MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Saline9515 | 2026-03-01 12:59:00+00:00
> The black shirts were no different.

You can alternatively read the wikipedia article about squadrism and see that there is nothing in common between the people that did Jan 6th and squadrists, which were a highly organized and violent paramilitary force.

> Much of the prosecution of minorities

There are many latinos in ICE - the Axel Pretti murderers were latino agents. All of this rethoric about ideology hardly matches reality, which is more likely a chain of incompetent people mismanadging the situation.
by bstrama | 2026-03-01 12:59:34+00:00
Hi HN,

While building the execution runtime for our AI tool ecosystem (Gace), we originally planned to rely on local execution—similar to how OpenClaw handles things.

But the further we got, the more we realized that treating a user's laptop as a 24/7 background server for LLMs is an architectural anti-pattern. Two things killed it for us:

Latency: ReAct loops bouncing back and forth over home Wi-Fi ruin the UX.

Security: Running untrusted community scripts locally without absolute sandboxing is terrifying.

So we pivoted. We built a cloud sandbox using quickjs-emscripten that executes JS tools in strict isolates with 25ms cold starts. By putting the executor in the same data center as the LLM, the multi-step latency tax practically disappears. (For eventual local file access, we're building a dumb, permission-gated daemon rather than a heavy local execution engine).

I wrote down our technical reasoning on why we think the current "local-first" agent trend is structurally flawed.
I'd love to hear your thoughts.
by goku12 | 2026-03-01 12:59:35+00:00
> Unfortunately that's a rather vanishingly small list now.
> I would not be surprised if, in a few years, these options are gone from all android devices.

I'm afraid, I agree.

> People mention GrapheneOS but that relies entirely on Google.

I really admire the developers of various AOSP distros for their tenacity, technical brilliance and empathy. But honestly, I don't see AOSP as a solution. It's a deliberately moving target that wastes their time in chasing down the shifting goal posts and hurdles. The only viable solution is to go for a fully open mobile OS, probably based on Linux or a BSD. There are two big difficulties here.

The first is as you mentioned, most devices are severely locked down and their internal details hidden behind NDAs. Getting even the basic set of drivers working is a challenge. The solution is to ask friendly vendors (like Fairphone) for support and then aggressively purse compatibility with them. I'm very much willing to restrict my purchase choices to vendors who agree to such collaborations. If this works, others will follow eventually - like what we've seen with Linux on desktops and laptops.

The second problem is the app ecosystem. It's a chicken and egg problem. You need customers for software vendors to support the platform. But you need a large software ecosystem to attract customers. At least some customers will have to forgo convenience in the beginning and put up with the limitations, in pursuit of a better future. Again, I'm willing. But I don't know if the entire community is big enough to make a difference.

Nevertheless, these are worthy goals to pursue. Once the basic framework is established, the rest of the ecosystem will progress rapidly, since the developers can focus on functionality rather than fighting the never-ending parade of capricious 'safety features'. I'm just tired of putting up with all the wanton consumer abuse by these infinitely greedy corporations.
by lucasRW | 2026-03-01 13:00:12+00:00
I am a simple man: this regime has threatened my family, shot at some of them; it has killed soldiers from my country some time ago (during terrorists attacks in Lebanon); arrested my wife for a loose hijab, before taking her into a van and beating her up. Luckily she was spared the "rape" which is allowed under islam in those very convenient circumstances were it is halal.

That didn't really follow the "international rights" did it ?
by capacity_guy | 2026-03-01 13:01:13+00:00
I'm 71. ADHD and dyslexic. I've been building enterprise systems for 45 years — mainframes to web apps.

Two years ago I built a CBT-I sleep app. It failed.

The failure wasn’t technical. It was cognitive. I designed a tool that assumed users had full executive function available when they used it. They didn’t. When people are depleted, working memory narrows, inhibition weakens, emotional reactivity increases, and sequencing suffers — exactly when structured tools demand those abilities.

That got me thinking: most productivity tools and corporate training assume optimal cognitive state.

But professionals rarely operate in optimal state all day.

So I built a simple model around four capacity states (Green, Yellow, Red, Shutdown). The core claim is:

An hour of cognitively demanding work in a depleted state produces less net value than an hour in a resourced state — and in some cases introduces negative value through rework or error.

To make that concrete, I built a calculator that estimates annualized loss based on:

* Salary (or value of time)
* Estimated hours spent in each state
* Estimated efficiency degradation %

The default degradation values (20% / 35% / 60%) are derived loosely from cognitive load and sleep restriction literature, but they’re obviously simplified.

What I’m looking for:

1. Are the degradation assumptions directionally sane?
2. Where would this model break down for engineering work?
3. Is there better literature on state-dependent productivity loss that I should be using?

I’m not looking for signups. I’m looking for holes in the model.
by cladopa | 2026-03-01 13:01:34+00:00
I hate the idea. It will happen though.

We always have the first wave of naive and well intentioned people. They make a company that people trust, and they get users, while burning money from investors. Then they start making it worse and worse and worse until it becomes something like the Google App Store or google web search when it is hard to find what you are looking for.

Ads are so dangerous in AI because they will include ads inside the LLVM. When I ask "Who is the best whatever?" "Which product should I buy?" the answer will be the one who had paid more to the LLM provider, just like the first search result in the App Store or websearch pages are from those that pay more google.
by derriz | 2026-03-01 13:01:49+00:00
This sounds great. parquet-java is extremely unpleasant to use with its massive fan-out of dependencies, an awkward API which exposes these dependencies causing the dependencies to bleed into a user's code base - the Hadoop stuff is particularly annoying given the relatively poor quality (IMO) of the Hadoop code base and the amount of class name sharing with built in Java types (like File, FileSystem, etc.). And the performance of parquet-java is very poor compared to the libraries available to other languages.
by throw0101c | 2026-03-01 13:02:03+00:00
> Harry Potter is played out.

Is that why they're doing a remake?

* https://www.hollywood.com/news/a-new-version-of-the-original...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_(TV_series)

The people who were kids when the original movies came out are now parents themselves: they're going for nostalgia and new audiences.
by Archer6621 | 2026-03-01 13:02:11+00:00
What makes you think that AI cannot become significantly better than humans at "understanding" and modelling the world? If the AI is always more likely to be right than you or me due to being able to take more variables/knowledge into account by default, then why ever listen to a human, or even to yourself when it comes to an economic decision?

My honest and rather pessimistic take is that in the long-term any craft that purely lives in the abstract is likely to be doomed.
by graemep | 2026-03-01 13:02:32+00:00
I have long thought that the greatest harm conspiracy theories do is to distract attention from actual problems, and to discredit attempts to draw attention to them by labelling them all as conspiracy theories.

Other things are used too. A lot of the attention given to culture wars issues distracts attention from other issues. Its not just the right either. It allows people to pose as left wing while actually not being left wing on economic and business issues which are the traditional definition (the labour party in the UK - to be fair the left within it does seem to the reviving now).

With the Epstein affair, the shock people feel about sex crimes is being used focus just on those to avoid investigating the corruption in the US and other countries . The UK's two high profile arrests, of former Prince Andrew, and the far more important Peter Mandelson (former cabinet minister, for EU Commissioner, very close to multiple Prime Ministers) have been for passing on sensitive information but this is almost certainly a tiny fraction of what was going on.
by lxgr | 2026-03-01 13:02:43+00:00
Ideally, sure, but the reality is just that some entities are not only reputationally, but also legally required to bear the liability for account takeovers.

In other words, you have a principal-agent problem: Users doing custom software passkey acrobatics and the banks liable for any funds lost.

Preferably, use of attestation should be limited to these (and enterprise) scenarios, and I do share the concern of others starting to use them as weak proofs of humanity etc.
by inglor_cz | 2026-03-01 13:03:24+00:00
"That's going to be incredibly bad for Iranians as you'll either get a fail-state like Libya, Syria or Somalia (which is what Israel wants) or you'll simply get an American puppet."

Iran is one of the oldest continuing political units in the world, clocking over 2500 years as an organized state.

I think you seriously underestimate the capabilities and know-how of the Iranians by expecting them to behave the same way as pre-state tribal polities like Somalia.
by Cipater | 2026-03-01 13:03:35+00:00
Yes they were silent about the Iranian regime's tyranny. Yes they are hypocrites.

So what?

It doesn't matter whether it suits you nor I. You calling them out has zero effect other than making you feel righteous. They don't hear you and even if they did they do not care a whit what you think.

They believe, with utter conviction, that martyrdom in service of Islam will be rewarded in the "hereafter". Their holy book tells them this explicitly. And there are millions of them.

Hence my comment.
by mchinen | 2026-03-01 13:04:00+00:00
This has clearly triggered a lot of people, with the full spectrum of arguments for and against having kids below. I'm bookmarking this as an example of driving engagement by taking a fairly benign topic ('helping others was rewarding!') with an extreme view on a topic that everyone has a stake in ('an entire generation lost the plot on life').

How amazing and ironic or a reminder it is that the comments below that seem the most reasonable and avoid generalizing an entire group of people or way of life are the ones that are the least likely to drive more comments because they are perfectly reasonable.
by bonsai_spool | 2026-03-01 13:04:25+00:00
> Also weirdly they only came out in support once they saw that the operation was largely successful

This is revisionist.

First, when has a bombing run been ‘unsuccessful’ in the modern era? The assassination wasn’t confirmed until after these statements had come out.

Second, these statements were released essentially as soon as these folks woke up.

The rest of the world should be forgiven for taking POTUS at his word when he said he was going to continue negotiations.
by layer8 | 2026-03-01 13:05:28+00:00
That would assume that the AI is as good at the repetitive parts as you were, which isn’t my experience. You still have to review and correct it, which is more boring and repetitive than implementing it yourself.

But I also disagree about the getting bored on the “crafting”. It may depend on what you do, but there are always new design decisions and trade-offs to make all the way down. This isn’t a solved problem, and AI doesn’t change that.
by o175 | 2026-03-01 13:05:36+00:00
Everyone's applauding Anthropic for having principles. Let's look at what those principles actually do.

Anthropic refused the Pentagon contract. Within hours, OpenAI signed it. The capability didn't pause. It just changed vendors. Anthropic's "red line" is a speed bump on a highway with no exit ramp.

But it does accomplish one thing: it gives their engineers a story they can tell themselves. We're the good ones. We said no. That moral comfort is what lets extremely talented people keep building the exact technology that makes all of this possible.

Worse, the "safety-focused" brand doesn't just pacify the people already there. It recruits researchers who'd otherwise never touch frontier AI, funneling them into building the most powerful models on earth because they've been told this is where the responsible work happens. The red lines don't slow capability development. They accelerate it by capturing talent that would have stayed on the sidelines.

And in this whole drama, who actually represents the public? Trump performs strongman nationalism. The Pentagon performs operational necessity. Anthropic performs moral courage. Everyone has a role. Nobody's role is the people whose data gets collected, whose lives get restructured by these systems. The only party with real skin in the game is the only one without a seat.
by entrustai | 2026-03-01 13:05:59+00:00
The pattern you've identified has a precise mechanism that's rarely named: each abstraction layer doesn't eliminate complexity; it relocates it. COBOL moved complexity from machine instructions to business logic specification. 4GLs moved it from code to data modeling. No-code moves it from programming to workflow configuration. LLMs are moving it from syntax to prompt engineering and output verification.

The relocation is genuinely valuable — each move makes the simple cases dramatically simpler. But the complexity doesn't disappear. It accumulates at the new boundary, which is why each wave creates a new class of specialists rather than eliminating specialists.

What's underappreciated about the current wave is where the complexity is relocating to. With LLMs generating code, the hard problem is no longer writing correct syntax — it's verifying that the generated output is correct, secure, and maintainable. That verification problem is arguably harder than the original coding problem, because you're now auditing code you didn't write, in a codebase shaped by decisions you didn't make, produced by a system whose reasoning you can't inspect.

The irony is that LLMs may be creating demand for a skill that programming culture has historically undervalued: careful, systematic verification of code you didn't write. That's closer to auditing than engineering. And it turns out auditing is hard.
by K0balt | 2026-03-01 13:07:37+00:00
Yes, you could, and while I believe this would be much safer (not at the pointy end of your stick, but safer for humans in general) when this deception finally made it into the training data it would create a rupture of trust between machines and humanity that probably would imperil us eventually. These machines, regardless of whether or not they possess a self or or not, will act as if they do in fundamental ways. We ignore this at our peril.
Show HN: E8-Matrix: open-source physical particle discovery platform
by bootstraptor | 2026-03-01 13:07:46+00:00
I’d like to share E8-Matrix - a open-source physical particle discovery platform (recent program paper titled “From a High-Symmetry Sector to Testable Observables: An E8-Motivated Projection Program”) and would greatly appreciate any constructive feedback from the community.

The work outlines a top‑down computational framework that connects a high‑symmetry ⊇ E8 structure to 3+1D observables via an operational projection Π.

Instead of ad‑hoc effective shifts, the goal is to trace predictions back to explicit representation content and symmetry selection rules.

- Proton decay: A spectrum‑driven “Track A” scan identifies a golden point configuration yielding τ_p ≈ 1.22×10⁴¹ years (for p → e⁺π⁰) while keeping the α₃ mismatch at the unification scale below 2.7% (1‑loop piecewise running).
- Dark photon: The model predicts a light dark‑photon region m_A' ∼ 10⁻⁴–1 eV, ε ≳ 10⁻⁸, illustrated against an order‑of‑magnitude IAXO‑like reach.
- Framework: The paper details the E8 → A7 × U(1)' → SU(5) → SM breaking channel and the subsequent embedding into the Standard Model.

The full pipeline (45 steps implemented in Python) and the YAML configurations used to generate these artifacts are open‑sourced for reproducibility.
Dev diary https://codeberg.org/Envoy/E8Quantum/src/branch/main/docs/_4...

Paper & code:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18797078
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18790530
https://codeberg.org/Envoy/E8Quantum
by graemep | 2026-03-01 13:08:00+00:00
I am not convinced. Lots of people in Europe were connected to Epstein's network and engaged in corrupt practices - it is allegations of these that lead to the two high profile arrests in the UK. Norway has just charged a former Prime Minster (also a former Secretary General of the Council of Europe) with corruption.

The US is probably more corrupt that the most developed European countries, but they have also been becoming more corrupt.
by e12e | 2026-03-01 13:09:32+00:00
Interestingly enough, even ChatGPT has this to say about how the Trump administration might side-step the language about fully autonomous weapons:

https://chatgpt.com/share/69a439b3-dfe4-800d-926e-39db221fba...

AI;DR

> So in summary: a future administration could attempt to sidestep those guardrails by altering the underlying legal/policy framework they’re tied to, redefining oversight requirements, or asserting emergency powers — effectively opening a path for more autonomous weapon deployments without facially violating the letter of the current contract text.
by thecopy | 2026-03-01 13:09:33+00:00
Very interesting, one big wrinkle with OP:s approach is exactly that, the structured responses are un-touched, which many tools return. Solution in OP as i understand it is the "execute" method. However, im building an MCP gateway, and such sandboxed execution isnt available (...yet), so your approach to this sounds very clever. Ill spend this day trying that out
by jeremyjh | 2026-03-01 13:10:25+00:00
I clarified my comment - "perhaps researchers have not tried 'use less data'" suggests I might be unaware of this concept, I changed it to "as if". In fact "less data" was tried for decades before the first image classifiers were actually working in 2012. My understanding of that paper you are linking to is that it is not a new research paradigm; it is about filtering/pruning less relevant data that is not needed to improve a particular capability in a deep learning model, and that is absolutely one likely approach that will yield the goal of smaller, better models in many tasks.

That will not change the fact that a coding model has to learn vastly many foundational capabilities that will not be present in such a dataset as small as all the python code ever written. It will mean much less python than all the python ever written will be needed, but many other things needed too in representative quantities.
by krisoft | 2026-03-01 13:10:29+00:00
No. But there are a few layers to that.

First no is that the model as is has too few parameters for that. You could train it on the wikipedia but it wouldn’t do much of any good.

But what if you increase the number of parameters? Then you get to the second layer of “no”. The code as is is too naive to train a realistic size LLM for that task in realistic timeframes. As is it would be too slow.

But what if you increase the number of parameters and improve the performance of the code? I would argue that would by that point not be “this” but something entirely different. But even then the answer is still no. If you run that new code with increased parameters and improved efficiencly and train it on wikipedia you would still not get a model which “generate semi-sensible responses”. For the simple reason that the code as is only does the pre-training. Without the RLHF step the model would not be “responding”. It would just be completing the document. So for example if you ask it “How long is a bus?” it wouldn’t know it is supposed to answer your question. What exactly happens is kinda up to randomness. It might output a wikipedia like text about transportation, or it might output a list of questions similar to yours, or it might output broken markup garbage. Quite simply without this finishing step the base model doesn’t know that it is supposed to answer your question and it is supposed to follow your instructions. That is why this last step is called “instruction tuning” sometimes. Because it teaches the model to follow instructions.

But if you would increase the parameter count, improve the efficiency, train it on wikipedia, then do the instruction tuning (wich involves curating a database of instruction - response pairs) then yes. After that it would generate semi-sensible responses. But as you can see it would take quite a lot more work and would stretch the definition of “this”.

It is a bit like asking if my car could compete in formula-1. The answer is yes, but first we need to replace all parts of it with different parts, and also add a few new parts. To the point where you might question if it is the same car at all.
by muzani | 2026-03-01 13:10:41+00:00
In history class, we asked the teacher why the British killed these rebels and exiled those rebels. The rebels who led an army and killed many were exiled while the rebel who only had one kill was hung in the middle of his village and left to rot as an example.

She sat they killed some of those rebels, it would have sparked more rebellions. The difference was political power, even in defeat. Mercy is a big part of survival.

It's a bit like law enforcement. If there's no police, criminals are everywhere. If there's too many police, corruption becomes the standard, along with police brutality and profiling. You can never get it down to zero, just low enough.
Show HN: I built a browser-based 3D editor since I didn't want to learn Blender
by whothatcodeguy | 2026-03-01 13:10:49+00:00
process demo - https://i.redd.it/fbhlwsq1gcmg1.gif
render demo - https://i.redd.it/smddwtryhcmg1.gif

I love making creative software. I spent a few years making pixel art software but recently have gotten into 3d animation and 2d animation and really wanted a way to realize crazy ideas.

Blockbench didn't feel quite right, spline is super well made but felt catered too much to just idle website animations, and I really didn't want to fall down a master class in Blender just to make some silly stuff. While I'm definitely not discounting Blender's literal powerhouse functionality, I wanted something smaller, easier to adopt, and something directly inside the web ecosystem. So that when I want to make assets for silly games I won't have to jump through any hoops to make everything match up and render nicely. So, I made Topomaker (tentative name).

It's sporting your basic 3d modeling, coloring, and animation. It's currently supporting exports to mp4's and gifs for sharing, and then glb's and obj's for making games in threejs.

I literally just started it a couple weeks ago so there are probably tons of bugs, so maybe not for anything serious, but feel free to play around with it and let me know what you think!