MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by matheusmoreira | 2026-03-10 18:56:45+00:00
Automated traffic law enforcement is surveillance. The fact it's limited in scope and functionality doesn't matter. It's still surveillance.

All surveillance increases safety. The cost is freedom.

Do you trust humans with the ability to judge the situation and the freedom to decide to run a red light if they think it's safe? Or do you surveil every intersection and punish all infractions regardless of conditions or the existence of actual victims?

For people like me, it's a matter of basic human dignity. I want to be a human with the capacity for judgement and the power to act on it. I want to decide for myself. I want to live in a society that recognizes this. I won't sacrifice this dignity in the name of safety.
by priyankaajsr | 2026-03-10 18:56:51+00:00
A few months back, I was in a car accident, and I am still recovering from residual pain - a herniated disk(neck, lower back), stuck in bed, weeks of physical therapy, and honestly, one of the things keeping me sane was social media scrolling. Except... I couldn't scroll without straining my arm, and keeping entertained felt like a struggle.

Entertainment shouldn't come at the cost of pain in any phase of life for anyone, so I built MomentSurfer — an AI agent that scrolls Instagram (MVP Version) for you, hands-free. You tell it your interests upfront, it scrolls automatically, and skips content you wouldn't care about. No tapping, no swiping, just your feed flowing on its own.

It is not limited to people recovering; it also helps avoid doomscrolling. Swiping 100 times to find something interesting is no fun.

I wanted to share with people who'd understand that technology can be a savior if built for the right cause. Happy to share it and get your honest feedback from people who are recovering right now and facing something similar, who know someone who can benefit from it, or who spend hours scrolling through the feed.
by Aurornis | 2026-03-10 18:57:10+00:00
Yes/No/Maybe is a good fit for an enum because “Maybe” carries some specific information.

For more common situations where the yes/no bool is not available yet or should not be considered, constructs like Rust’s Option<bool> are a very good fit. Layering the bool inside of an Option creates intentional handling about the presence or lack of value first before you can work with it.
by dlcarrier | 2026-03-10 18:58:08+00:00
I worked on a product that included pre-trimmed HC-49/S through-hole crystal oscillators, and not a single crystal failed. It was a low-volume product, but there were still probably tens too hundreds of thousands of them built.

When a batch with 20 MHz surface-mount crystals, in a package similar to the one in the article, were accidentally run through an ultrasonic cleaner, the failure rate was immediately noticeable, in the single-digit percent.

Leads of through-hole components are usually trimmed before assembly, on both manual and automated assembly lines, (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjVY8lb0LG8) and I've never seen this prohibited in a datasheet, but ultrasonic cleaning is usually prohibited.
by armenarmen | 2026-03-10 18:58:42+00:00
I hear this point of view, that mass incarceration is slavery with extra steps. But a (very quick and not in depth) google search shows that the cost to keep a person in prison for a year is $60-100k. And as far as I can tell in the cases where prisoners are laboring, while for admittedly shit pay, its not in $50k/year let alone one where where a profit would be returned for the "owners/jailers"

Now, if you're saying that the slavery comparison is more in that prisoners are legit balance sheet items for private prisoners to collect tax money? Well there is an argument there to be sure. But this seems like a structural problem. The existence of private prisons at all.

None of that is arguing in favor of crazy sentences for non-violent crime, however directly comparing it to chattel slavery confuses the argument against mass incarceration.
by shevy-java | 2026-03-10 18:58:48+00:00
> I'd MUCH rather see a holistic embrace and integration of these tools into our ecosystems.

I understand that your use case is different, so AI may help handicapped people. Nothing wrong with that.

The problem is that the term AI encompasses many things, and a lot of AI led to
quality decay. There is a reason why Microsoft is now called Microslop. Personally I'd much prefer for AI to go away. It won't go away, of course, but I still would like to see it gone, even if I agree that the use case you described is objectively useful and better for you (and others who are handicapped).

> I also think it incorrect to look at it from a perspective of "does the good outweigh the bad?". Relevant, yes, but utilitarian arguments often lead to counter-intuitive results and end up amplifying the problems they seek to solve.

That is the same for every technology though. You always have a trade-off. So I don't think the question is incorrect at all - it applies the same just as it is for any other technology, too. I also disagree that utilitarian arguments by their intrinsic nature lead to counter-intuitive results. Which result would be counter-intuitive when you analyse a technology for its pros and cons?
by kevinfiol | 2026-03-10 18:59:09+00:00
Where did you get the impression that it's controversial to pay for YT Premium? Most threads I've seen on this topic are composed of roughly half of the comments endorsing YT Premium, while the other half endorse adblocking from a privacy/autonomy perspective similar to the opening paragraph of the uBlock Origin manifesto [1].

What minor controversy I have seen is a small minority that argue either 1. You shouldn't pay for YT Premium because it enables user-hostile business practices or 2. You shouldn't use ad-block because it's effectively "stealing."

[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/MANIFESTO.md
by oraphalous | 2026-03-10 18:59:09+00:00
I think your comment is just as "insane" as the practice you are railing against. Although I wouldn't use the word "insane" - it's hyperbole. What's the right word here? I'm not sure... "dogmatic" isn't quite right.

If you are a two man startup, burning through runway and pre-product-market fit... then spending a lot of time on tests is questionable (although the cost-benefit now with AI is changing very fast).

What I find "insane", "dogmatic"... about your comment is the complete elision of this process of cost-benefit analysis, as if there should never be such an analysis.

I've worked with a lot of people like you. When a discussion begins about a choice to be made, they just stampede in with "THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY". And the discussion can't even be had.

This sort of "dogmatism" is so rife if engineering culture, I wonder if this is why the c-suite is so ready to dump us all for AI centaurs that just fucking ship features. How many of them got burned listening to engineers who refused to perform even the most basic of cost benefit analyses with the perspective of the business as a whole in mind and forced the most unnecessary, over-engineered bullshit.

I worked at one startup where the tech lead browbeat the founders into building this enormous microservice monster that took them years. They had ONE dev team, ONE customer, and the only feature actually being used was just a single form (which was built so badly it took seconds to type a single character in a field cause the React re-renders were crazy).

Now THAT's insanity.
by deathanatos | 2026-03-10 18:59:16+00:00
I think even having references that aren't necessarily null is only part of it. Image that your language supports two forms of references, one nullable, one not. Let's just borrow C++ here:

&ref_that_cannot_be_null
*ref_that_can_be_null

The latter is still a bad idea, even if it isn't the only reference form, and even if it isn't the default, if it lets you do this:

ref_that_can_be_null->thing()

Where only things that are, e.g., type T have a `thing` attribute. Nulls are "obviously" not T, but a good number of languages' type system which permit nullable reference, or some form of it, permit treating what is in actuality T|null in the type system as if it were just T, usually leading to some form of runtime failure if null is actually used, ranging from UB (in C, C++) to panics/exceptions (Go, Java, C#, TS).

It's an error that can be caught by the type system (any number of other languages demonstrate that), and null pointer derefs are one of those bugs that just plague the languages that have it.
by jrjeksjd8d | 2026-03-10 18:59:16+00:00
I can't imagine what other role a VTOL would eventually play. It's too fragile for CAS, too slow for air supremacy, not enough payload for bombing, and recon is better served by drones or satellites. The only reason to have an expensive, heavy plane take off and land in a warzone would seem to be moving people in and out.
by threecheese | 2026-03-10 18:59:26+00:00
My conspiracy-theory assumption has been that DOGE seeded X.ai, and the newer govt contracts are going to continue that. X.ai won’t need to be as smart as GPT7 when the contract for killbots goes to RFP, it’ll already know everything about you including location and weaknesses.

Kidding with the killbot comment; more likely it’ll be used for insurance denial, employment screening, benefits and taxes etc
Show HN: Don't share code. Share the prompt
by jacomoRodriguez | 2026-03-10 18:59:27+00:00
Hey HN, I'm Mario. I recently talked to a colleague about AI, agents and how software development will change in the future. We were wondering why we should even share code anymore when AI agents are already really good at implementing software, just through prompts. Why can't everyone get customized software with prompts?

"Share the prompt, not the code."

Well, I thought, great idea, let's do that. That's why I built Open Prompt Hub: https://openprompthub.io.

Think GitHub just for prompts.

The idea is simple: Users can upload prompts that can then be used by you and your AI tools to generate a script, app, or web service (or prime their agent for a certain task): Just past it into your agent or ide and watch it build for you. If the prompt does not 100% covers your usecase, fork it, tweak it, et voila: tailor-made software ready to use!

The prompts are simple markdown files with a frontematter block for meta information. (The spec can be found here: https://openprompthub.io/docs) They versioned, have information on which AI models build it successfuly and have instructions on how the AI agent can test the resulting software.

Users can mention with which models they have successfully or unsuccessfully executed a prompt (builds or fail). This helps in assessing whether a prompt provides reliable output or not.

Want to create a open prompt file? Here is the prompt for it which will guide you through: https://openprompthub.io/open-prompt-hub/create-open-prompt

Security! Always a topic when dealing with AI and prompts? I've added several security checks that look at every prompt for injections and malicious behavior. Statistical analysis as well as two checks against LLMs for behaviour classification and prompt injection detection.

It's an MVP for now. But all the mentioned features are already included.

If this sounds good, let me know. Try a prompt, fork it, or tell me what you'd change in the spec or security scanner. I'm really curious about what would make you trust and reuse prompts. Or if you like the general idea...
by dang | 2026-03-10 18:59:40+00:00
I've merged the comments into this thread now: Tony Hoare has died - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47324054. Normally we'd try to re-up the earliest submission of a story, but in this case the article had little information, while the other post is nicely personal and detailed.

Just to be clear:

I've left below the comments which were (understandably) debating whether the news was true or not.
by fatihturker | 2026-03-10 19:00:01+00:00
Author here.

Thank you for all the good and curious comments.

For 72B models, around *36GB memory works fine* by the way. I ran the benchmark and shared the results on the website:
https://opengraviton.github.io/index.html

While working on this research I realized something important: the way most current models are trained is extremely inefficient. Because of that, I started developing *graviton-native*, which trains AI models from scratch using more efficient architectures.

The idea is to design models that are optimized for efficiency from the beginning. My expectation is that this approach could bring around *~70% efficiency improvement*. Combined with OpenGraviton, I believe this could eventually make it possible to run *trillion-parameter scale models locally*.

You can find the paper here:
https://opengraviton.github.io/paper.html

And the repository here:
https://github.com/opengraviton/graviton-native

Right now I’m training a *72B model* using this approach. I’ll share the results soon and update the website.
by sarchertech | 2026-03-10 19:01:47+00:00
1. Preventing agents from crossing boundaries, creating implicit and explicit dependencies, and building false layers requires much more human control over every PR and involvement with the code than you seem to espouse.

2. Assuming that techniques that work with human developers that have severely impaired judgement but are massively faster at producing code is a bad idea.

3. There’s no way you have enough experience with maintaining code written in this way to confidently hand wave away concerns.
by Zak | 2026-03-10 19:02:01+00:00
They don't understand anything, but they sure can repeat a pattern.

I'm using Claude Code to work on something involving a declarative UI DSL that wraps a very imperative API. Its first pass at adding a new component required imperative management of that component's state. Without that implementation in context, I told Claude the imperative pattern "sucks" and asked for an improvement just to see how far that would get me.

A human developer familiar with the codebase would easily understand the problem and add some basic state management to the DSL's support for that component. I won't pretend Claude understood, but it matched the pattern and generated the result I wanted.

This does suggest to me that a language spec and a handful of samples is enough to get it to produce useful results.
by tonymet | 2026-03-10 19:02:06+00:00
Given the 10x+ productivity rate, it would be reasonable to establish a higher quality acceptance bar for AI submissions. 50-100% more performance, correctness, usability testing , and one round of human review.

If a change used to take a day or two, and now requires a few minutes, then it's fair to ask for a couple hours more prompting to add the additional tangible tests to compensate for any risks of hallucinations or low quality code sneaking in
by DaiTengu | 2026-03-10 19:02:07+00:00
It's somewhat alive. I still run a BBS and am the NC (net coordinator) for Wisconsin/Minnesota/North and South Dakota. (an area that used to be considered a "Region" back around the turn of the millennium). My FidoNet address is: 1:154/30 (and also 1:154/0)

There are 9 FidoNet nodes in my net. (154) I added 2 new ones within the last month or so.

My BBS is accessible at: https://warensemble.com It can also be accessed via SSH, Telnet, and possibly dialup but the program that handles my modem often checks out on me without warning (usually after a dropped call, which happens far too often over a VOIP line)

The joke is that Fidonet will eventually just be 2 sysops sending netmail back and forth to each other, where they argue about the policies and methods of how that mail is sent.
by shagie | 2026-03-10 19:02:07+00:00
public static void main (String[] args) {
Optional<Boolean> n = Optional.ofNullable(null);
Optional<Boolean> e = Optional.empty();
System.out.println(n.equals(e));
}

true

https://ideone.com/EGRdi5

A null in an Optional is empty. So you've got:

Optional<Boolean> n = null;
Optional<Boolean> e = Optional.empty();
Optional<Boolean> t = Optional.of(Boolean.TRUE);
Optional<Boolean> f = Optional.of(Boolean.FALSE);
by lukebechtel | 2026-03-10 19:02:11+00:00
We validate with MMLU and Hellaswag presently, and are getting this independently verified by a 3rd party.

We have considered open-sourcing some of our optimized inference libraries in the future, but have not yet come to a decision on this.

Also if you need a rough intuition as to why this is possible: it's because this entire inference stack was built for exactly one model, and thus we can really tune the entire framework accordingly.
Show HN: Sandsofti.me – Visualize the time you have left with loved ones
by kwm | 2026-03-10 19:02:21+00:00
I built this after reading “The Tail End” by Tim Urban. I wanted a simple way to understand my lifespan relative to the people most important to me.

SandsOfTi.me helps you visualize your approximate lifespan, healthy years remaining, and the time you likely left with your parents, children, spouse, and more.

Stuff of note:

- Single-page app (HTML/JS)

- No sign-up required

- Nothing you input is stored (no backend)

- Save your visualization as an image, or export your data so you can restore it later

- All lifespan estimates are based on U.S. Social Security Administration Cohort Life Tables (already considering other data sources, but using more than one standard gets complex)

Feedback and suggestions are very welcome!

Related resources:

- SSA Cohort Life Tables - https://www.ssa.gov/oact/HistEst/CohLifeTables/2024/CohLifeT...

- The Tail End, by Tim Urban @ Wait But Why: https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/12/the-tail-end.html

- “When This Number Hits 5200 - You Will be Dead”, by Kurzgesagt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXeJANDKwDc
by sharpshadow | 2026-03-10 19:02:27+00:00
It’s a common practice to avoid penalties like losing your driving license due to traffic violations by declaring that you haven’t been driving the vehicle during the incident and it was somebody else which has to agree to this and let’s say gets a monetary compensation. It works like that here in Germany, it sounds like it works in a similar way in the US.

Penalizing the owner of the vehicle regardless of the driver would be less ideal for society in my opinion.
by joaquin_arias | 2026-03-10 19:03:21+00:00
This looks really useful! I like how you added OS-level sandboxing and deterministic guardrails instead of relying on LLM-based intent checks — that feels much safer for running autonomous agents.

Curious: have you tried integrating this with multi-agent setups, where multiple Claude Code instances interact? I wonder how the guardrails would scale when agents start triggering each other’s commands.

Also, do you have plans for a lightweight visualization dashboard for monitoring blocked vs allowed commands in real time? It could help developers trust the system more quickly.
by dwb | 2026-03-10 19:03:44+00:00
There are some similarities, but they are absolutely overwhelmed by the differences. Having a handful of superficial similarities is not enough to make draw a meaningful comparison. The act of teaching a human is very different from “training” an LLM because humans have the power of the whole brain and body, not just some information-integration part that the brain and LLMs may (or may not) share. Humans can be creative in ways that LLMs manifestly can’t be. Humans can act like mere token predictors, but we can (and routinely do) also transcend that, question it, play with it. LLMs can’t.
by grumpyprole | 2026-03-10 19:03:48+00:00
Does this really test Claude in a useful way? Is building a highly derivative programming language a useful use case? Claude has probably indexed all existing implementations of imperative dynamic languages and is basically spewing slop based on that vibe. Rather than super flexible, super unsafe languages, we need languages with guardrails, restrictions and expressive types, now more than ever. Maybe LLMs could help with that? I'm not sure, it would certainly need guidance from a human expert at every step.
by rolph | 2026-03-10 19:04:15+00:00
back in the place between 70s-80s we used to identify commercials with an audio compression detector, blank frame detector, generally a device that detects artifacts of the ad process. then we could record on a VCR without ads as we went about our day.

it was a cat and mouse game eventually with programs being salted to spoof ad detection, regulations requireing a broadcaster to have some demarcation between ad and program, and on...

streaming has one fatal flaw, that decides final ownership, and that is eventually, the content is in the clear, in a space accessible to a technichal user, that can be replicated, and fitted with the requirements for a persistent file, and thus "pwnd".

at this point the ad can be snipped out, and is gone.

its a bad model, ads should be part of the content, depictions of product usage, and consumption, as part of the content seemed like an unobtrusive, actually pleasant association, every time ive seen it done, vs some screaming loud volume, shocking switch of subject and mood associated with a product that you dont need, and will subconsciously avoid as a result of the operant conditioning.
by quuxplusone | 2026-03-10 19:04:24+00:00
Yesterday I played around with the repo and found that (IIUC) one "environmental condition" already present in the simulation is the mutation rate. With relatively low mutation rates, I find that a whole tape filled with `<` is a good "substrate," in the sense that it can sit there stably for a long time until a random mutation puts `,` into one of its cells. Within a few generations, it will have spattered copies of the substrate into all its neighbors. Then they sit until a random mutation puts `,` into one of their cells... and so on.

I described what (I think) I'm seeing in https://github.com/Rabrg/artificial-life/pull/1 , and suggested in https://github.com/Rabrg/artificial-life/pull/3 that random mutations ought to blow away the whole tape rather than modify only one cell of it. However, even with that modification to the rules, I still see the `<` substrate taking over the whole map, except when the mutation rate is very high. (I admit this doesn't make a ton of sense to me.)

So, anyway, it's easy to make the mutation rate vary from one side of the map to the other. If you do that right, you can see the `<` substrate take over the low-mutation-rate side of the map, but fail to take over the higher-mutation-rate side.

The `<` substrate is easy to see in the gif: it's a rapidly spreading splotch of red with gold noise flickering inside.
by Topfi | 2026-03-10 19:06:01+00:00
> "The Moltbook team has given agents a way to verify their identity and connect with one another on their human's behalf," Shah says. "This establishes a registry where agents are verified and tethered to human owners."

Have they? Did I miss something? Last I checked, there was no verification and most of the content shared from that site turned out to have been posted not by LLMs but rather (human) spammers, focused on Crypto grifts and creating hype.

Anyone more in this can happily correct me, but is there anything here of that sort, anything of value?

Compared to any prior social media acquire there doesn't seem a technically skilled team considering the exploits or an existing user base considering said user base is A) supposed to be bots by nature and secondly didn't even turn out to be that reliably, making this the first time someone wants bots and doesn't even get that.

Far is it from me to make strategic decisions for a company like Meta/Facebook, but the lack of a recent Llama release might merit more focus then spending on whatever this is.