MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by SV_BubbleTime | 2026-03-10 04:52:41+00:00
> Ships are very efficient

Per ton, yes. In practical, it’s far more complicated. Ships turn “heavy fuel oil” which is one tiny step from crude. It’s literally the byproduct that we have no better use for except for extremely large slow diesel engines.

If the tankers had to burn more useful fuel, we wouldn’t do it. The emissions on this unrefined bulk fuel is extremely bad.

Rail competes for efficiency depending on sea factors, and truck never does. But mining locally is far far more efficient that shipping literally to the other side of the world on ships that are burning 45 tons of fuel per day.
by fragmede | 2026-03-10 04:53:27+00:00
It's like cracking the Enigma during WWII. If you let the enemy know you've cracked it, and do the obvious thing and save the lives immediately in front of you, in the long run, more people are going to die.
So pretending that there are just some crazy people working in Cuba for as long as they can is better than "holy shit, Russia has an invisible weapon that turns people crazy".
by ting0 | 2026-03-10 04:53:36+00:00
Or perhaps they aren't drowning in propaganda (that they themselves promote in the West), and are happily reaping the rewards of cheap coal and energy production.

By the way, the round trip of: Sell and export your coal to manufacturers that burn that coal to produce electronic goods that produce energy, then buy that energy technology to power your own infrastructure, is certainly not cheaper than just burning the coal you mined yourself for your energy production.

Cheaper (ergo, more profitable) for the mining companies, yes. That's about it though.
by _heimdall | 2026-03-10 04:53:38+00:00
You're coming with the assumption that pro-social is a universal goal, and that it is objectively good.

I'm not even disagreeing with you here, but that's a huge assumption yo make and you are granting pretty broad authority to the state in the name of that goal. Where do you draw the line of power the state shouldn't have despite it using the authority today towards pro-social goals?
by heavyset_go | 2026-03-10 04:54:31+00:00
> Google LLC v Oracle America assumed (though didn't establish) that API's are copyrightable... BUT that developing against them falls under fair use, as long as the function implementations are independent.

That was only one prong of the four fair use considerations in that case. Look at Breyer's opinion, it does not say that copying APIs is fair use if implementations are independent, just that Google's specific usage in that instance met the four fair use considerations.

There are likely situations in which copying APIs is not fair use even if function implementations are independent, Breyer looked at substantiality of the code copied from Java, market effects and purpose and character of use.

If your goal is to copy APIs, and those APIs make up a substantial amount of code, and reimplement functions in order to skirt licenses and compete directly against the source work, or replace it, those three considerations might not be met and it might not be fair use. Breyer said Google copied a tiny fraction of code (<1%), its purpose was not to compete directly with Oracle but to build a mobile OS platform, and Google's reimplementation was not considered a replacement for Java.
by owlstuffing | 2026-03-10 04:54:49+00:00
Author here.

Yes, technically this is a form of backtracking, similar to what a parser does. The key difference is that the search is drastically constrained by the type system: reductions are only attempted where the types actually support a binding operator. Unlike a parser exploring all grammar possibilities, this mechanism prunes most candidates automatically, so the compiler efficiently "solves" the expression rather than blindly exploring every syntactic alternative.

Here is the high-level explanation of the mechanism:

https://github.com/manifold-systems/manifold/tree/master/man...

But the short answer is that it’s not parser-style backtracking over a grammar.

The Java parser still produces a normal AST for the sequence of tokens. What happens afterward is a type-directed binding phase where adjacent expressions may bind if their types agree on a binding operator. The compiler effectively reduces the expression by forming larger typed expressions until it reaches a stable form.

The algorithm favors left associativity, but since a type can implement the binding operator as either the left or right operand, the overall structure of the expression can emerge in different ways depending on the participating types.

So rather than exploring grammar productions, the compiler is solving a set of type-compatible reductions across the expression.

For example:

2026 March 10

reduces roughly like this:

(2026 (March 10))
→ March.postfixBind(2026) // → LocalYearMonth
→ [retreat] // → no binding with 10
→ March.prefixBind(10) // → LocalMonthDay
→ .postfixBind(2026) // → LocalDate

And if `Month` binds with `Range<Integer>`:

2026 March 10 to 13

can reduce as:

(2026 (March ((10 to) 13)))

The meaning is therefore determined entirely by which types participate in binding e.g., `LocalDate`, `Month`, `Integer`, `Range`, etc. and which reductions they define.

If a competing interpretation exists but the types don’t support the necessary bindings, it simply never forms.

In that sense it behaves less like a traditional parser and more like a typed reduction system layered on top of the Java AST.
by lvca | 2026-03-10 04:55:04+00:00
Interesting project! The single-writer limitation is a real pain point for multi-agent systems.

Worth mentioning ArcadeDB (https://arcadedb.com) — it's an open-source multi-model database (Apache 2.0) that supports concurrent writes natively, with graph (OpenCypher/Gremlin), document, key-value, and time-series models in one engine. No need to fork or maintain a separate project.

It also speaks the Neo4j Bolt protocol, so existing tooling works out of the box. Could be a good fit for agent memory use cases like this.
by devonkelley | 2026-03-10 04:55:42+00:00
This is a really interesting edge case that's going to come up a lot more. If you feed an agent your test suite and it produces passing code, the tests shaped the output. That's closer to a spec than inspiration. The legal system is going to have a fun time drawing lines between "I described what I wanted" and "I provided a machine-readable contract for what the output had to be."
by s1mon | 2026-03-10 04:56:03+00:00
This reminds me of the articles I occasionally see in the local newspaper about a restaurant that is closing down. So often it’s one that I’ve never heard of before that. To me, that’s the number one issue. If your likely customer base (or at least an audience member who reads a lot about the industry/market) hasn’t heard about your product, how are you going to have a successful business?
by mmooss | 2026-03-10 04:56:04+00:00
You seem afraid of non-hetero sexuality at every turn.

Even if lesbians are just as likely to be dangerous creeps - which I doubt because it seems like relative physical strength is a major factor - the number of lesbians relative to the number of hetero males makes the risk far lower. The number of trans people is an order of magnitude less.

> you don't even really know if the person driving was born as a man or a woman, or what their proclivities are.

You never did. People have been gay and trans for all of history.
by totally_human | 2026-03-10 04:56:33+00:00
Utilitarianism is a moral system. If you disagree with the risk assessment and are utilitarian, you believe that OpenAI got it wrong and is thus doing bad stuff. If a company making bridges, say, or nuclear power plants, was doing risk assessments that appeared to ignore substantial risks in order to get a lucrative contract, I would fully expect engineers to quit and start writing letters talking about ethics.

Agreed on the America-centric view, to an extent. I will note that almost all countries have spied on each other since time immemorial, but serious efforts to spy on their own citizens tend to coincide with uniquely repressive and unpleasant regimes. I think having a norm against spying on your own citizens is good, even if it isn't a perfectly elegant principle. Also, countries can do more damage spying on their own citizens vs other citizens -- as a Canadian, I don't want the American government spying on me, but I'd probably be more worried if the Canadian government was spying on me.
by ocdtrekkie | 2026-03-10 04:57:15+00:00
If anything the legal position is probably the opposite: The law is leaning towards AI training being transformative/fair use and AI generated content not getting any copyright protection at all. So something paying artists for style-rips probably was a net positive for artists, because it's very possible it will end up outright legal to have gen AI
rip off artists' styles wholesale.
by Grimblewald | 2026-03-10 04:57:42+00:00
Look, perhaps I've been to hard on you. Maybe you have an intellectual disability or something, I don't know you or your situation, my bad. I get that you're proud of your project, and I don't want to take that from you. By all means, explore, tinker, hack around and explore, these are great traits/qualities. Just don't tell people what you're offering is safe, or worse, safer than alternative offerings. That claim simply isn't true. To be direct with you, the 'how' of an attack isn't a riddle, it's a documented reality of the modern threat landscape.

You're hyper-focused on the front door, asking how an attacker would even message the bot, but you're ignoring the fact that modern attackers don't bother knocking. Read cloudflare's 2026 threat report, it's eye opening. Between automated session cloning and browser-based info-stealers (among many other modern headaches), the 'whitelisted user' is no longer a static, trusted entity. If a user on your list has their session token scraped via a malicious browser extension or a hijacked desktop app, the attacker effectively becomes that user. At that point, your bot doesn't see an intruder; it sees a 'trusted' account and hands them a loaded gun in the form of arbitrary SQL execution. Now, the problem is you aren't the only one with access to LLM's and obscurity never really was security, even less so now. An llm with credentials could easily probe its way through your bot's capabilities and connected data and exfiltrate everything.

So, the reason I'm calling into question your claims of having a 'safer' personal agent/bot/whatever is a matter of blast radius. A standard bot usually interacts with a restricted API or a set of hard-coded functions, so even if the account is compromised, the damage is capped. By giving an LLM the keys to the entire database, you've created a single point of failure that can result in total data exfiltration or a complete 'drop table' wipe, among any number of other nasty things. That's just _one_ issue in this project.

If you actually want this to live up to the 'safer than average' description, you have to move past the idea that a whitelist is a firewall. You need to distinguish between authentication and authorisation and implement defense-in-depth, starting with a database user that has zero permissions beyond simple 'Select' queries. You should be using a proxy that intercepts the LLM's generated SQL and kills any string containing 'Drop', 'Update', or 'Delete' before it ever touches your server, without some form of parsing/checking. Right now, you’ve built a powerful engine with no brakes, and telling people it’s safer just because it's on Signal is a dangerous misunderstanding of how modern exploits actually work.

Alternatively, fix how the project is described to be more accurate/honest than it is now.
by vetrom | 2026-03-10 04:57:56+00:00
> They don't lack the understanding, they are simply paying enough attention to understand that the administration is already breaking the law and flagrantly violating the constitution.

Are you asserting that the current administration has materially interfered with elections? How so? Please attribute sources which spring forth from documentary disclosure, court discovery, or attributable sources.

> Congress is functionally non-existent right now, having given up congressional power over both taxation and war.

I'd say the current non-talking filibuster grandstanding shows this to be patently false. As such the conclusions in the rest of the paragraph are unsupportable.

> Iran as a Holy War. [0]

As I have mentioned elsewhere, the only reporting I can see from this comes from a single source activist litiguous organization who says their sources are anonymous. If any of those sources were actionable, IGs, their own lawyers, and numerous members of Congress would absolutely jump on them. It would be a carreer-makibg litigation move against any administration. Why havent they?
by jltsiren | 2026-03-10 04:58:03+00:00
The author's answer was:

> But if I had to summarize it in one sentence, it would be that taste comes from practicing the skill of research, keeping your focus always on identifying what works and what doesn't.

Instead of following general guidelines, focus on figuring out what works and what doesn't in each specific situation. Keep doing that for many years, and your taste will develop. Remember that you are training your intuition, not developing a set of exact rules.
by rsaarelm | 2026-03-10 04:58:21+00:00
It's helpful to tell people that they are in uncharted territory and can't rely on running on autopilot even if you don't have a new map to give them. Whether they can make their way or not is unclear, but the first step is just making sure they understand that they're now in a place where they need to make their own way and can't fully rely on existing maps. Otherwise they might not even realize they need to start asking "am I doing the right thing right now" by themselves.
by neshkito | 2026-03-10 04:59:16+00:00
Webhook providers use at-least-once delivery.

If a request times out or fails, they retry — which can cause the same workflow to execute twice.

That means duplicated side effects:
– duplicate payments
– duplicate emails
– duplicate database writes

This template adds an idempotency gate before any side effect runs.

The first event goes through.
Retries are blocked.

The workflow was recently approved and published in the official n8n template library:
https://n8n.io/workflows/13863
by jillesvangurp | 2026-03-10 04:59:29+00:00
There's a long history of people creating clean room implementations of other people's software based on specifications, reverse engineering, etc. A lot of that software is even distributed under GPL. Most drivers in the Linux kernel are good examples. There are things like Dosbox. Databases, video encoders, etc.

So, you could argue that people are using double standards here a bit. It's fine when people take proprietary software and create GPL versions of it. But it's not OK when people take GPL software and create permissively licensed or proprietary versions of it. That's of course not how copyright actually works. The reason all of this is OK is that copyright allows you to do this thing. This isn't some kind of loophole that needs closing but an essential feature of copyright.

The friction here, and common misunderstanding about how copyright works is that you don't copyright ideas but the form or expression of something. Making a painting of a photograph is not a copyright violation. Same idea, different expression. Patents are for protecting ideas. Trademarks are for protecting brands. Some companies have managed to trademark certain color codes even, which is controversial.

There's a lot of legal history for interpretation of what is and isn't "fair use" under copyright of course. It gets much more complicated if you also consider international law and how copyright works in different countries. But people being able to make reasonable use of copyrighted material always was essential to the notion of having it to begin with.

The reason we can have music that uses samples from other people's music without that being a copyright violation is exactly this fair use. In the same way, you can quote from books and create funny memes based on movie fragments. Or create new theater plays, movies, etc. reinterpreting works of others. All legal, up to a point. If you copy too much it stops being fair use and starts being plagiarism.

With software copyright violations, you have to prove that substantial parts of the software were lifted verbatim. Lawyers and judges look at this in terms of how they would apply it to a plagiarism case. Literally - software doesn't get special treatment under copyright. Copyright long predates the existence of software and computers and did not change in any material way after that was invented.
by Tallain | 2026-03-10 05:01:10+00:00
Delphi has an amazing RAD environment. For building small, self-contained desktop apps (with cross-platform support!) it beats any other modern offering... if you can get past the ecosystem. The language and ecosystem very much show their age.

Anyway, I think this generation is missing out on the experience of building in a real RAD environment. I'm more on the backend, but from what I see the pinnacle is fast hot reload, which pales in comparison to what could be.
by mmooss | 2026-03-10 05:02:05+00:00
I think it's much simpler: People who have power can blithely ignore the problems of others and then say those people are 'overreacting'. Also the powerful react very strongly to any threat to the status quo that gives them power; it is an outrage to them.

In the West it happens with males, white people, religious groups, political groups, and much more.

> enables women to be socially transgressive

That usually means, transgressing the status quo. Women (and men) are free people who can do whatever they want, unless they actually injure someone else. Exercising their freedom isn't transgression, it's the norm.

> even criminally so

What does that refer to?
by devonkelley | 2026-03-10 05:03:58+00:00
This is the right question and honestly the answer for most agent tools right now is "data gathering and context assembly, not generation." The drafting part gets all the demos but the real time save is the agent pulling the right info from 5 different sources before a human writes anything. Generation quality will catch up but the integration plumbing is where the value already exists today.
Show HN: I Was Here – Draw on street view, others can find your drawings
by mrktsm__ | 2026-03-10 05:04:23+00:00
Hey HN, I made a site where you can draw on street-level panoramas. Your drawings persist and other people can see them in real time.

Strokes get projected onto the 3D panorama so they wrap around buildings and follow the geometry, not just a flat overlay. Uses WebGL2 for rendering, Mapillary for the street imagery.

The idea is for it to become a global canvas, anyone can leave a mark anywhere and others stumble onto it.
by dragonwriter | 2026-03-10 05:04:27+00:00
I think the difference is that the other hyperscalars are doing this out of the enormous cash rivers produced by their other profitable businesses, at a rate less than that at which profits are flowing in, whereas Oracle is funding it out of debt with AI capex in 2026 projected to reach levels nearly as high as their expected revenue (not profits) in the same period.

If the hardware refresh rate makes a substantial share of data center cost function more like opex than capex, the companies funding it out of operations (especially from operations of what are essentially monopoly businesses, in the sense pricing power), even if it isn’t the operations it power specifically, are fine in the near-to-intemediate term (barring exogenous shocks to those other businesses), whereas Oracle, funding it by a debt bonanza, is in a different position.
by ptmkenny | 2026-03-10 05:05:12+00:00
I evaluated Tess.design about a year ago for an app I was building. At first I was excited because I wanted a service that compensated artists. However the number of artists was very limited and the blog post said “more will be added soon” but it had already been a year and it seemed like none had been added, not a good sign.

Then I tested out the image generation itself and I was unable to come up with prompts that achieved the kind of images I wanted. My only prior experience at the time was OpenAI API. With OpenAI I usually got what I wanted on the first or second try, but with Tess, I couldn’t get a usable result even after 20 tries.

So in addition to the limited number of artists, I think the quality of outputs vs. competing models was a huge factor. I needed to generate thousands of images, so I couldn’t afford to do dozens of attempts for each one.

Hopefully one day there will be a service that can match the quality of OpenAI Image API and Flux but with compensation for artists.
by sourishkundu23 | 2026-03-10 05:05:47+00:00
SEEKING WORK | Remote | AI/Full-Stack Engineering
We ship production AI backends for startups and agencies:
• RAG pipelines (Pinecone, Weaviate, Supabase Vector)
• Multi-agent systems (LangGraph, CrewAI)
• Full-stack AI MVPs (Next.js + Python + Supabase)
• Auth migrations & infrastructure hardening
• Fine-tuning (OpenAI, Llama 3)
Recent: Trading platform auth migration (700+ users, zero downtime),
IoT payment gateway, multi-agent cybersecurity monitoring.
Stack: Python, LangGraph, Next.js, Supabase, Pinecone, AWS
Portfolio: sauravjain.dev
Email: [sourishkundu22@gmail.com]
Rate: $50-80/hr or project-based ($5-15K) or more depend on project.
by jmholla | 2026-03-10 05:06:05+00:00
> You continue to use it for something else? How is it different from any other default shortcut you don't line and change?

The author points out that Apple defaults often don't allow you to reuse them. They talk pretty far in the article about how that can't map globe+H to a different function. So, this theoretical is about them not being able to continue using their combination for what they want at Apple's whims.
by Nursie | 2026-03-10 05:06:21+00:00
> They know the car was yours so, by extension, you should be aware of its whereabouts at any given moment.

People's spouses and kids drive their cars. I've lent cars to friends before. Unless you've got some kind of log book, you might not know (or even remember) who was driving at any given moment or location.

> you need to plausibly explain why was someone operating your car while you were not aware of it.

This is the point of the judgement, under US law it seems that you don't need to plausibly explain anything, the authorities need to be able to show who was driving as the penalty is pseudo-criminal.

> I assume, most/all of EU and the rest of the world.

Under UK law which is much less definite about the state proving who was driving, one must make a good faith effort to identify the driver. But my Father got into a situation that took months to resolve when a speeding ticket arrived. The photograph of the driver didn't capture the head and was otherwise too blurry to identify from the body. It's a month after the fact on a road they both drive down frequently, and they only have one car. Was it him or his wife driving? Nobody knows.

The primary vehicle owner is not allowed to just assume responsibility for the ticket, because the liability for the offence is with the specific driver. Giving the wrong information is an offence itself, because people have tried those sorts of tricks to (for example) give penalty points to their spouse and avoid a ban.

So ... what do you do?

It's possible to take such cases to court in the UK and receive a not-guilty verdict if the vehicle owner can show a good faith effort has been made to identify the driver but there is no reasonable way of doing so.