MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by nephihaha | 2026-03-06 13:23:29+00:00
Not just an American thing. Some people around are bad. In the last year or two, I've seen people in my circle who stole hundreds of pounds off a small charity, two or three who were involved in stalking/harassment, physical bullies and persistent liars. It is very difficult for me to consider any of those people involved "morally good" when they did those things.
by ForHackernews | 2026-03-06 13:24:42+00:00
> Step 2: The AI bot executes arbitrary code. Claude interpreted the injected instruction as legitimate and ran npm install pointing to the attacker's fork - a typosquatted repository (glthub-actions/cline, note the missing 'i' in 'github'). The fork's package.json contained a preinstall script that fetched and executed a remote shell script.

Even leaving aside the security nightmare of giving an LLM unrestricted access on your repo, you'd think the bots would be GOOD at spotting small details like typosquatted domains.
by keiferski | 2026-03-06 13:27:20+00:00
My requirements for someone's ethical opinions to be "valid" are that they don't criticize the field of ethics as useless. I guess that is a "requirement" I have, but it's a pretty nitpicking, useless distinction to make.

If someone criticizes the French language, but doesn't speak a word of French, sorry, but I don't have much respect for their opinion on French.

And no, I don't "assume they aren't well thought out," because many of these people have explicitly said philosophy is a waste of time.
by pron | 2026-03-06 13:27:54+00:00
Of course, but I was responding to a comment that contrasted "believing in AI" with the stock market. People believed in the internet, it still led to a bubble and a market crash, and that didn't mean those people were wrong. Part of the cause for a bubble, then and now, is that you can't invest in a technology, only in companies. Investors want to invest in AI, but they can't, so they invest in OpenAI, which may well go bankrupt. Those early internet pioneers didn't deliver on the inflated financial expectations from them even while the internet as a whole eventually did.

What's interesting to me is how quickly the big AI labs are losing their competitive edge even before becoming profitable. Models that are less than one year behind the leading ones are effectively commoditised already. If OpenAI and Anthropic disappear tomorrow, it will be no more than a brief inconvenience to LLM users. They're spending a lot of money for an almost negligible advantage.
Show HN: Cc-clip – Paste images into remote Claude Code over SSH
by M1nG | 2026-03-06 13:28:21+00:00
Running Claude Code on a remote server via SSH means Ctrl+V image paste doesn't work —
xclip reads the server's clipboard, not your local Mac's.

cc-clip fixes this with a transparent bridge:

Local Mac clipboard → HTTP daemon → SSH tunnel → xclip shim → Claude Code

A local daemon serves your clipboard over loopback. SSH RemoteForward tunnels it to the
remote. A bash shim intercepts exactly the two xclip calls Claude Code makes and fetches
images through the tunnel. Everything else passes through to real xclip.

cc-clip setup myserver

One command: installs deps, configures SSH, starts daemon, deploys to remote.

Security: loopback-only, session-scoped token (12h TTL), token via stdin not args.

macOS → Linux (amd64/arm64). v0.2.0 just released. Looking for feedback on different
distros, Wayland setups, and edge cases.

https://github.com/ShunmeiCho/cc-clip

---
3. X/Twitter

I built cc-clip — paste images into remote Claude Code over SSH, as if it were local.

Local clipboard → SSH tunnel → xclip shim → Claude Code

One command setup:
$ cc-clip setup myserver

No changes to Claude Code. Works with any terminal.

Looking for feedback & bug reports

github.com/ShunmeiCho/cc-clip

#ClaudeCode #SSH #DevTools
by zimpenfish | 2026-03-06 13:30:13+00:00
> Do we really need notifications, messages, phone calls, cameras, bluetooth, snapchat, remote control, heart rate monitoring and more in our wristwatches?

We? Maybe? Maybe not? Me? Yes, 100% Well, except Snapchat.

(Pro tip: Try not using your experience and desires as a guide/requirement for the larger populace - you'll feel a lot better about the world and yourself when you get the hang of it.)

> Anything else I can do with my phone or laptop.

The heart rate monitoring? Not nearly as accurate using a phone camera as a wrist-mounted multi-LED watch. Also I tend not to have my finger over my phone camera with a heartrate app running 24/7 - I find it gets in the way of actually using my phone for other stuff.
by jnsquire | 2026-03-06 13:30:14+00:00
I'm posting this a little early to see if I can get some additional user/developer feedback. I started this a few months back as a "let's see what I can do with AI" type of project, and it's finally gotten to the point where it's useful, so I wanted to get it out there for comments while I work on some other ideas I've got in mind.

Yes, this was heavily "vibe-coded", but I've also got 15 years of experience working on Python dev tooling, so I had some very specific ideas in mind for how this should work, and I've spent a fair amount of effort guiding the development to where I wanted it to go.
by zskov | 2026-03-06 13:30:38+00:00
Hi HN — I originally built flospect for myself while delivering automation services to clients. I needed a single place to catalog flows, keep documentation from drifting, and run testing without messy spreadsheets.

What it is: a centralized catalog + visual canvas for automation flows. From the same structured flow representation, flospect generates:

AI documentation / playbooks

AI test & implementation protocols (covering decision paths and edge cases)

It’s aimed at people building automations across tools like Copilot Studio, Power Automate, n8n, Zapier, Make, etc.

How to try: https://flospect.io/

There’s a free plan, but signup is required to create/save flows (since flows/projects are tied to a workspace).

I’d love feedback on:

1.What are the biggest pain points in delivering flow automation services to clients?
2. What would make you trust AI-generated documentation and test protocols?
by sillyfluke | 2026-03-06 13:31:00+00:00
No one should apologize for feeling conflicted while giving an issue considerable thought. Constantly reassessing your position based on the changing nature of the world should be encouraged to be the default approach.("Constantly" within reason of course).

I can imagine some Americans making a decision based on the threat of other authortarian states and being left completely bewildered when they have to grapple with the notion that their government may be the bigger threat to their own security.
by myrmidon | 2026-03-06 13:31:12+00:00
If you want to shift tax burden from very wealthy Americans onto average citizens, what do you hope to achieve with that?

What is the purpose of taxation then, in your view?

> I don’t think that wealth inequality is a problem

I have a very hard time understanding this perspective.

Wealth can already buy (directly or indirectly) all forms of property, political power and even legal outcomes. I see no real way to remedy any of that, so it seems clear to me that (wealth) inequality must be somewhat kept in check to prevent our society from degenerating into some form of neo-feudalism.

What is your view on that? Do you want a society more strongly stratified by wealth? (why?)

Would you want to provide less equal opportunity in life for Americans is general, or would that be an undesirable side-effect?

Sorry for asking apparently loaded questions-- I'm genuinely trying to understand your viewpoint, and attacking the points that seem most critical from my view.
by NalNezumi | 2026-03-06 13:31:40+00:00
I've discussed Elite Overproduction with some economists and the best way for me to conceptualize this in modern day is with software, UI/design specifically.

UI and design is weird. There's a saying in fashion "there's no new fashion, just cycled old ideas" and things have a trend cycle. UI have a similar trend, as we can see with IOS pattern update and icon update for Google: they're just new, but we can't really tell if it's "better". But UI designer still require busywork to justify their existence and salary, so we get new UIs now and then. Part of it just falls under the bullshit job category [1]

When we ponder upon this, it boggles down to the fact that it's notoriously hard to distinguish "value creation" vs "value extraction". If I invent a fridge and it become commercially available or cheap enough so that people previously not able to purchase it can buy it, it's fairly easy to see it as value being created. A duopoly diluting milk with water to increase the profit margin, a search engine monopoly intentionally worsening it's search engine so we have to search twice (=twice the use!), a white ware company implementing planned obsolescence but better UI, looks good on the profit and balance sheet but was value now created, or extracted?

Elite overproduction, though this scope, is not about some 1% but most "middle class and up" that doesn't really do anything meaningful (bullshit job, value extraction) in society but expects titles and yearly salary increase.

This is not an issue when a society genuinely have room to grow (value creation is ample) but when the growth is harder to come by, but new generation expectations haven't changed. Then more jobs are created to extract value, and the burden start to bubble up

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs
Show HN: Confidential Inference Provider Comparison
by aaaljaz | 2026-03-06 13:31:41+00:00
I've built https://confidentialinference.net/ to make it easy for myself (and others) to explore which confidential inference providers exist and more importantly which models are available and how much they cost.

The pricing varies significantly across providers as you can see on https://confidentialinference.net/models.

Data collection is semi-automated as some providers make it very hard to find the information at all, let alone pull it automatically. If anyone knows of any other provider that isn't on the list let me know.
by m000 | 2026-03-06 13:32:03+00:00
ECC has only 10-15% more transistor count. So you're only making one component of the computer 15% more expensive. This should have been a non-brainer, at least before the recent DRAM price hikes.

Also, while computers may not be used much for cosmic rays to be a risk factor, but they're still susceptible to rowhammer-style attacks, which ECC memory makes much harder.

Finally, if you account for the current performance loss due to rowhammer counter-measures, the extra cost of ECC memory is partially offset.
by bayindirh | 2026-03-06 13:32:08+00:00
The project management book we used in the university noted that if a person refused to work on weapons/military systems and similar, there's no other choice than to respect that, and even asking for its reasons would be borderline unacceptable (depending on your closeness with said person).

Now the only reason models trained on any and every public data can't be attached to autonomous weapons is that we didn't fed enough data to these systems to carry this tasks reliably yet.

You said the overton window is moved, yet there's no window to discuss about in today's world. As a human being you either get exploited or get exploded. In either case human is the product. We just serve machines at this point.
by dotancohen | 2026-03-06 13:32:59+00:00
Yes, agreed. Mainland China is not under any threat from Taiwan, for instance.

However, the Iranians chant Death To America regularly and openly. They have both an active nuclear program and a means to deliver a nuclear weapon. They are also heavy funders of anti-American militias and groups. It is incumbent upon the Americans to ensure that the Iranians do not achieve their nuclear ambitions.
by KaiserPro | 2026-03-06 13:34:26+00:00
> the ownership should reside with the thinker.

Assuming that you are a programmer, when you think back to your contract, you will have noticed something like "The employee agrees to that any works created during employment will be solely owned by $company_name"

Copyright _should_ be about allowing workers to make money from the non physical stuff that they produce.

Google spent many many millions undermining that so they could run youtube, the news service and google books (amongst other things.

Disney bought most of congress to do the opposite.

At it's heart copyright is a tool that allows you and me to make a living. However its evolved into a system that allows large corporations to make and hold monopolies.

Now that large corporations can see an opportunity to cut employees out of the system entirely, they are quite happy with AI companies undermining copyright, just so long as they can keep charging for auto generated content.

TLDR:
copyright is automatically assigned to the creator of the specific work, not the thinker.

ie thinker: "build me a box with two yellow rabbit ears"

The text is copyright of the "thinker"

maker: builds a box with yellow rabbit ears Unless the yellow rabbit ears are a specific and recognisable of the thinker's work, its not infringement.
by noelwelsh | 2026-03-06 13:34:29+00:00
This article would benefit from an introduction that lays out the structure of what is to come. I'm expecting an article on effect systems, but it jumps straight into a chunky section on the implementation of function calls. I'm immediately wondering why this is here, and what is has to do with effect systems.

Also, this is a very operational description: how it works. It's also possible to give a denotational description: what it means. Having both is very useful. I find that people tend to start with the operational and then move to the denotational.
by llm_nerd | 2026-03-06 13:35:47+00:00
"Even though Canada has the highest percentage of workers with higher education in the G7, the nation's productivity ranks lower than every other nation's in this group except Japan. ... By August 2024, Canada's youth unemployment rate was 14.5%, the highest seen since 2012."

A lot of does-not-follow suppositions are embedded in this. Nor does the article really seem to be talking about "elites", as career training is not some elite status.

During the period in question Canada saw outrageous levels of immigration. The highest population growth, in absolute numbers, in the developed world. It was incredibly destructive.

https://dennisforbes.ca/blog/features/10000_brainiacs/

It was kind of the apogee of a problem that had grown for years, where Canada had leaned on low-cost, exploitable imported labour to avoid salary pressures, with that avoiding modernizing, automation, etc. With that massive immigration bulge we also moved to a housing-based economy where people no longer cared about normal avenues of entrepreneurial effort, but instead everyone became real estate speculators. Why start a business when you can just stand in line for some pre-con condos on the notion that you'll flip it at a big gain when complete. Or buy some dilapidated house and become a slumlord for a dozen international students.

It was perverse incentive, and has been a lost decade for the country.
by amtamt | 2026-03-06 13:36:02+00:00
Just one question, why maintainer is hell bent on using existing name and removing LGPL and not create an entirely new project by new name and new license (after all this is completely new code... right)?

First reason would be use the "name recall", and second guess would be to do another rug-pull to re-licence under some other conditions.

> It's owned by the maintainer

This is completely in-correct. GPL and variants (FOSS, not OSS) were meant to make software free of "any ownership".
by mystraline | 2026-03-06 13:36:10+00:00
> What's new is people treating the chatbox as a source of holy truth and trusting it unquestioningly just because it speaks English. That's weird. Why is that happening?

"People" in this case is primarily the CxO class.

Why is AI being shoved everywhere, and trusted as well? Because it solves a 2 Trillion dollar problem.

Wages.
by tialaramex | 2026-03-06 13:36:44+00:00
> Just cus structs and classes work differently

The most common programming language where "struct" and "class" are both kinds of user defined type is C++. In C++ they only "work differently" in that the default accessibility is different, a "struct" is the same as a "class" if you change the accessibility to public at the top with an access specifier.

If you think you saw a bigger difference you're wrong.
by sigbottle | 2026-03-06 13:37:06+00:00
Oh wow. I have noticed the GPT series was far more arrogant than its results showed sometimes (and unironically it digs in its heels even further when questioned on it). Opus rarely has this problem - but it goes a little too far in the opposite direction. Not totally sycophantic, but sometimes it can't differentiate genuine technical pushback because something is impossible, from suggestions or exploration.
by txrx0000 | 2026-03-06 13:37:33+00:00
The idea is to let parents decide which apps are suitable for their child, for each child. Password-gating app installation (just like sudo on Linux) is not only easier to implement and use, but also much more flexible and powerful than a fixed age-based rating system.

It also prevents the legitimization of app store monopolies because no centralized authority is needed to create or enforce a rating system. And there will always be apps that don't comply with a rating system out of privacy concerns (it leaks the user's age, which is just an extra data point to track you with), and then they'll eventually try to ban non-compliant apps from running on the device completely. That's what enforcing an age-based standard would take. And even then it would still not fulfill its (claimed) purpose that well.

Principle-wise, parenting should be the responsibility of parents, not governments or corporations. Those large organizations have their own agendas which are somewhat misaligned with the individual human being.
by barry-cotter | 2026-03-06 13:37:33+00:00
> Executive Summary
Citizens’ Assemblies, in which a representative selection of members of the public
are invited to consider policy on contentious areas, are increasingly in the news.
Supporters claim they will enhance public confidence in democracy, and could
also break the deadlock on issues from assisted dying to climate change. They are
claimed to give politicians and policy makers insight into what an informed
common ground might look like.
This paper examines the case for these claims. We have reviewed over 700
initiatives covered in an OECD database, focusing in particular on 17 examples
from Ireland, several US states and two Canadian provinces where the
deliberation of a citizens’ assembly was followed by a public vote on the same
subject. We have then analysed the results in the light of academic literature on
political behaviour and opinion forming.
Our conclusion is that citizens’ assemblies are a poor predictor of what the public
is likely to decide if asked. With the recommendation of citizens’ assemblies
rejected on 10 out of 17 occasions, they are worse at forecasting the public mood
than tossing a coin. Even in cases where assemblies were praised for anticipating
the popular vote, like on abortion or gay marriage in Ireland, the winning margin
at the assembly was around 40 percentage points higher than at the referendum.
The error is consistently in the same direction - assemblies were more supportive
than the general public of progressive policies on 15 of 17 occasions1 and the
proportion of people who voted for the progressive option was, on average, 25
percentage points higher in the citizens’ assembly than in the subsequent
referendum. Even when every effort is made to conduct them robustly, the
structure of these assemblies seems highly vulnerable to a series of biases, in
particular selection bias, issue framing and ‘polarization effects’ – a type of group
think. There is good evidence that the contentious issues for which they are most
often proposed, like assisted dying, might be the very ones for which citizens’
assemblies are least suited.
by liveoneggs | 2026-03-06 13:38:31+00:00
In a few of his videos he directly criticizes china and has a hilarious lecture about communism being a capitalist joke but I think it's more like a 150+ hour Joe Rogan episode.

His claim to fame is the one where he correctly predicts Trump's win and the current war with Iran, etc.

Addressing your question - he has hours of lectures exploring western culture - the greeks, christianity, rome, germany - the paints them in a really positive way from what I've seen so, if anything, he is indoctrinating people into western culture.

ref: https://www.youtube.com/@PredictiveHistory/videos
by dotancohen | 2026-03-06 13:38:35+00:00
Yes, agreed 100%. Some groups see it as their mission to dominate Eastern Europe, or the entire Middle East, or the entire southern Asian continent. The smaller states in the areas are under constant threat.

However in the case of Iran, who openly calls for the destruction of America and is blatantly developing technology that seriously threaten America and other Middle Eastern states, decisive military action to prevent the threat is important. Don't watch the bully themself and wait for him to confront you, when he is telling you the whole time his intention to destroy you.
by 4ggr0 | 2026-03-06 13:38:41+00:00
if "depropagandizing westerners and showing them the bad and ugly sides of the systems they live in" can be seen as destabilization, then maybe it is indeed time for some destabilization :)

investigative journalism, activism, historical game theory analysis. makes people smarter, and makes it harder for the elites to lie to their people.

your take gives me the same feelings i have about how we handle africa, asia and latin america. "We can't pay them fair wages and let them control their own resources, that would collapse our system", "sounds to me like our system is built on exploitation and oppression and deserves to collapse".
by Steve16384 | 2026-03-06 13:38:43+00:00
I've had this before, a few years ago, and a quick google at the time seemed to show that a fair few other people have. I'm in the UK, and about 6 months after buying something small from China (iirc), we got an £10 invoice for a "disbursement fee" from Fedex. It was very vague as to what the fee was actually for. I assume it was just a "scam" by Fedex to get more money.
by jmyeet | 2026-03-06 13:39:19+00:00
There's a double-whammy here of the Myth of Meritocracy under capitalism and Prosperity Gospel under Protestantism.

After the Civil War we compensated slave owners. After the GFC we bailed out the banks. The government giving money to poor people is somehow a moral hazard yet the wealthy not only expect government handouts, they demand them.

What's interesting AI is I think many people in tech don't yet realize how this is going to impact them. Jobs losses, depressed wages, unpaid extra work and constant layoff churn. The heady heights of the 2010s will seem like a fairy tale.

Except this time, unlike a century ago, there is no labor movement. It's been decimated. There is no effective pushback against further wealth concentration to like 100,000 people. The Jeff Bezoes of the world will demand even more government money so they can have $205 billion instead of $200 billion and things will get really bad until eventually we have a Russian or french type revolution.

Too many people think it's a big club when it isn't. As George Carlin said, you're not in it [1]. People actively advocate for their own worsening material conditions because they're deluded into thinking they'll be Jeff Bezos one day.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nyvxt1svxso