MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by flavionm | 2026-03-10 22:57:39+00:00
> The person who did the work deserved credit and compensation.

That's the part of the argument in favor of copyright that is inherently flawed.

Doing some amount of work doesn't entitle you to anything besides whatever you've agreed to get for that work, or possession of the output, in case you did it for yourself. But that's all you're entitled to get.

Work itself doesn't have any intrinsic value, only output does. The scarcity of output is what dictates what is actually valuable.

Creative work has the characteristic of its marginal cost being very high for the first copy, but nearly zero for additional copies. That's true simply because of the nature of such work, it isn't something that is unfairly imposed upon creative workers. Whenever you choose to engage in creative work, you know that, or at least you should. And if you choose to give away the first copy for free, or very cheap, that's your prerrogative, but it doesn't inherently entitle you to anything else besides the value of that first copy.

Yes, there are laws such as copyright laws that exist to artificially inflate the value of additional copies, but they go against how things work naturally, so you shouldn't rely on them, and you certainly shouldn't base your moral compass on them.

Now, I do still prefer copyleft licenses over permissive ones for the work I choose to give away for free, but only to stop corporations from taking that work and then using copyright laws to keep it exclusive to them. Once copyright is no longer an issue, they won't be necessary anymore.
by quickthrowman | 2026-03-10 22:58:02+00:00
Minor nitpick, transformers are sized in volt-amps, not watts. Apparent power is measured in volt-amps and actual power is measured in watts, the ration between the two is the power factor.

It was probably a 1MVA transformer with a 480V three-phase secondary.

That transformer was already oil-cooled, so adding a couple thousand extra gallons probably didn’t hurt the transformer too much lol.
by lapcat | 2026-03-10 22:58:59+00:00
An Orwellian dystopia has grown unabated, regardless of who is in power. Remember that the Snowden revelations came out in the Obama administration. The pervasive surveillance that has invaded every aspect of our lives is not even a political issue that leaders debate. The political duopoly has been bought off. I'm not sure exactly who you think "the good guys" are.
by nadis | 2026-03-10 22:59:08+00:00
> "I like to think about shipping better code in terms of technical debt. We take on technical debt as the result of trade-offs: doing things "the right way" would take too long, so we work within the time constraints we are under and cross our fingers that our project will survive long enough to pay down the debt later on.

The best mitigation for technical debt is to avoid taking it on in the first place."

This is actually something I've been thinking about a lot, to the point that I'm now building agentic experiences to try to help make it easier to create and maintain better code and iterate in an AI-centric way while building software.

> "Embrace the compound engineering loop"

Agreed! I feel like making it easier for AI agents to create high-quality code that's easy to test, iterate on, and maintain (without adding tech debt) is crucial here.
by yogthos | 2026-03-10 22:59:17+00:00
I agree with everything you're saying here, and I'm not arguing the approach eliminates the need for the human to be in the loop. That's not the goal.

What I'm trying to do is to create hard context boundaries which help both the human and the agent understand what the code is doing. With Mycelium, you have a graph expressing the top level logic, so you have a declarative workflow that you can review. With traditional code this is mixed in together with the implementation details, and you have to tease out the business logic by reading through the code.

Mycelium creates a hard boundary between implementation details which live in the cells, and the high level business logic of the application. You can set up a workflow manifest which declares what you're doing. Then you can go an implement each step in form of a cell. And then you can review it and test it in isolation without having to consider the entire application.

This is the part that reduces the cognitive load and makes it easier to ensure that the code is doing what's intended.

As a note, I'm not arguing that I invented anything fundamentally new here. Workflow engines have been around for a while. I'm simply applying the idea directly in the context of coding agents.
by munchler | 2026-03-10 22:59:17+00:00
If there’s surplus land, why build something unwanted in someone’s backyard? I’m a suburban NIMBY homeowner and I feel like you’re actually making my argument without realizing it. I’m all for building new houses on unused land. Can you please just do it without ruining my neighborhood? Build nice new neighborhoods and make them as dense as you’d like, but don’t try to force density on older, established neighborhoods that can’t support it.
Show HN: Repovex – GitHub repo health scores for your whole org
by calminferno | 2026-03-10 22:59:26+00:00
I built Repovex to solve a problem I kept running into at work: no one really knows the health of their GitHub org until something goes wrong.

It installs as a GitHub App, runs nightly checks across all your repos, and gives each one a score out of 100. Checks cover things like:

- Branch protection and required reviews
- Secret scanning and Dependabot enabled
- CI configured, stale PRs, stale repos
- README, CODEOWNERS, LICENSE, CONTRIBUTING present

Results show up in a web dashboard and in a weekly Slack digest so the team stays aware without having to go looking. Free tier covers up to 5 repos and weekly email digest.

Happy to hear what checks you'd want to see added.
by lbreakjai | 2026-03-10 22:59:32+00:00
> Something I'm starting to struggle with is when agents can now do longer and more complex tasks, how do you review all the code?

Same as before. Small PRs, accept that you won't ship a month of code in two days. Pair program with someone else so the review is just a formality.

The value of the review is _also_ for someone else to check if you have built the right thing, not just a thing the right way, which is exponentially harder as you add code.
by rzzzt | 2026-03-10 22:59:57+00:00
Me neither, but I got something similar from the abstract that I was about to ask, so adding it here: "Following infection, vaccinated mice mounted rapid pathogen-specific T cell and antibody responses and formed ectopic lymphoid structures in the lung."

That latter term (ectopic lymphoid structure) comes up in connection with persistent inflammation where the immune system sets up camp near the problem point. Is this good or bad? Do these go away once the infection clears up?
by OkayPhysicist | 2026-03-10 23:00:06+00:00
This is remarkably useful. Even ignoring the built-in commands (which are handy in their own right), I find the button's action being self-described in the html ("tell this element to do this") far more pleasant to read than the normal see button -> /document.getElementById("buttonID") -> scroll back up to the html to figure out what elements are referred to in the script.
by hunterpayne | 2026-03-10 23:00:49+00:00
I've seen both ways. Sometimes the contributors let their ego prevent improvements to the architecture. Recently, I tried to get rid of a bug farm in a library I use. A single function was reduced to 1 line that depended on far more reliable method. And the maintainers put it back in later on (breaking my app yet again, sigh). In all fairness, those maintainers are academics who work for the French government so probably not the best representation of the community but still.
by wavemode | 2026-03-10 23:01:48+00:00
Not to sound condescending, but this reads like someone fimiliar with LLMs but very unfamiliar with statistics in general.

If we could understand economics, or poverty, or any number of other social structures, simply by cramming data into a statistical model with billions of parameters, we would've done that decades ago and these problems would already be understood.

In the real world, though, there is a phenomenon called overfitting. In other words you can perfectly model the training data but be unable to make useful predictions about new data (i.e. the future).
by chr15m | 2026-03-10 23:01:53+00:00
I was lucky enough to see Sir Tony Hoare speak at EuroPython in 2009. This was his last slide:

One Day

- Software will be the most reliable component of every product which contains it.

- Software engineering will be the most dependable of all engineering professions.

-Because of the successful interplay of research:

- into the science of programming;

- and the engineering of software.

Come on people we have a lot of work to do.
by hinkley | 2026-03-10 23:02:10+00:00
Hah! That's probably why I can never find it.

Norvig's solution is a work of art. When people ask me for examples of intrinsic versus accidental complexity, his sudoku solver is the best one I have. My only note is that he gives up and goes brute force early. When I first encountered it I had a lot of fun layering other common solving strategies on top of his base without too much extra trouble.

What I did not have fun with is porting it to elixir. That was a long journey to get to a solution I could keep adding stuff too. Immutable data is rough, particularly when you're maintaining 4 distinct views on the same data.
by azan_ | 2026-03-10 23:02:21+00:00
I've found one very interesting thing from these trackers - namely how even small amount of alcohol destroy sleep quality metrics. One beer is enough for my sleep scores to drop by like 20-30% and it's consistent and reproducible for me every time. Whether it actually matters - I don't know, but it made me drink much less (from maybe once a week to maybe once every two months) which is good outcome I guess.
by tialaramex | 2026-03-10 23:02:41+00:00
I disagree. Only true is true and only false is false, Some(1234) isn't true and None isn't false, for the same reason the string "A" isn't the ASCII byte 'A' and the 8-bit unsigned integer 10 isn't the 64-bit floating point number 10.0

When you muddle these things it makes life very slightly easier, very briefly and then you introduce impossible to find bugs and ruin your life. People tend to imagine that OK, maybe C went too far with coercions, but I can handle smaller things, that'll be fine, and in my experience they're wrong.

I like the fact that in Rust I'm expected to write if opt.is_none() rather than just treat it as if it was a boolean when it isn't. The resulting machine code isn't different, so we're talking about communicating our intent to human programmers, such as our future selves or our colleagues and I'm certain opt.is_none() communicates that intent better than coercing it to a boolean.

I don't like the other idea you propose, but it's less of a footgun and so I don't mind that e.g. C# programmers often write this way. I wouldn't choose it myself in many cases, but I don't write "No, fix this" in reviews of such code.
by MathMonkeyMan | 2026-03-10 23:02:45+00:00
Yep! But you are also a mouse who has limited venues in which to complain.

I wonder if the vaccine causes inflammatory and other unpleasant responses when administered. If so, I wonder if those responses go away after the last dose, when the three months of protection begin.

Here are the two paragraphs that I found interesting:

> The new vaccine, for now known as GLA-3M-052-LS+OVA, mimics the T cell signals that directly stimulate innate immune cells in the lungs. It also contains a harmless antigen, an egg protein called ovalbumin or OVA, which recruits T cells into the lungs to maintain the innate response for weeks to months.

> In the study, mice were given a drop of the vaccine in their noses. Some recieved multiple doses, given a week apart. Each mouse was then exposed to one type of respiratory virus. With three doses of the vaccine, mice were protected against SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses for at least three months.
by mursu | 2026-03-10 23:03:11+00:00
Thank you.I see your point and I understand what I must do. I will stick around and try to naturally blend in. This place seems a bit misterious and I weirdly feel drawn to it the more I read... even if that was not the primary goal for me here. I clearly had a slightly distorted idea about how this works. I'm glad and thankful for your feedback
by Zambyte | 2026-03-10 23:03:17+00:00
The only interesting thing is that it didn't reject the query.

The author links https://www.reddit.com/user/MattSayar/ in their footer. This doesn't even require agentic search to find. Any modern model above like 5B with access to search could have produced the correct answer to "who is the person behind the Reddit account MattSayar, even if their username wasn't just their full name.
by daxfohl | 2026-03-10 23:03:46+00:00
Yeah I don't even think you'd need to train it. You could probably just explain how SVG works (or just tell it to emit coordinates of lines it wants to draw), and tell it to draw a horse, and I have to imagine it would be able to do so, even if it had never been trained on images, svg, or even cartesian coordinates. I think there's enough world model in there that you could simply explain cartesian coordinates in the context, it'd figure out how those map to its understanding of a horse's composition, and output something roughly correct. It'd be an interesting experiment anyway.

But yeah, I can't imagine that LLMs don't already have a world model in there. They have to. The internet's corpus of text may not contain enough detail to allow a LLM to differentiate between similar-looking celebrities, but it's plenty of information to allow it to create a world model of how we perceive the world. And it's a vastly more information-dense means of doing so.
by tkiolp4 | 2026-03-10 23:04:11+00:00
That’s not true. Even if we assume LLMs can generate the code needed to support the next Facebook, one still has to: buy/rent tons of hardware (virtual or baremetal), put tons of money in marketing, break the network effect, pay for 3rd party services for monitoring, alerting and what not. That’s money, and LLMs don’t help with that
by thaumasiotes | 2026-03-10 23:04:13+00:00
Your definition of "courier" is personal to you, but not compatible with anything that might be accepted by a judge.

In this case, Tile sent the email, it was delivered seamlessly to the plaintiffs' designated agents, and then it was hidden from the plaintiffs by their designated agents. Those agents are not couriers; as far as the law is concerned, and as far as the law can be concerned, they are the plaintiffs.

Tile has no control over who you make responsible for receiving your mail. As soon as they've gotten your mail to that person, they've done everything that can be done.
by sheept | 2026-03-10 23:04:39+00:00
To be fair, there's little stopping you from putting the button action in its onclick attribute.

I guess the stylistic choice of separating content, style, and interactivity eventually became a convention to keep JavaScript isolated from HTML, but nowadays with Tailwind and HTMX, it does seem like at least some developers want everything in HTML, for the strengths you mentioned.
by vansbel | 2026-03-10 23:04:45+00:00
Overtone looks like a great way to explore MusicBrainz data—the subgraph expansion is really slick. Since you mentioned you're looking for feedback, I ran your landing page through a conversion tool I'm working on. It gives a prioritized plan on how to make the value prop even clearer for new users. Might be helpful as you move toward adding the playlist features! https://websiteroasters.com/
Let me know if it help you :)
by sd9 | 2026-03-10 23:05:13+00:00
I had a hunch that this comment was LLM-generated, and the last paragraph confirmed it. Kudos for managing to get so many upvotes though.

"Where most [X] [Y]" is an up and coming LLM trope, which seems to have surfaced fairly recently. I have no idea why, considering most claims of that form are based on no data whatsoever.
by phatskat | 2026-03-10 23:05:19+00:00
I don’t actually see any good points against pagination in the opening, and I don’t see any reason to compare pagination to infinite scroll - in fact, I’d argue that comparing them means there’s a misunderstanding of the problem you’re solving for if you see them as equally viable options.

Imo, infinite scroll is for when you don’t care about ever finding something more than once while scrolling - instagram and TikTok are prime examples of this.

Pagination is the opposite - you have a set of data you want to be able to reliably navigate.

The bit about pagination taking up precious screen real-estate is silly, especially in light of the IS example having a whole search bar (I’m assuming the paginated example has an implied search bar but it’s not mentioned). Pagination doesn’t need to take up much space at all - whether your choice of pagination implementation is good for UX is a different beast.
by pyrale | 2026-03-10 23:05:53+00:00
I think you need to distinguish between complex systems, and byzantine systems. You can have complex systems where every piece shares a common goal, but feedback loops are hard. You can also have systems which, if a common goal was shared, wouldn't be that hard to understand, modelize and optimize, but where the actors of the system are not acting in good faith.

And I agree with the above poster: often, a problem is described as "hard" as a way to make an excuse for the agents. Sure, the problem is hard. The reason why it's hard isn't some esoteric arcane complexity, it's that some of the agents aren't even trying.
by LeFantome | 2026-03-10 23:05:57+00:00
SpacemiT K3 is on par with Rockchip RK3588. So, about 4 years behind ARM.

Tenstorrent Atlantis (first Ascalon silicon) should ship in Q2/Q3 and be twice as fast. About as fast as Ryzen5. So, about 5 years behind AMD.

But even the K3 has faster AI than Apple Silicon or Qualcomm X Elite.

Current trend-lines suggest ARM64 and RISC-V performance parity before 2030.
by SOLAR_FIELDS | 2026-03-10 23:06:15+00:00
To me that’s a winner if I’m paying for a SaaS. If I have to go through a procurement cycle to talk to you instead of busting out my card I’m probably going to look and make sure no one else is remotely equivalent first that does self service. If someone else is giving rough feature parity and offers self service they will always win. Even if the self service is more expensive the convenience of me not having to talk to you is gonna get outweighed by that.

I don’t need to chat with you where you do a q&a where you decide what the correct amount of money to extract out of me is. Price your service accurately and accordingly instead and you’ll get my business
by anonnon | 2026-03-10 23:07:59+00:00
Lots of projects have had requirements like this for years, usually to prevent infection by (A)GPL's virality, or in the case of the FSF, so they can sue on your behalf, or less scrupulously, so the project can re-license itself or dual license itself in the future should the maintainers opt to. (This last part was traditionally the only part that elicited objections to CLAs.)

> it's like a high tech pinky swear

So is you attesting you didn't contribute any GPL'd code (which, incidentally, you arguably can't do if you're using LLMs trained on GPL'd code), and no one seemed to have issues with that, yet when it's extended to LLMs, the concern trolling starts in earnest. It's also legally binding .
by elch | 2026-03-10 23:08:37+00:00
Pity you didn't look a little further, where there was more syntax and semantics...
The concept of a high-level language is, of course, relative, but if, for example, someone considers Forth to be an HLL, then imho, the language/formalism from the book about the Kiev machine was definitely one, and it was described in more detail by its chief architect, Katherine Yushchenko, in a book from 1963:
https://it-history.lib.ru/TEXTS/Adresnoe-programmirovanie_EY...

If you are still interested, you can look at page 35, where there are several examples, including finding the GCD.
by eudamoniac | 2026-03-10 23:08:38+00:00
I refuse to worsen my life for an absolutely minuscule abstract benefit to someone, eventually, maybe. I am going to continue eating meat and flying when I want to, and I don't feel the least bit bad about it. It's unfortunate that climate change is happening, but my personal actions are not meaningfully contributing. My choices do not have cascading effects on others; whatever I do, the climate will change in the same manner as it otherwise would have. In that light, I am not going to reduce my QOL just to feel self righteous for no actual benefit to anyone.

You may wonder how this is consistent with my propensity to recycle and follow traffic laws and not do crimes and other socially beneficial minor things to which a comparison could be made to CO2 output: because those all have a greater benefit:cost ratio than flying and eating meat, by far. I am including the benefits of living in a high-trust society in that analysis.
by jasongill | 2026-03-10 23:08:42+00:00
I'm surprised that Cloudflare hasn't started hosting a pre-scraped version of websites that use Cloudflare's proxy - something like https://www.example.com/cdn-cgi/cached-contents.json They already have the website content in their cache, so why not just cut out the middle man of scraping services and API's like this and publish it?

Obviously there's good reasons NOT to, but I am surprised they haven't started offering it (as an "on-by-default" option, naturally) yet.
by crest | 2026-03-10 23:09:01+00:00
RISC-V lacks a bunch of really useful relatively easy to implement instructions and most extensions are truly optional so you can't rely on them. That's the problem if you let a bunch of academics turn your ISA into a paper mill.

In theory you can spend a lot of effort to make a flawed ISA perform, but it will be neither easy nor pretty e.g. real world Linux distros can't distribute optimised packages for every uarch from dual-issue in-order RV64GC to 8-wide OoO RV64 with all the bells and whistles. Only in (deeply) embedded systems can you retarget the toolchain and optimise for each damn architecture subset you encounter.
by hermit_dev | 2026-03-10 23:09:08+00:00
This makes me think of something that I see in the game dev space. People using AI to code and being ok with that, but strictly are against the art or music aspect of it being AI (more and more AI allows us to sit in the director's chair). People thought the same thing about Photoshop back in the day or how about auto-key framing with 3D animation instead of doing everything by hand? Or even with classic cel drawing being replaced by 3D; I remember when everyone viewed 3D animation as a cheat and not a real form of art.

Change can be very difficult, but it's here to stay whether we like it or not (with all the good and the bad that comes with it). One way or the other AI is a tool, it's unlike anything thought possible, but still a tool nonetheless. Sure, you can tell it to make generic garbage all over the place, but I would argue that a human guiding the AI working together can produce content that is truly something spectacular. This isn't to take away from how things were done before. We can/should respect the past and learn from it, but we always need to continue to move forward.
by tkiolp4 | 2026-03-10 23:09:12+00:00
I want to move on to the next phase of AI programming. All these SKILLS, agentic programming and what not reminds me of the time of servlets, rmi, flash… all of that is obsolete, we have better tools now. Hope we can soon reach the “json over http” version of AI: simple but powerful.

Like imagine if you could go back in time and servlets and applets are the big new thing. You wouldn’t like to spend your time learning about those technologies, but your boss would be constantly telling that it is the future. So boring