MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by iberator | 2026-03-10 19:15:08+00:00
What are you doing in the West?

All Russian citizens should be deported unless they could prove that before their exodus they actively fought against Putin (protests, photos, police charges).

I'm so sick of fake refugees from Belarus in Poland.
95% of them became 'political refugees' just after graduating from University and ran to Poland for work. (without completing their mandatory few years of work in Belarus as exchange for their state sponsored university studies).

Similarly Russian citizens suddenly after the war are also political refugees ;) I never met even single Russian on poland nor claiming otherwise. Same for Belarusan MAN (women diffrently)

This is so demoralizing.
by wtronk | 2026-03-10 19:15:25+00:00
@kay_o, thank you very much for the feedback and going through the service.
The API there are examples and you get a real and working after registering to the website.
Jeleo (https://www.jeleo.zone.id/) have a working service that provide great value to its registered customers and we are focused into bringing the best service. We are going to update and improve the website for future customers.
Thanks you once again!
by oritwoen | 2026-03-10 19:15:38+00:00
Every package registry has its own API, its own response format, its own quirks. npm returns nested objects, PyPI gives you a flat dict, crates.io paginates differently. If your tool needs metadata from more than one, you're writing the same fetch-parse-normalize loop for each.

I looked for a library that does this and didn't find one. There's git-pkgs/registries in Go that covers 25 ecosystems but that's Go-only. deps.dev and ecosyste.ms are services, not something you can bundle.

So I built regxa. You give it a PURL like pkg:npm/lodash or pkg:cargo/serde, it talks to the right registry and gives you back the same types. Six registries right now, Arch Linux included (official repos + AUR).

It caches through unstorage so you can plug in whatever backend fits your setup, fs or Cloudflare KV or whatever. Each cached entry has an integrity hash so stale data doesn't stick around silently.

There's a CLI too if you just want to poke at things from a terminal. And an AI SDK tool export if you're wiring up agents that need package info.
by mysteria | 2026-03-10 19:15:51+00:00
The astounding thing about Goliath wasn’t that is was a huge leap in performance, it was that the damn thing functioned at all. To this day, I still don’t understand why this didn’t raise more eyebrows.

This wasn't something I really dug into in great detail but I remember my surprise back then at how all those merged models and those "expanded" models like Goliath still generated coherent output. IMO those were more community models made by small creators for entertainment rather than work, and only really of interest to the local LLM groups on Reddit, 4chan, and Discord. People might briefly discuss it on the board and say "that's cool" but papers aren't being written and it's less likely for academics or corpo researchers to notice it.

That being said I wonder if it's possible to combine the layers of completely different models like say a Llama and a Qwen and still get it to work.

Even with math probes, I hit unexpected problems. LLMs fail arithmetic in weird ways. They don’t get the answer wrong so much as get it almost right but forget to write the last digit, as if it got bored mid-number. Or they transpose two digits in the middle. Or they output the correct number with a trailing character that breaks the parser.

Would using grammar parsing help here by forcing the LLM to only output the expected tokens (i.e. numbers)? Or maybe on the scoring side you could look at the actual probabilities per token to see how far the correct digit is.
by quotemstr | 2026-03-10 19:16:14+00:00
Those constraints can be enforced by a library too. Even humans sometimes make a whole new language for something that can be a function library. If you want strong correctness guarantees, check the structure of the library calls.

Programming languages function in large parts as inductive biases for humans. They expose certain domain symmetries and guide the programmer towards certain patterns. They do the same for LLMs, but with current AI tech, unless you're standing up your own RL pipeline, you're not going to be able to get it to grok your new language as well as an existing one. Your chances are better asking it to understand a library.
by PaulHoule | 2026-03-10 19:16:25+00:00
I'll second this.

It is true that the indy game market is brutal but it's always been brutal.

You don't really hear about a crisis at the indy game level though, rather at the AAA game level there is much of "we'd like to use our market power to take out the risk in game development" and then years later we realize they took out all the value before they took out the risk and now they're doomed.
by galangalalgol | 2026-03-10 19:16:44+00:00
I think pointing to a single puppet master is reductive. Demography and geography predict essentially all of these changes. Protesting and civil disobedience can obviously tip matters, but the authoritarianism taking the us has been a long time coming just based on the centralization of federal power that started almost as soon as the ink was dry. The tendencies of landlocked resource heavy states are going to be authoritarian. Coastal trade based states will tend to go pluralist. Giant continent spanning states need coordination and continuity, so they go authoritarian. The federated nature of the original US, the EU and countries like Switzerland let those differing tendencies coexist. So once the US began centralizing power it was only a matter of time.

The fix is only barely in the realm of the possible. US states have to be given back their power, and the federal government must be limited to its original remit. This will let coastal states tend to pluralism, and resource heavy and or landlocked states tend to authoritarianism and as long as money and feet are free to cross state borders. It will all work out. Ditching first past the poles and mitigating gerrymandering would also obviously help.
Tell HN: It's official, I'm done with Claude
by ra0x3 | 2026-03-10 19:17:01+00:00
<rant>

After months of trying to give Claude (Opus 4) the benefit of the doubt, I simply can't ignore the truth anymore. It is just awfully bad compared to Codex (5). Anthropic being the smaller player, I've tried to be patient with, and faithfully pay my $100/mo, but at this point, Claude will readily do some of the dumbest $hit, and do it so _randomly_ that I simply can't justify paying my money to this anymore. When this subscription ends I'll almost exclusively dump it it into Codex $200/mo.

If anyone from Anthropic is reading this, Claude's ability to just randomly, at some point in the day - say/do what might be the literal most idiotic thing I've ever seen, causes me to almost get physically angry. I'm so dumbfounded by it. It's too eager, too fast, and often, too wrong.

</rant>
by oraphalous | 2026-03-10 19:17:33+00:00
Did you edit the wording of your original comment slightly to emphasise the "actively disallowing them" in every situation? Anyway... if that is what you meant, then ok. It's less awful a statement than what I felt I originally read.

I'd still push back on your hyperbole though. I don't think the author was insane - and we don't know what the broader business context was when they started growing the team and decided to persist without building out the test architecture at that point. They made a call that dogfooding was going to be enough to catch issues as they grew the team. There are a lot of scenarios where that is going to be true.

One scenario where it wouldn't - the most likely - is that the team isn't actually dogfooding because they personally don't find the product useful. Leadership lambasts them to use the product more... but no one does cause it sucks so much it impacts their own personal productivity.

Even there I wouldn't use the word insane... just poor leadership.
by adampunk | 2026-03-10 19:17:37+00:00
I think we are *for sure* in a bubble. There is a kind of venture-capital driven craze for compute because...well a whole host of silly and sensible reasons. It's hard to talk rationally about the money being thrown around if you have suspicions that billions of it are being thrown around because some dudes think they'll create god in the machine and own it, or that they have some theory of consciousness tied up in the matter. Animal spirits, in a sense.

Some of the money thrown around is by companies that want to lock in some kind of interdependency because the only downside they can conceive is Oracle or Dell or whoever invents AGI and they get left behind. So huge circular deals are getting made which increase the correlation coefficient for any collapse to 1 lmao. These deals are getting made for reasons that feel like 2004-2005 american real-estate, where the downside risk of a national profile of mortgages was actually (not joking) taught in textbooks to be 0. So naturally if you're maximizing revenue by making things interdependent, you really only consider the upside.

All these forward looking energy contracts and local generation of energy are signs that the market is under strain more than we expect increasingly exponential future use. Giant companies are thinking they're locking counterparties into the right risk structure (here with an energy company being somehow willing to foresake this infinite future energy price they could charge by just waiting), but really that energy company is perfectly happy to accept some money to start a project which will generate revenue long before electricity. That energy company has an idea of its own risk and revenue profile and they can extract money from a bubble, too.

I give us...months? Maybe 18 months--probably less--before things things get really nasty and messy for the firms who thought they were buying a golden ticket. It then gets messy for users (if not sooner) who are right now being subsidized nicely--not the ludicrous 5k being thrown around recently but compute is at a subsidy right now, so long as you want to rent it or can run a model like Qwen locally. Lots of other people are paying for that subsidy while extraordinary amounts of money flow from one part of computing to another. That's already having weird consequences as firms who spent money on what is essentially rental compute pushing their employees to use more of it in order to keep the person who made the contract safe. More companies will do the Microsoft route (no I'm not talking about Copilot!) and try to push tasks into their internal pipelines like MSFT does with Azure--where with e.g. github, what github needed to do took a back seat (literally haha) to integration with the compute pipeline. That's good-bad-whatever, depending on how you want to think about it. But it's certainly disruptive and I think right now a lot of genAI is doing that kind of disrupting, where people and orgs are being forced through money shaped holes.

I don't know what happens when the music stops. I just know that it is playing.
by Joel_Mckay | 2026-03-10 19:18:06+00:00
Not going to happen anytime soon, as the modern M4/ARM unified memory with on-chip GPU is years ahead of Intel. The software ecosystem is slowly growing to leverage this chip architecture, and due to the annoying PC RAM, SSD, and RTX GPU shenanigans it is no longer the lower value option.

The PC market was made shitty enough this year, that Mid/High class Mac Pro/laptops are actually often a better value deal now (if and only if your use-case is covered software wise.)

Intel does plan on a RTX + amd64 SoC soon, but still pooched the memory interface with a 30 year old mailbox kludge. Intel probably wont survive this choice without bailouts. =3
by tsimionescu | 2026-03-10 19:18:10+00:00
Magit is not an "application based on Emacs", it's an extremely powerful git plugin for someone who is already using Emacs. If you're not using Emacs, it would be crazy to fire up Magit just to do a git commit or rebase. Even the fact that you'd have to learn Emacs' extremely idiosyncratic keyboard shortcuts, and even keyboard shortcut help (what do you mean "save is C-x C-s?" what does that even mean?) is a huge problem not worth the effort.

And I'm saying this as someone who has exclusively programmed in Emacs with Magit for the last 5 years in my job.
by BloodAndCode | 2026-03-10 19:18:44+00:00
Did you try repeating the same mid-layer block more than once?

If the gain comes from giving the model another pass over its internal representation, I'd expect some sort of diminishing-returns curve as you add more repeats. But if those layers form a spevific circuit, running it multiple times might actually break the computation.

It would be really interesting to see which of those regims the model falls into.
by pintayo | 2026-03-10 19:19:09+00:00
Hi HN, I built OopsDB after letting Claude Code run wild in my terminal and watching it decide that the best way to fix a bug was to drop my dev database.

Everyone is chasing 100% automation with terminal agents right now, but giving an LLM raw database access is basically playing Russian roulette. Standard background backups aren't enough because AI works too fast.

So, I built a CLI tool with a local TCP proxy interceptor (oopsdb shield).

How it works:

It sits between your app/agent and the database (Postgres/MySQL).

It monitors the raw SQL traffic over the TCP stream.

If it detects a destructive command (DROP, TRUNCATE), it pauses the proxy stream.

It forces an emergency memory-safe snapshot (wrapping pg_dump/mysqldump with Node streams to prevent OOM errors on large DBs).

Once the snapshot is saved, it resumes the stream and lets the command through.

If the AI broke it, you run oopsdb restore to instantly roll back.

It's entirely local, open-source, and the credentials are AES-256 encrypted on disk. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the proxy implementation or if there are better ways to handle the TCP stream buffering.

NPM: npx oopsdb init
by nimasadri11 | 2026-03-10 19:19:34+00:00
I really like your post and agree with most things.
The one thing I am not fully sure about:

> Look at your app, describe a sequence of changes out loud, and watch them happen in front of you.

The problem a lot of times is that either you don't know what you want, or you can't communicate it (and usually you can't communicate it properly because you don't know exactly what you want). I think this is going to be the bottleneck very soon (for some people, it is already the bottleneck). I am curious what are your thoughts about this? Where do you see that going, and how do you think we can prepare for that and address that. Or do you not see that to be an issue?
by armenarmen | 2026-03-10 19:20:07+00:00
I don't disagree. It can (thankfully) take quite a while to get around to every dissenter. I also don't disagree that we have to wait for a particular milestone to compare ourselves to China/Russia.

Where you lose me is:
> I don't see much difference these days. Substitute wechat for X and that's the US for anyone non-white.

Again, I agree with you on most of your points. But I think you're doing yourself, and all freedom loving peoples a disservice by dividing the victims of this state action. Hence my sarcastic reply.

If there is to be any resistance to state over reach, telling the racial majority of the country that it doesn't happen to them or it's not a "white/euro american issue" is counterproductive at best.
by mrothroc | 2026-03-10 19:20:34+00:00
Senior review can definitely help, regardless if the code comes from a junior or an LLM. We've done this since the dawn of time. However, it doesn't scale and since LLM volume far exceeds what juniors can do, you end up overwhelming the seniors, who are normally overbooked anyway.

The other problem is that the type of errors LLMs make are different than juniors. There are huge sections of genuinely good code. So the senior gets "review fatigue" because so much looks good they just start rubber stamping.

I use an automated pipeline to generate code (including terraform, risking infrastructure nukes), and I am the senior reviewer. But I have gates that do a whole range of checks, both deterministic and stochastic, before it ever gets to me. Easy things are pushed back to the LLM for it to autofix. I only see things where my eyes can actually make a difference.

Amazon's instinct is right (add a gate), but the implementation is wrong (make it human). Automated checks first, humans for what's left.
by john_strinlai | 2026-03-10 19:20:55+00:00
>cards don't work perfectly as age verification either.

there are 0 "perfect" age verification systems.

plenty of minors can have their brother/sister/parents supply their id, or do the verification video. the on-device verification discord rolled out was, within hours, broken. i remember news reports of kids submitting photos of their dogs and being verified as of-age.

credit card solves most of the problem with much less downside than submitting my face (i am already okay putting my card info into most sites)
by zoeysmithe | 2026-03-10 19:21:09+00:00
This is really ableist. Sociopaths? Most people in charge of running companies from top to mid-level are average people, even if some dark-triad coded people exist. What you're angry at is what capitalism is supposed to do: maximize value for the the capital owning class, that is to say ownership. There was never some engineer owned utopia. Business culture has always been this way, in fact, its only been worse in the past pre-socialist/labor movement times, not just with labor (child labor, long hours, dangerous conditions, etc) but also product (poison put in bread to make it cheaper, etc.) There is no way out of this dynamic in capitalism because this is all fundamental to capitalism.
by dougdonohoe | 2026-03-10 19:21:18+00:00
I've never heard of Hugo until I saw subpixel's comment. I was curious and asked Claude if I could have built my site using it. Claude's response:

Short answer: technically yes, but it would be a worse fit and require real workarounds.

Here's why your project strains Hugo's model:

The core mismatch — client-side JSON fetching. Your architecture has photogen generate static JSON index files, and then the SvelteKit frontend fetches those at runtime in the browser. This is intentional — it means the HTML shell is pre-built and tiny, and photo data loads dynamically. Hugo assumes it will have all content at build time and bake it into HTML. Your approach of loading JSON client-side is fundamentally at odds with Hugo's philosophy.

PhotoSwipe lightbox + swipe gestures. This is a JavaScript-heavy component for the full-screen photo viewer with swipe, keyboard navigation, and captions. Hugo doesn't prevent you from using JS, but you'd be bolting it on rather than having it as a first-class part of your component model. Managing that in Svelte components vs. Hugo templates is a real quality-of-life difference.

Shareable photo permalinks (e.g. /albums/patagonia/5) that resolve client-side — this kind of dynamic routing within a static shell is SvelteKit's bread and butter. In Hugo you'd have to either pre-generate a page per photo (slow builds, lots of files) or do ugly JS hacks.

Dark/light theme toggle, justified grid layout, OpenGraph tags — these are all doable in Hugo, but you'd essentially be writing a SvelteKit app inside Hugo's templating language, which is less ergonomic.

The bottom line: Hugo shines when your content is known at build time and the interactivity needs are minimal. Your site has a static shell but runtime-dynamic data loading and a rich JS-driven UI. That's exactly the gap SvelteKit fills. Hugo looks applicable at a glance — but once you look at what the site actually does, SvelteKit is the right call.
by heavyset_go | 2026-03-10 19:21:42+00:00
> If you sign off the code and put your expertise and reputation behind it, AI becomes just an advanced autocomplete tool and, as such, should not count in “no AI” rules.

No, it's not that simple. AI generated code isn't owned by anyone, it can't be copyrighted, so it cannot be licensed.

This matters for open source projects that care about licensing. It should also matter for proprietary code bases, as anyone can copy and distribute "their" AI generated code for any purpose, including to compete with the "owner".
by MSFT_Edging | 2026-03-10 19:23:05+00:00
Personally it's the fact they introduced such an extreme and opinionated UI design change, but then couldn't be bothered to roll it out consistently. The old window radii were fine. Sequoia looked good. The OS felt good as a whole. Then we get an update where you have a very opinionated theme forced on you in a half-assed fashion. If you could just disable it, return to classic radii, it'd be a nothing burger and Apple would roll it back if enough people disabled it.

But that's not how apple works.
by dagi3d | 2026-03-10 19:23:18+00:00
sorry, still don't get no tests as an excuse to go faster. obviously ymmv, but you will need to test your implementation somehow, and manual testing usually takes more time than running your automated tests. no need to over test, but definitely tests doesn't mean it will slow you down, unless you don't know how to test, which in that case, that's totally up to you.
by hkonte | 2026-03-10 19:23:36+00:00
The style guide approach works because it gives the output format signal its own dedicated space rather than burying it inside the task instructions.

A cleaner version: put your LaTeX rendering expectations in a dedicated output_format block, separate from the task description. Claude parses tagged XML blocks independently, so the formatting directive doesn't get diluted by surrounding context.

That's the pattern behind flompt (github.com/Nyrok/flompt), a prompt builder with a dedicated output_format block type. Worth trying if you're iterating on rendering behavior across different prompts.
by oraphalous | 2026-03-10 19:23:38+00:00
Again - that's a business decision that needs to be made in the context of that business. The fact that testing was forbidden isn't in itself good or bad. It depends on that business context. THe post says nothing about how that decision was made, whether it was discussed, or if it was just his absolutist ideal he imposed without consideration of the broader cost-benefit.

And I still feel the original comment doesn't give this point enough weight.
by badsectoracula | 2026-03-10 19:23:55+00:00
This isn't an issue of "nobody can use this" but an "everyone can use this", i.e. projects can use AI generated code just fine and they own the copyright to any modifications they do to it.

Think of it like random noise in an image editor: you do own the random pixels since they're generated by the computer, but you can still use them as part of making your art - you do not lose copyright to your art because you used a random noise filter.
by vidimitrov | 2026-03-10 19:24:31+00:00
The data retention example is the most interesting part of this. The ECL didn't just learn the rule, it learned why the rule exists - reps kept getting it wrong. That's a different thing entirely. Most knowledge systems store the conclusion and quietly lose the reasoning that produced it.

Which makes me wonder: how does the maintenance agent know when to revisit a rule like that? "Feature X ships in Q3" is easy - facts go stale and you can detect it. But "don't let reps answer data retention questions" - that rule could still look valid in the ECL long after the original reasons for it stopped applying. Does it track enough of its own provenance to catch that kind of drift?