MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mahendra0203 | 2026-03-12 20:44:25+00:00
Freezing JS execution between actions is the kind of obvious idea that nobody did properly untill now. Kudos for actually forking Chromium instead of hacking around Playwright like everybody else.

But here's my thought: you're solving the "stale state" problem by making the browser deterministic. Real websites aren't deterministic. WebSOcket pushes, long-polling, background fetches, animations that don't finish — freezing execution doesn't pause the server. The moment you unfreeze, the world may have moved.

90.5% on Mind2Web is great. But Mind2Web tasks are mostly "fill a form, click submit." The brutal failures happen on SPAs with optimistic UI updates, where the DOM says "saved" but the network request hasn't finished. Does ABP handle that case, or does the freeze just delay the confusion?

Genuine question — not trying to tear this down. The architecture is smart. I just wonder if "make the browser simpler for the agent", eventually hit s a wall where you need to make the agent smarter about async instead.
by qingcharles | 2026-03-12 20:44:25+00:00
The issue for Claude is that Anthropic don't have an imagen that I know of, so the only tool available for the LLM to draw something is to start doing vector stuff in CSS, which is very hard for it (see the pelicans).

Gemini, ChatGPT or Grok would find this a lot easier as they could gen an image inline, although IP restrictions might bite you. Even Grok wants to lecture on IP these days, but at least it's fairly trivial to jailbreak.
by jajuuka | 2026-03-12 20:44:36+00:00
This doesn't seem based in reality. You don't go from majority support for you running to less than that and blame the other side. There are demonstrable actions and events that have a distinct link to her downward popularity.

When examining why someone lost you generally don't insinuate that the loser did everything right and the other side are just bad people and that's why they won. That's a recipe for learning nothing and repeating the same mistake over and over again. Which unfortunately seems to be the national policy position.
by gottorf | 2026-03-12 20:44:53+00:00
> Every progressive I know would be thrilled to stop with the culture war BS. However, MAGA refuses to just let people live their lives the way they want.

Are you using some nonstandard definition of "progressive" and "MAGA", or do you genuinely have the belief that the left wing is closer to the center majority of this country in "culture war" matters than the right wing?
by mort96 | 2026-03-12 20:45:11+00:00
Broadly speaking, people don't pay attention. The message from her campaign[1] was that she would do nothing differently from Biden. This is a mistake even if (especially if!) her actual policies are different from Biden's.

The only thing Harris could come up with was, eventually: "unlike Biden, I will have a republican in my cabinet".

[1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/08/harris-biden-the-vi...
by ntchpalm | 2026-03-12 20:45:23+00:00
This is just an attempt by one political party to censor climate research. The hope is, if there is no research being done, then there will be no pressure to do anything about it. This is similar to the COVID mentality of, "stop the testing." If you don't test for COVID, the numbers don't get worse.

However, as someone who has worked at NCAR for many years, I can tell you that the place is a mess. The Table Mesa facility is mostly devoid of employees, with entire floors of offices left in a state of dark decay. Most of the vehicles in the parking lot are people hiking the trails, and days of yucky weather will reveal at most a couple dozen cars in the parking lot, mainly maintenance people. Elementary school groups continue to show up for tours, but the scientists and technical staff have moved to other buildings in town, specifically the Center Green and Foothills Lab clusters.

NCAR has become a mere shadow of its former self, with > 30% of its funding being absorbed by the Directorate and President's offices, with some executive salaries exceeding half a million dollars (not bad for a non-profit). The younger talent have fled, from the engineers up to the upper management, and what remains are aged-out scientists just waiting for retirement. Internal surveys, which seem to be sent out almost weekly, tend to show very low confidence in the leadership. It's a tanker running on inertia, and breaking it up and selling it off may be the best thing for it.
by gxd | 2026-03-12 20:45:24+00:00
Those were the days. I still believe nothing replaces the camraderie of the small, local BBSs. The large ones were good too, but these tended to resemble the modern Internet forums a bit more.

I miss BBSs and that's why I featured them in the story of my sci-fi game! If you are interested: https://store.steampowered.com/app/3040110/Outsider/
by dgrunwald | 2026-03-12 20:45:32+00:00
In most languages, `x: float = 0` involves an implicit conversion from int to float. In Python, type annotations have no impact on runtime behavior, so even though the type checker accepts this code, `type(x)` will be `int` -- python acts as if `int` was a subtype of `float`.

It would be weird if the behavior of `1 / x` was different depending on whether `0` or `0.0` was passed to a `x: float` parameter -- if `int` is a subtype of `float`, then any operation allowed on `float` (e.g. division) should have the same behavior on both types.

This means Python had to choose at least one:

1. division violates the liskov substitution principle

2. division by zero involving only integer inputs returns NaN

3. division by zero involving only float inputs throws
exception

4. It's a type error to pass an int where a float is expected.

They went with option 3, and I think I agree that this is the least harmful/surprising choice. Proper statically typed languages don't have to make this unfortunate tradeoff.
by SmirkingRevenge | 2026-03-12 20:45:36+00:00
She was basically trying not to go negative on Biden while still in office. Biden and his team were actively pressuring her to stay onside, according to some reporting, which is indefensible. Reprehensible really. She should've burnt the bridge.

But it probably wouldn't have made a difference in the end. It was all mostly over when Biden decided to run again in the first place. Kamala moved numbers in states she campaigned in, and she probably could have moved more with enough time.

Mistakes were made - but most important and most blameworthy mistake came from the Republicans 4 years earlier, when they rejected their obligation to impeach and convict after Trump nearly killed them all on TV.
by pc86 | 2026-03-12 20:45:54+00:00
> Prior to the tax, the bottom 20% of Washington earners pay between 13-17% of their income in state and local taxes through the regressive tax system. The top 1% of earners pay closer to 3%.

What percentage of the total state income gets contributed by the bottom 20% compared to the top 1%?

> They don't need 50 times more food, or 50 times more gas, etc.

Of course not and I didn't imply that they did, but I'm sure we could find things they do spend 50x more on (or even more). And I'm sure those things are taxed as well.

> For the $2M earner, any surplus likely isn't spent locally but is invested instead, which leaks the money out of the state into global markets.

Framing someone investing their own money as "leaking...out of the state" is kind of ridiculous. It's not the state's money.

Do you think $1,000 is better off in the stock market or given to the state?

> the tax base is disconnected from the state's actual wealth growth

So follow the state constitution and tax everyone the same rate. A uniform flat tax is much more "connected to the state's actual wealth growth" than anything else, isn't it?

> Washington's regressive tax system makes the state fund itself using only money from the working class...

Absolute nonsense. I'd bet my next two paychecks the top 1% in Washington pays more into the state coffers than the bottom 20%.

> ...while the state's largest pool of potential revenue remains locked away in global markets.

I think you said the quiet part out loud? It's not "potential [state] revenue" and framing it that way is disgusting.
by mikrl | 2026-03-12 20:46:18+00:00
As a Canadian I strongly felt it was GG to the Democrats when they didn’t run a second, competitive, knives-out primary for VP Harris.

For the second time, the party apparatus coalesced around a candidate who was ultimately trounced by someone wrongly considered unelectable.

Even if it was just theatre in the end, having a dramatic primary where the VP won would have made her look stronger and given her a chance to claw back some of the swing voters.
by mahendra0203 | 2026-03-12 20:46:24+00:00
OpenClaw feels like early React" is a great framing but I think it leads to the wrong conclusion. React didn't win because Next.js showed up. React won because the component model was right, and then people built whatever they needed on top of it.

The risk with "framework on top of framework" is you inherit both set s of opinions AND both sets of bugs.. When OpenClaw updates, does DenchClaw break? When DuchDB has a quirk, is that your bug or theirs? The dependency chain gets real deep real fast.

Copying someone's entire Chrome profile is bold. Like, really bold. That's a massive ask. "DenchClaw sees what you see" is either the most powerful pitch or the scariest pitch, depends on who you talking to.
by icedchai | 2026-03-12 20:46:41+00:00
It depends on the era.

Earlier: one PC per user, shared file system using a Novell network.
Later: multitasking OS (Desqview, OS/2) or BBS software that natively supported multiple users (like MajorBBS.)

I ran a BBS on an Amiga for a while. The OS natively supported multitasking, but I only had one line. At least I could log in the same time as a user...
by sethcronin | 2026-03-12 20:47:04+00:00
I think vibecoding itself is the substance. Like enabling people who don't have software engineering or code writing experience to actually develop software is a value in itself. I don't think there needs to be any other proof of concept than a layman can hop on to lovable base 44. Intermediates can grab cursor and Claude Code and just rip through potential project lists to test things out and see where they could go. I guess my opinion is the tool is the product in this case. Most canvases that get sold don't go to professional artists; they go to amateurs. That's mostly what the canvas market is comprised of: people who want to be artists, though they'll never sell a painting.
by gottorf | 2026-03-12 20:47:18+00:00
> Democracy won’t be restored until we increase the number of political parties in this country

Parliamentary systems with many parties run into a different kind of dysfunction. Belgium didn't have a government for like two years relatively recently because they couldn't form a big enough coalition. In a democracy, there is no magic bullet that does not involve the quality of the demos.

What is your idea of democracy that needs to be restored in this country?
by 9rx | 2026-03-12 20:47:54+00:00
> I think the categorisation of tests is sometimes counterproductive

"Unit test" refers to software-based automated testing. To differentiate that kind of testing from, say, what you wrote in school with a pencil. The categorization is technically unnecessary here due to the established context, but counterproductive is a stretch. It would be useful if used in another context, like, say: "We did testing in CS class". "We did unit testing in CS class" would help clarify that you aren't referring to exams.

Yeah, Kent Beck argues that "unit test" needs to bring a bit more nuance: That it is a test that operates in isolation. However, who the hell is purposefully writing tests that are not isolated? In reality, that's a distinction without a difference. Hence why in practice it is just another way to say "test".

> I want to be confident that my code doesn't have race conditions in it.

Then what you really WANT is something like TLA+. Testing is often more pragmatic, but it isn't what you'd strive for in an ideal situation.

> often unit tests won't show a race.

That entirely depends on what behaviour your test is trying to validate. A test trying to validate properties unrelated to race conditions often won't consistently show a race, but that isn't their intent so there would be no expectation of it validating something unrelated. A test that is validating that there isn't race condition will show the race.
by devclied | 2026-03-12 20:47:58+00:00
FixMyImage is a powerful online image editor with 70+ AI tools designed to make photo editing effortless. Remove backgrounds, erase unwanted objects, generate images with AI, apply filters, create memes, build collages, upscale photos, and more — all in seconds. No Photoshop skills required. Whether you're a creator, marketer, or small business owner, FixMyImage gives you professional-level editing tools directly in your browser.
by hunter2_ | 2026-03-12 20:48:24+00:00
That's always been a weird one for me. If I might quote Gemini's summary since it seems accurate enough:

> Geographical/Historical: The Bosporus Strait in Turkey is historically considered the dividing line between Europe (West) and Asia (East).

> Prime Meridian: The 0° longitude line running through Greenwich, England, is used to technically separate the Eastern and Western Hemispheres.

> Cultural/Political: Cultural definitions are often more relevant, placing countries like Australia, New Zealand, and North America in the "West" due to historical ties, despite their geographic location.

I suppose you're leaning into the "Bosporus Strait" option more than the "Prime Meridian" option, given that the former would put most of Europe in the West while the latter would put most of it in the East.
by KaiserPro | 2026-03-12 20:48:30+00:00
> Again, tens of billions of dollars of losses are totally absorbable.

They are, in isolation. The _problem_ is that PE doesn't generally trade assets in public, which means that valuation only really come when you're either wanting to buy, wanting to sell, wanting to re-loan or in deep shit.

This means that something like MFS can happen (https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/mfs-creditors-claim...) where assets appear to be used to raise two different loans without the other lender knowing.

But! banking can absorb a few billion right? yes, so long as people are not asking questions about other assets.

Because PE assets are not publicly traded (hence private in private equity) the value of assets are calculated at much lower rates than on a public market. This means that the assets that PE holds could be wildly over or under valued. The way we assess the value of PE holdings is thier looking at the Net Asset Value calculations (which might be done twice a year) or infer the value based on public information.

Now we are told that markets are rational and great at working the value of things. This dear reader is bollocks. Because PE is a black box, if a class of asset that they hold (ie SaaS buisnesses, or high street stores, or coffee trading etc) looks like its not doing well, people will start to write down the value of people holding loans given to PE, or shares in PE.

This creates contagion, because one PE company is in distress, the market goes "oh shit, the whole thing is on fire" and you get bank runs (because where is the money coming from to loan to PE? thats right banks, eventually)
by hbn | 2026-03-12 20:48:38+00:00
Apple stuff lasts me longer than any other computers I've purchased in my life. The Mac had a bit of a dark age in the late 2010s but barring that, I think it's incorrect to say Apple products are unreliable.

I bought a late-2013 13" MacBook Pro when I started university and I used that thing up until the end of 2021 when I got a 14" M1 Pro MBP. And it wasn't even because it was performing that terribly, I just wanted the new Apple silicon machine. Now it's ~4.5 years later and that machine runs like it did on day 1 and I have no desire to upgrade anytime soon.
by Gnobu | 2026-03-12 20:49:25+00:00
Really impressive work! The deterministic “freeze then capture” approach highlights how much complexity happens when the system state isn’t guaranteed.

In identity systems like Gnobu, we face a similar challenge: ensuring that authentication flows remain consistent across multiple services and sessions, especially in environments with multiple asynchronous actions.

Curious if you’ve considered adding deterministic checkpoints or logging hooks that could integrate with external identity systems for agent-level session management?
by schlch | 2026-03-12 20:49:49+00:00
I still really like rails. It’s really fun until your codebase reaches a certain size. At that point you better have a large suite of test which becomes a problem of it self because the tests will take forever to complete.

I tried sorbet a couple of times and totally get why it’s useful but imo it’s not just lacking (e.g. compared with what can be done with TS or even a simple type system like golang) but it also removes all the fun parts of ruby / rails.
by onion2k | 2026-03-12 20:49:53+00:00
If it's wrong then it's not provably correct (for any value of 'proof').

How you define your proof is up to you. It might be a simple test, or an exhaustive suite of tests, or a formal proof. It doesn't matter. If the output of the code is correct by your definition, then it doesn't matter what the underlying code actually is.
by RobertSerber | 2026-03-12 20:50:04+00:00
Good point. In the model I'm experimenting with, identity and permissions end up being part of the runtime primitives rather than external services.

In traditional SaaS architectures identity is usually handled by separate layers (auth providers, middleware, RBAC checks in APIs). The problem is that when the system structure itself becomes mutable — entities, workflows, dashboards — those checks are no longer enough.

If an AI proposes structural changes, the runtime needs to reason about who is allowed to modify which parts of the semantic model.

So identity becomes part of the execution semantics of the system rather than just authentication.

Conceptually it looks closer to something like:

identity → permissions → allowed state transitions

instead of just:

identity → API access

This is also why the runtime primitives include things like entities, relations, transitions and permissions.

The runtime can then enforce invariants such as:

- which roles can evolve parts of the model
- which workflows can trigger actions
- which datasets a component can bind to

So the trust boundary ends up inside the runtime rather than in the surrounding services.

Still exploring the design space here, but it seems necessary once AI can propose structural mutations to the system.
by Fricken | 2026-03-12 20:50:06+00:00
I got into bicycle touring a few years ago, and it’s an ultra-endurance activity which means burning 3- 4 times as many calories as I would on a sedentary day. My training rides were all local weekend overnighters in preparation for the big 1000 mile challenge ride, and they were no big deal.

On the big ride, about 3 days in I started experiencing bouts of intestinal distress which would put me into some of the blackest moods I can recall experiencing as an adult. My whole thought process broke down and I became ruthlessly nihilistic about everything. I was ready to tell my partner to go fuck himself, chuck my bike off a bridge and take an uber to the nearest airport.

But then when the intestinal distress subsided I came back to my senses and I was like “WTH was that all about?” It happened several times, to varying degrees of intensity over the 10 day tour. My eating strategy improved and I bought some cannabis which helped my manage the issue and I was able to complete the tour.

That was a few years ago and I’ve never experienced the black mood again. It has prompted me to believe that the mind-gut connection is much stronger than we might have been giving it credit for, and if you suffer from mood or cognition issues, big or small, you may want to investigate whether your guts and gut flora might be playing an influential role.
by aeternum | 2026-03-12 20:50:07+00:00
Yes, some directly via the LHWCA fed law and some indirect via labor union contracts with port associations that rent from the gov port authorities. Ultimately it's such a powerful union that often US presidents take part in the negotiations.

The recently negotiated (nation-wide) deal:

In the deal, the union holds on to existing contract language that protects against certain types of automation, and has won guaranteed jobs where partial automation is put in place.

Port employers will still be blocked from implementing “fully automated” port technology: the employers cannot implement equipment that is “devoid of human interaction.” And the union and the employers have to agree on implementing any new technology; if they cannot agree, the question gets sent to arbitration.

This language prevents East and Gulf Coast port employers from implementing the more extreme forms of automation seen in other parts of the world, including the Long Beach Container Terminal, in Southern California, where autonomous trucks and cranes entirely replace human operators.
by throw0101d | 2026-03-12 20:50:44+00:00
So under this IPv4x proposal one gets an IPv4 /24, and receives a whole bunch of extended address space 'for free'.

But right now you can get an IPv4 /24 (as you say), but you can get an IPv6 allocation 'for free' as we speak.

In both cases legacy code cannot use the new address space; you have to:

* update the IP stack (like with IPv6)

* tell applications about new DNS records (like IPv6)

* set up translation layers for legacy-only code to reach extended-only destination (like IPv6 with DNS64/NAT64, CLAT, etc)

You're updating the exact same code paths in both the IPv4x and IPv6 scenarios: dual-stack, DNS, socket address structures, dealing with legacy-only code that is never touched to deal with the larger address space.
by fixxation92 | 2026-03-12 20:50:48+00:00
I agree with you about the Claude Code TUI. I switched to it weeks after it was released. The browser interface is great for quick chats and talking through ideas/concepts, but not for coding. What I love about the TUI is that it can see all your repos as once so it has the full picture all the time. You can't get that with the web version.
by varispeed | 2026-03-12 20:50:53+00:00
> as no one can write code for memory training to bring up the chip

Surely someone can do it, but it's probably too niche to do. The licensing fee is probably cheaper than corporation spinning the board and reverse engineer it and for hobbyists lower tier memory likely was fine.

That said given that such technology has become so much more accessible (you can certainly create FPGA board and wire it up to DDR4 using free tools and then get board made in China), it's probably a matter of time someone will figure this out.
by jjkaczor | 2026-03-12 20:51:16+00:00
I will agree with you that a short response simply stating that "you are wrong" is aimed at the person - if it isn't supported with the facts, resources and details about why they are wrong.

However - if those details are provided, it is not personal, but just simply factual and shouldn't be considered an insult.

The other complexity is whether or not one is having a debate about something that can be factually quantified, versus something that is just an opinion.
by rayiner | 2026-03-12 20:51:33+00:00
> I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024.

No, the damage was done before that. Harris ran the best campaign she was capable of running. We know that because she ran a terrible campaign in 2019 as well, even with all the Obama people backing her. Given Biden’s age and early talk of being a one-term president, the smart choice was to nominate Elizabeth Warren, who is a fantastic campaigner. But Harris was the choice to appease the identity activists. They killed Dems’ chances in 2024 even before Biden’s term began.