MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by skydhash | 2026-03-02 00:07:45+00:00
The one reason I can't care about these kind of arguments is that you're describing the solution, not the problem. Based on my career (maybe shorter than yours), usually you put juniors on projects of low complexity and low impact while you play the mentor role. It's not about them being a productive worker or a menial helper, it's for them to train using practical projects. Your problems don't look like suitable projects unless you want them to train them in copy-pasta from the Internet.
by butILoveLife | 2026-03-02 00:08:15+00:00
I don't have any skin in the game, but people should be aware of Induction vs Deduction.

Induction had the earth at the center of the solar system and had the best calculations to predict where Mars was. Copernicus said earth was at the center, the equations were simpler, but were worse at predicting the location of planets.(until we figured out they moved in ellipses)

When we say "All swans are white, because I've never seen a black swan." Its probabilistically true. That is induction. If we found swans didn't have the gene to make black feathers, that would be deduction.

Deduction is probably the most true, if it is true. (But it is often 100% wrong)

Induction is always semi true.

Quantum mechanics seems to be in the stage of induction. Particles are like the earth at the center of the solar system. We need a Copernican revolution.
by markhahn | 2026-03-02 00:08:21+00:00
Maybe I'm not getting it. Doesn't the problem start with ever deleting a passkey?
That is: how do you ever know you don't need it anymore?

Also, what is the alternative? Just a password that you store in the vault? Seems like deleting those gets you back to the same place (with all the disadvantage of a plain password).
by flyblackbox | 2026-03-02 00:09:30+00:00
Thanks for sharing that. I hadn’t heard of Zest before and it mirrors some of the user interface designs I’ve been working on.

Did you use Zest? What aspects of it worked well or failed in practice? It’s cool that some of the work ended up in Google Wave. I always thought that was an amazing product, I was so sure it was going to replace email and then it ended so abruptly.
by raw_anon_1111 | 2026-03-02 00:10:03+00:00
I can absolutely guarantee you that a junior dev or even a senior dev could do complicated IAC as fast as AI. It isn’t that knowing the architecture is the problem, it’s just very tedious. You have to look up all of the properties involved for each service and each property of each resource. I trust AI to know proper AWS architecture from being trained on the total corpus of the internet more than a junior dev.
by hyperadvanced | 2026-03-02 00:10:19+00:00
If you’re lazy at promoting the machine (“boss mode”) then you get bad/lazy results. If you’re clever with it, then you get more clever results.

None of that points to any sort of interiority, and that is the category error you’re making. In fact, not even all humans have that kind of interiority, and it’s not necessarily a must have for being functional at a variety of tasks. LLM are literally not “running human culture as code” - that just isn’t what an LLM is. I’ll read the link, though.

Edit: read it and it’s not for me. All the best.
by 0x457 | 2026-03-02 00:10:27+00:00
I switched to zellij, but I made more like my tmux was because I didn't want to learn new binding; C-q activates tmux mode. C-q + g locks so I can pass through comamnds to inner zellij. C-g unlocks. on super+enter for it opens a ghostty it and atached it to zellij session named $(hostname).

On reboot it remembers my tabs and panels and even commands that ran inside last (i.e there is popup in every panel that had something runing to run it again or just open a terminal)

Before my great wayland migration I ran patched st and it was great. Terminal job is render what terminal multi-plexer gives it and passes input to multiplexer.
by LoganDark | 2026-03-02 00:10:49+00:00
It really helps to learn in an environment where failure isn't emotionally catastrophic. If you only talk to people that are interesting or important to you, then you can end up learning the wrong things because failure hits so hard. The desperation this can create will further serve to drive people away!

People need to feel like it's safe to develop relations with you, rather than like you're trying to manipulate them into doing so, which is what happens when you learn only from very hard failures.
by Nevermark | 2026-03-02 00:11:00+00:00
> The part that I have trouble wrapping around with many worlds interpretation is how I as an observer end up in one of the many bifurcations.

Pour water down a hill. Water clings to water, and we have hills that already have lots of correlations. We get streams that break up into multiple streams.

How did one stream end up where it is? It seems like a good question, but it is circular. The stream is defined by where it is. You are here (in some circumstance), because the version of you in this circumstance is you.

A transporter accident that creates several versions of you, on several planets with difference colors, doesn't need to explain to each version how they ended up at a planet with their color. Even if for a particular copy, it seems like there should be an answer why they showed up on a planet of a particular specific color. The "why" is just, all paths were taken.
by Joker_vD | 2026-03-02 00:11:24+00:00
> MWI proponents have always argued decoherence leads to the entire world being put into superposition as decoherence just spreads entanglement to the environment.

Well, duh. It's not like classic objects actually exist, or the classical/quantum divide: everything is quantum, including the "observers". The "classical observer" is a crude approximation that breaks down to a pointy enough question. Just like shorting the perfect battery (with zero internal resistance) with a perfect wire (with zero external resistance) — this scenario is not an approximation of any possible real scenario so it's paradoxicality (infinite current!) is irrelevant.
by Const-me | 2026-03-02 00:11:34+00:00
Indeed, but these normal APIs have runtime costs for bounds checking. For some use cases, unsafe can be better. For instance, last time I used a memory-mapped file was for a large immutable Bloom filter. I knew the file should be exactly 4GB, validated that in the constructor, then when testing 12 bits from random location of the mapped file on each query, I opted for unsafe codes.
by gizmodo59 | 2026-03-02 00:12:09+00:00
It’s disgusting how they have successfully fooled people into thinking they are the good guys. They partnered with palantir, let them freely do the dirty work and once they realized they can make money directly they spin the PR and just trying to get more users. Well played.

I wish oss models are good so that we don’t have to deal with either leading companies!
by thwarted | 2026-03-02 00:12:33+00:00
This position that no wrongdoing or illegal action can be discouraged because someone has to eat, or because it's "regular people" who have accountability because of who they decided to have manage their investments is getting old. Accountability has been diluted so much that no one is accountable. What about the people who are harmed, the victims, your grandparents, teachers, all sorts of regular people. Nothing is going to get better if we're constantly looking for the most appropriate person to place blame on. Maybe people should be paying more attention to the things they invest in/own.
by westurner | 2026-03-02 00:12:57+00:00
I found buzzwords for this; Quantum-Resistant Decentralized PKI / DNS:

Multilinear/Hash-based VCs and Sum-Check protocol for Stateless PKI (with Sparse Merkle Tree (SMT))

PKI-over-Log with Hyper-Trees, Decentralized PKI (DPKI), XMSS^MT, M-FORS and F-SPHINCS+ (stateless),

"Spartan: Efficient and General-purpose zkSNARKs without Trusted Setup" (2020) https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-56877-1_... :

- Spartan implements the Sum-Check protocol with Multilinear Polynomial Commitments, which is hash-based like XMSS and SPHINCS+ (unlike Verkle trees which are built on KZG which relies on the "Discrete Logarithm Problem" (which Shor’s broke)).
by racingmars | 2026-03-02 00:13:18+00:00
> very common OS feature since 90s

And if you want to go farther back, even if it wasn't called "mmap" or a specific function you had to invoke -- there were operating systems that used a "single-level store" (notably MULTICS and IBM's AS/400..err OS/400... err i5 OS... err today IBM i [seriously, IBM, pick a name and stick with it]) where the interface to disk storage on the platform is that the entire disk storage/filesystem is always mapped into the same address space as the rest of your process's memory. Memory-mapped files were basically the only interface there was, and the operating system "magically" persisted certain areas of your memory to permanent storage.
by ninjasmosa | 2026-03-02 00:15:05+00:00
You still get much better privacy with GrapheneOS even if you install Google apps since they are sandboxed; they don't have access to unique device identifiers and you can control what Google can access by adjusting its permissions, as opposed to having full reign to do whatever it wants. Also you don't have to use all the Google apps, plenty of open source and/or privacy respecting alternatives out there.
Pixel Camera only needs Google Photos for the photo previewer, everything else works without it or you can install gcam services provider to use any gallery you want
by Nevermark | 2026-03-02 00:16:40+00:00
> The problem with Many Worlds is that it doesn't place a bound on the number of worlds, so you can't derive the Born Rule from it.

I have no idea what this means.

Is there a bound on anything in reality, in terms of scale? Beyond its own laws?

I am reminded of how often in history, too much time, or too much scale, were unsuccessful arguments against many theories we accept today. Those critiques died without any need for special arguments, because they don't have a logical basis.

Also, there are not a number of many "worlds". That is a reflection of poor naming. There is an interleaving of all interactions, so if you zoom out, a smeared landscape across all configurations, from the plank scale up.

Because the connections involve both intersection (entanglement) and union (alternate paths), we get bifurcation of classical sized paths (dense entanglements), while the individual particles continue unconcerned by how they appear to create different classical histories at large scale.

And yes it is experimentally validated. This is the theory that everyone accepts in the lab, even as larger scales of experiment continue to progress.

But some people have difficulty believing/visualizing that it continues to work at larger scales. Despite no scale limitation in the theory, no scale related violations ever suggested experimentally, and the strong likely that scale limitations would produce new physics in at-scale observations of our cosmos if they did exist.
by salawat | 2026-03-02 00:16:59+00:00
It's actually in some verticals of the American industrial/business sector a bit of a shibboleth I think. There's a certain mentality around "visible conspicuous consumption" that is a signal to those in the upper class that you're a prime candidate for leaning on. You're hungry, will do anything to stay where you are, and can be relied upon to "play ball with the big boys" in part because if you don't, and try to take them down, they know what you did to get there. Someone who doesn't participate in such is something to be wary of. Less purchase for manipulation. Possibly an indication of a lesser degree of skin in the game. An indication of different priors I guess. I've often wondered if there's a similar distrust between the nouveau riche and old money for similar reasons. Wouldn't know myself though. Haven't bumped around in quite those high circles myself.
by tim-tday | 2026-03-02 00:17:46+00:00
Weird. Half a dozen comments calling this LLM generated. Doesn’t strike me as that. Maybe English as a second language or someone trying to dumb down their language. Maybe I’m out of touch.

The thing that bothers me is repeated references to “psychologists say” but no reference to peer reviewed science, just other articles on the same site.
by just6979 | 2026-03-02 00:18:09+00:00
"when it worked, it worked" is one of the weakest excuses possible, and one Apple themselves railed against many times. Not working at all (ie: broken) is quite worse than not working beyond perfectly.

Who cares if you can't press a key on the very edge, as long as pressing in the proper spot _always_ works? The one that did accept blatant mis-presses was broken often enough to completely overwhelm any benefits, because it can't accept _any_ presses when it's in for repairs!

"I like the keyboard that let me be a bad typist, even though I had to get it replaced 3 times, and that lack of robustness actually interfered with my work." Are you listening to yourselves?
by lazarus01 | 2026-03-02 00:18:15+00:00
Great article. I def experienced this new form of burnout. I’ve gotten use to working with AI systems to produce code, mainly the velocity of code production. It took me four months to develop an intuition of how to maintain a healthy pace and when to rest. I still feel that the pace is very fast, but my ability to consume code and update my mental model has improved. I try my best not to push past a certain point. I feel once the cognitive load is at capacity, you’re going to reduce quality in your outputs. So I’ve given myself a set threshold that I won’t cross. If things are slower, so be it. It’s not worth the added stress to have completed functioning code, with outsize cognitive debt.
by avaer | 2026-03-02 00:18:45+00:00
In a nutshell: Google wants your websites to be more easily used by the agents they are putting in the browser and other products.

They own the user layer and models, and get to decide if your product will be used.

Think search monopoly, except your site doesn't even exist as far as users are concerned, it's only used via an agent, and only if Google allows.

The work of implementing this is on you. Google is building the hooks into the browser for you to do it; that's WebMCP.

It's all opaque; any oopsies/dark patterns will be blamed on the AI. The profits (and future ad revenue charged for sites to show up on the LLM's radar) will be claimed by Google.

The other AI companies are on board with this plan. Any questions?
by sammyjoze1 | 2026-03-02 00:19:51+00:00
Most AI chatbots are just prompt wrappers—they can talk, but they can’t actually do anything. I built Chatr to be an all-in-one agent that understands your business first, then runs it.

It crawls your entire site (products, pricing, and docs) so it stays grounded in your brand. From one widget, it handles:

Support & Ticketing: AI responses with human escalation that preserves the full thread context.

Bookings: Syncs with Google, Zoom, or Teams to handle scheduling inside the chat.

Stripe Checkout: Triggers secure payment flows directly in-conversation.

Feedback Roadmap: Collects bug reports and feature requests into a public Kanban board with upvoting.

It’s designed to replace the mess of using Intercom + Calendly + Canny + Zendesk.

You can test it live on the site right now. I’d love to hear your feedback on the widget's speed and how well it handles your questions during the demo.
by thunky | 2026-03-02 00:19:56+00:00
> even if we use your standard, the law, it has already been decided in Anthropic's favor.

I support Anthropic here. They had a deal with the Govt and the Govt bullied them. That should not be allowed, and Anthropic is suing which makes sense to me. Anthropic should be allowed to set any terms of use for the product that they want, and gain or lose business based on those terms. That's fine.

I'm saying that the failure is actually upstream. It should not be possible for Anthropic's AI to be used to mass surveile or murder people, because those things should be illegal by law and the govt should not be allowed to do it and should not be doing it. Somehow it isn't this way though.

So now that we find ourselves in this failed state, we have to rely on Anthropic to be "the law": to identify what what's "evil" and disallow it. I'm saying that's out of scope for a tech company and they shouldn't be expected to do that. They should only be in the business of making good tech and then be free to let it be used by anyone for any purpose that that the law allows.

This also means that if it's illegal to share information on how to build a bomb without AI, then it should be illegal for Claude to share that information with AI. So Anthropic to does need to make sure they're not breaking the law themselves as well.
by rootusrootus | 2026-03-02 00:20:34+00:00
The names are decided by the United States Board on Geographic Names, which is under the Department of the Interior, which is part of the executive branch. So yeah, he can make them rename it for the US. Sure, you can pedantically say that he can only force the entirety of the federal government to respect the name, and the State governments could refuse to abide by that, but what would be the point? AFAIK none have outright refused. And obviously private citizens can call things whatever the heck they want, though if they get too creative they may have trouble expressing themselves in a way that others will understand.
by Barrin92 | 2026-03-02 00:22:05+00:00
the dictatorship is doing extremely badly then because in my experience roughly the last two decades have consisted of safety obsession, various 'cozy' aesthetics that don't involve leaving your house, the death of social drinking and an uptick of pills and psychological diagnoses and people staring into their phones on every occasion.

We've completely normalized being a shut-in to the point where your take, that it's authoritarian to push people out into the world and engage others, is quite common. What now passes for 'extroverted' used to be known as the human condition. Even extroverts today probably have fewer friends, smaller families and spend more time isolated and on screens than 99% of humanity.
by loeg | 2026-03-02 00:23:34+00:00
> Speaking of R&M, I have wanted to get one of their bikes that has the child container area in the front. I saw one guy with one and it looked pretty awesome. A large bike like that would benefit from some larger battery pack.

I'm planning to buy one of these (Load 60 or 75). I think they can mount two battery packs (2x 800Wh = 1600Wh) on the frame.
by yoyohello13 | 2026-03-02 00:23:57+00:00
Im fully willing to believe I just don’t “get it” but I took a pretty deep dive into quantum computing and the underlying mechanics and I kind of got the sense (with QC) that nobody really knows what they are talking about. I got this feeling so strongly that stopped studying the topic all together.

I’m probably way off base and I’m probably missing some insights that I could get by going to school or something but that’s was just my experience with the subject.
by gruez | 2026-03-02 00:24:08+00:00
>but there is also a positive obligation to exercise due diligence. This covers (but is not limited to) workplace safety and safety of customers and the public.

Is there any indication this requirement was breached for this case? I'm all for jailing executives of companies where they specifically failed to enact safety measures, or even didn't care enough about safety, but in this case it's simply a case of a edge they didn't test. It's not for lack of trying either. Apparently they have their own AI model to generate test data, so they can train/test what happens if a hurricane hits, for instance.

https://waymo.com/blog/2026/02/the-waymo-world-model-a-new-f...

In this case it just sounds like the thought process was

> waymo did a bad

> someone doing the same would be arrested (?)

> therefore somebody needs to be arrested
by jfengel | 2026-03-02 00:24:54+00:00
The world was pretty well developed, but The Hobbit isn't really set in it. The Hobbit was retconned into his broader Middle-earth as the sequel grew in the telling. He'd been re-writing the material that became The Silmarillion for decades. (And he offered it to the publisher instead of a Hobbit sequel, and they said "what else ya got?)

This despite the fact that some names and elements were re-used. He often cycled the same names around until he found where they fit. Which also makes reading early drafts of the Hobbit fun when Thorin was named Gandalf.
by AngryData | 2026-03-02 00:25:36+00:00
I would dispute saying it is almost always bad practice. Sometimes it is, people do dumb stuff, but in many cases it solves problems before they become a problem to start with because most humans are pretty good at predicting how others around them will react.

Stopping in the middle of the road to save a pedestrian 3 seconds while costing 5 cars on the road to wait 10 seconds is obviously dumb, but what about recognizing the gap near you in the line of cars is the only gap around for the pedestrian waiting ahead, and either slowing down or speeding up a little bit to open that gap wider which makes everybody safer and eliminates any real braking events.

You might not notice all the things people do now to make traffic move smoothly, either intentionally or not, but something as simple as a line of robot cars spreading out on a road can cause problems when traffic levels that normally leave large gaps for easier left turns, pedestrians, poor visibility crossings, etc, instead becomes a steady spaced stream of traffic that has to be disrupted to fit those other options. Very small things can result in large traffic bottlenecks. Humans aren't immune to it, we cause out own problems with things like traffic waves, but we also solve many problems ourselves without really thinking about it.
by airforce1 | 2026-03-02 00:25:44+00:00
The problem with CLIs is that unless it's a super well documented CLI like `gh`, the LLM will have a hard time figuring out how to use it from `--help` alone unless it's a really simple tool. If you want to do something complex, like create a JIRA issue, you either need to put the full issue schema in `--help` so that the LLM knows how to pass an issue or else you can use MCP which bakes tool schemas into the protocol.