00:05:31+00:00
Yep. Almost every company uses multiple vendors for things. Suppose you use a tech support helpdesk and you don't want to waste time dealing with banned ex-customers. You can't import that list of hashes into Zendesk or whatever and tell them to blocklist them.

Substitute "billing company" or "authentication provider" or "fraud detector" for "helpdesk". There are times when it's not sufficient to say "don't do business with SHA-256 hash ef61a579c907bbed674c0dbcbcf7f7af8f851538eef7b8e58c5bee0b8cfdac4a". You need to say "John Smith is banned".
by A04eArchitect | 2026-03-14 00:05:36+00:00
I’m tired of seeing 'low-latency' systems that still rely on heavy consensus. I’ve built a raw-metal settlement engine in Rust that hits 85ns execution.
The Logic:
Zero Contention: Atomic operations directly on the CPU cache line.
No-Std: Running on bare metal to bypass the OS kernel.
Deterministic: 17M hard-cap supply, zero-inflation, enforced at compile-time.
This isn't a pitch for VC money. I already hold the liquidity (17.9K BTC) to fund the orbital hardware myself.
The Challenge: I’m looking for a technical 'roast.' Tell me why this will fail on a satellite relay before I start launching. If you find a race condition in the atomic state, I want to see it."
by Timwi | 2026-03-14 00:05:46+00:00
> I swear some people are using some other tech than I'm using the past few months.

I'm curious about this discrepancy too. I assume that you're being facetious and the discrepancy is with people's perceptions of AI’s capabilities or usefulness or whatever subjective metric. Some, myself included, seem to perceive it as basically useless, while others, yourself included, seem to imply that it's at a level where it genuinely replaces competent coders.

If the discrepancy were small, it could just be chalked up to the metric being subjective. But it seems to be like night and day. A difference of orders of magnitude. I wanna know what's going on there.
by TeMPOraL | 2026-03-14 00:05:56+00:00
Or you can call it encryption along different axis. Much like extracting GPS signals from below thermal floor level - you can do it if you 1) know it's there, and 2) know exactly how to key in. It's impressive as heck, but you can always rephrase it in terms of information theory in ways that makes it sound like slightly different shade of mundane.
by bartread | 2026-03-14 00:06:06+00:00
> the problems it did flag mostly would be caught by minimal testing

Yeah, I agree, and the thing is, you're going to write automated tests whether you're developing in JavaScript or TypeScript so the extra cruft of TypeScript seems even less worthwhile.

The argument I've heard people put forward is that JS is fine for small projects or a couple of developers but doesn't scale to large projects or teams. I don't know how large large is, but I've worked on a project with around 30 devs where the front-end was all JavaScript and everyone was touching it and, sure, that project had some problems, but the root cause of those problems wasn't using JavaScript.
by lo_zamoyski | 2026-03-14 00:06:09+00:00
> Different kinds of claims

How so?

If I claim that one should prefer the claim "moral knowledge doesn't exist" over its contrary, then I am making a moral claim. That would make it self-refuting.

There is no fact-value dichotomy.

And one more thing...

> the lack of falsifiability

Is falsifiability falsifiable? If all credible claims must be falsifiable, then where does that leave us with the criterion of falsifiability (which is problematic even part from this particular case, as anyone who has done any serious reading in the philosophy of science knows).
by hunterpayne | 2026-03-14 00:06:14+00:00
I assure you that all the models have such biases. Ask any LLM who caused the most death in history and you will get skinny mustache man, an opinion any historian will tell you is wrong. He is in the top 5, but not the top of the table. That was clearly biased into the models in the same way Elon biases his models. I'm not defending this behavior but I don't know how you both get models that returned the sanitized answers some want and the correct answers others want at the same time. Pure correctness probably gets you Mecha-H. Pure sanitized answers will get many wrong. Pick your poison I guess.
by Simulacra | 2026-03-14 00:06:40+00:00
For me it's cost. I used to be able to get those JVC gummy earbuds wired, for nine dollars. Now I have to spend upwards of $20 for Bluetooth. And of course, when the battery can't be recharged anymore, I'm supposed to throw them away. Much prefer the wired headphones. Sometimes Bluetooth makes sense, But economically wired makes more sense.
by johnisgood | 2026-03-14 00:06:58+00:00
I am not disputing that the tech is interesting. My point is about how it is being applied. The examples above are not about understanding people, they are about exploiting their latent preferences (before: "unconscious preference") for persuasion at scale.

Attempting to normalize that by saying "Palantir is worse" does not make it any less manipulative and sinister.

And to be more on topic, Twitter's value as dataset is overstated. Hardly the panacea people make it out to be.
by titanomachy | 2026-03-14 00:07:26+00:00
Some people have an attitude to work resembling “I spend most of my day here, so having enjoyable professional relationships with my coworkers is a major determinant of my quality of life.” And there are other people who have an attitude closer to “it’s my goal to deliver value efficiently and get paid. I’m not here to make friends. Any meaningful human interactions happen outside of work.”

I don’t know enough about autism to know if that’s the right label for the second category. (I’ve had coworkers who identified as autistic who seemed to deeply care about whether I enjoyed working with them.) I think these two types of people can work together productively, but I don’t think they’ll ever totally understand each other.
by chirdeeps | 2026-03-14 00:08:08+00:00
The distinction between reversible and irreversible actions mentioned here is crucial, but there's an organizational layer to this problem that most monitoring tools miss entirely.When you scale past a single team, you inevitably end up with a fragmented stack. Team A builds a support bot in LangGraph, Team B builds a research agent in CrewAI, and Team C writes raw Python against the Anthropic API. If you rely on framework-level monitoring or prompt-level guardrails, your audit trail is completely fractured. You can't confidently tell a compliance officer what your synthetic workforce is doing.We realized that observability and governance cannot live inside the agent framework. They have to live in an independent execution layer that sits between the agents and your business systems. The agent proposes an intent, but the execution layer acts as the system of record—verifying authority, checking budget, and logging the action—before the API call is ever allowed to hit your database.
by RagnarD | 2026-03-14 00:08:30+00:00
I have an RTX 6000 Pro Max-Q, which has 96GB VRAM. It identified the hardware correctly but incorrectly thought it had 4GB, at least if I interpret the RAM dropdown correctly.

Then it shows the full resolution models, which are completely unnecessary to run quality inference. Quantized models are routine for local inference and it should realize that.

Needs work.
by pseudalopex | 2026-03-14 00:08:39+00:00
The point was to separate MIT and GPL was wrong.

> My personal thought on that: it's going to be almost guaranteed that, if an LLM is producing stuff it clearly derived from a certain piece of code XYZ, it will also be capable of producing the correct answer to the question "what's the license for XYZ?" And lawyers will successfully argue that this counts as "included".

The MIT license terms are not say the name the license if asked. They are The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

And this would be improbable for many reasons I think.
by marcosdumay | 2026-03-14 00:08:55+00:00
I would recommend a circuit surge protector in urban areas.

Lightning getting through some structure and hitting the electric lines happens. Even when they are buried. It's less of a problem when the ground absorbs a lot of the power before it even get into copper, but it's even less of a problem if there's some cheap device that will burn and protect you from it.