MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by conductr | 2026-03-13 06:12:47+00:00
I don’t know, law enforcement in the US is already heavy handed in terms of enforcement. Not that it’s done equally, which is your intention, but it’s that the enforcer already thinks they are overly powerful and already commonly oversteps and abuse their power. This pushes further into a police state.

Maybe my YouTube algorithm just shows me a lot of it, but there’s no shortage of cops out there violating people’s rights because they think when they ask for something we have to comply and see anything else as defiant.

I think we need perhaps less laws so people can actually know them all. Also, I think we need clarity as to what they are and it needs to be simple English, dummy’s guide to law type thing. But there’s a lot of issues that simply stem from things like 1) when can a cop ask for your ID? / when do you have the right to say no? 2) similar question as to when do they have a right to enter/trespass onto your property? 3) as every encounter usually involves them asking you questions, even a simple traffic stop, when and how can you refuse to talk to them or even roll down your window or open your car door without them getting offended and refusing to take no as an answer?

I don’t think we generally have any understanding of what our rights actually are in these most likely and most common interactions with law enforcement. However, it’s all cases where I see law enforcement themselves have a poor understanding of what the law and rights are themselves so how are citizens to really know. If they tell you it’s their policy to ID anyone they want without any sort of probable cause then they say you’re obstructing their investigation for not complying or answering their questions or asserting you have to listen to anything they say because it’s a lawful order; it’s just common ways they get people to do what they want, it’s often completely within your right to not comply with a lot of these things though.
by creddit | 2026-03-13 06:12:50+00:00
> Consumer spending as a share of US GDP moved from roughly 61% in 1980 to about 68% today. That’s a modest rise over four decades — and it has essentially plateaued since 2010.

> This matters because it tells us something important: technology is not meaningfully expanding the total amount humans consume. It’s redistributing how we consume, and who profits from it.

This is mathematically illiterate and appears to be central to the point.
by KempyKolibri | 2026-03-13 06:12:53+00:00
Maybe in some cross sectional or cohort studies with poor adjustment models we might see such a signal? Several states of poor health drive LDL down because of those diseases (e.g. having cancer can result in lower LDL, having a heart attack can massively lower LDL), so if we look at study designs that don’t take this into consideration, it can appear that high LDL is protective because of reverse causation.

However, I’m not aware of any evidence that takes this into account showing higher LDL associated with lower ACM. What’s your evidence for such a claim?
by akhrail1996 | 2026-03-13 06:13:07+00:00
The fear of looking stupid is basically a false positive machine. It optimizes so hard for not being wrong (type I error?) that it rejects way more ideas than it should. And most of the time the "that I'll look dumb" signal is just noise - nobody actually cares or even notices. You're always standing on the safe side of a threshold that's set way too conservatively.
by adrian_b | 2026-03-13 06:13:22+00:00
While that is true, a fact that increases the credibility of the published results is that the study also obtained a negative result.

Besides the multivitamin supplement, they also tested cocoa extract, for which similar effects had been claimed, and for that they did not find any effect.

The fact that the multivitamin supplement had effect is plausible. Presumably a significant number of the participants did not eat a perfect diet that would supply all vitamins in adequate quantities, so for those, taking a multivitamin supplement compensated whatever vitamin deficiency their diet might have had.

Such a positive result does not demonstrate that you need to buy a vitamin supplement, it just demonstrates that it is desirable to eat healthy food. However, there are circumstances when a vitamin supplement may be cheaper or more convenient than buying and eating enough food of an appropriate type.

For example, I take a vitamin supplement from time to time, but that is only because I have a sedentary lifestyle, working at a computer, so I must eat relatively little, otherwise I would gain weight immediately. When you eat little, it is difficult to compose a menu that will provide enough vitamins without also providing too much energy.
by ameliaquining | 2026-03-13 06:13:32+00:00
Yes, those work fine: https://playground.oxc.rs/?options=%7B%22run%22%3A%7B%22lint...

For that matter, TypeScript's version of decorators ("experimental decorators") also works: https://playground.oxc.rs/?options=%7B%22run%22%3A%7B%22lint...

What's not supported is the current draft proposal for standardized ECMAScript decorators; if you uncheck experimentalDecorators, the decorator syntax is simply passed through as-is, even when lowering to ES2015.
by geocrasher | 2026-03-13 06:14:03+00:00
I've never been afraid to share bad ideas because the best way to get to a good one is to go through the bad ones. Sometimes my bad ideas will spark a good idea from somebody else or sometimes it even turns out that my bad idea isn't bad at all and people like it and we end up adopting it.

Either way, not being afraid to look dumb keeps the juices flowing. And keeps the conversation going. Or sometimes it starts the conversation that nobody else is willing to start.
by aenis | 2026-03-13 06:14:56+00:00
When I was 6, I got a Commodore PLUS/4, which was Commodore's unsuccessful attempt at a business-oriented 8 bit computer. I think my folks wanted to give me a Commodore 64, but things happen. Since there were not nearly as many games on that thing, I learned to program early. It had a build in assembler/disassembler (shift-reset would reset the computer without wiping the memory - just the first byte of the program memory), so I learned how to reverse engineer assembly code before I was 10. This arguably "wrong tool" shaped my whole life, and was maybe the most important thing that happened to me. If I got a C64, I could have easily turned into someone else.
by lemontheme | 2026-03-13 06:15:12+00:00
At least the thinking trace is visible here. CC has stopped showing it in the latest releases – maybe (speculating) to avoid embarrassing screenshots like OC or to take away a source of inspiration from other harness builders.

I consider it a real loss. When designing commands/skills/rules, it’s become a lot harder to verify whether the model is ‘reasoning’ about them as intended. (Scare quotes because thinking traces are more the model talking to itself, so it is possible to still see disconnects between thinking and assistant response.)

Anyway, please upvote one of the several issues on GH asking for thinking to be reinstated!
by duskwuff | 2026-03-13 06:17:39+00:00
I suspect you've never actually tried that.

A torch isn't just a bundle of sticks that provides light. It needs to be soaked in liquid fuel to work - like kerosene or wax - and it's a messy, smoky thing even then. It's completely unsuitable for use indoors, and it certainly isn't a cheaper alternative to candles.
by samename | 2026-03-13 06:19:03+00:00
This article struck a nerve. There's something about the curiosity of tinkering around in a computer. It's the most powerful technology humankind has built. It's versatile. It lets you break it. It's a bicycle for the mind, as Steve Jobs would say.

May all the hackers out there, old and young, discover the beauty of the personal computer.
by tokioyoyo | 2026-03-13 06:19:13+00:00
Not sure if this is the right place to respond, but I’ve only seen this play in situations where people visibly want to look better than others, because they feel insecure about their status.

Frankly, I have no idea how to explain it in words, but when you’re in a setting where everyone knows they’re good at their own thing, but also know the others are also exceptional at their thing, this game goes away. Like it actually becomes the opposite. Everyone calls themselves stupid, become more cordial, and things get fun. Trying to not to look stupid signals negative status, or whatever you call it.

It’s very funny to write this out, because I’ve never thought about it on purpose. Everything has just felt natural at the time of the event.
by tkgally | 2026-03-13 06:19:19+00:00
Interesting question. My impression from afar (I live in Japan) is that “Asian Indians” and “East Indians” are both used but that just “Indians” is increasingly common, partly because of the growth in the number of people in the U.S. from India and partly because of the growing tendency in recent decades to avoid using “Indian” to refer to native Americans. Wikipedia has a long article on the latter issue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controver...
by asmor | 2026-03-13 06:20:24+00:00
There is a point where the increase in diversity of products is not real economic growth, it's compensating for lack of demand. We even invented the entire discipline of marketing to manufacture demand so the line can keep going up.

Is it nice we all can have cheap technology and knowledge-based jobs? Sure, to the point where you don't squeeze basic living necessities like housing or alienate me so hard from my cozy job that i literally don't give a shit (which is really unhealthy in a society that keeps telling us to define our worth based on our work output). I think we're well past that point.
by bravura | 2026-03-13 06:20:26+00:00
You and GGP both wrong in ironic ways.

GGP says don't care about X because it's a social phenomenon, but frequently this position is a form of social identification.

You say: X might deeper than social, implying that social phenomena are not important. Thus agreeing with GP.

[edit: my position is pragmatic: If there's a broad or important phenomenon, your position on it should be individualized to the value of the phenomenon itself, not based upon some theory-of-origin category assignment.]
by gizajob | 2026-03-13 06:20:34+00:00
One also has to consider that Apple remains an “aspirational” kind of computer. The things bemoaned by HNers due to Apple having something of the status of a luxury brand delivering a premium computing experience are also desirable to huge numbers of people in the world seeking to improve their status and lot in life. It’s very easy for us in the west to overlook that there’s a couple of billion people in the world earning $300-400 a month. So there’s a billion kids out there who would perhaps be lusting after this machine instead of struggling along with a very recycled and half-decrepit laptop. There’s also huge numbers of people in the west who live paycheck to paycheck so having an actual machine at this price point that will deliver years of faultless computing will probably make a big difference. At least I get the aspirational tone the OP is arguing for - a kid completely learning the edges and maxing out their machine will likely produce better results and better educational outcomes than one given a top of the range MBP or windows desktop supercomputer.
by dlenski | 2026-03-13 06:21:17+00:00
> This could, perhaps surprisingly, be one of the first places we directly grapple with this in a legal case someday soon, that the legality of something may be at least partially influenced by the expense of the operation.

Well said.

I think another area where this problem has already emerged is with public records laws.

It's one thing if records of, let's say, real estate sales are made "publicly available" by requiring interested parties to physically visit a local government building, speak in the local language to other human beings in order to politely request them, and to spend a few hours and some money in order to actually get them.

It's quite another thing if "publicly available" means that anyone anywhere can scrape those records off the web en masse and use them to target online scams at elderly homeowners halfway around the world.
by ryan14975 | 2026-03-13 06:21:38+00:00
Similar principle applies to server-side constraints. I run a file processing API on Cloudflare Workers with 128MB RAM — no filesystem, no disk. Had to build a fully streaming ZIP64 archiver that never buffers more than a few KB at a time. It's processed 10TB+ of data so far.

Constraints like DuckDB targeting the cheapest MacBook or Workers' 128MB limit force you into better architectures. You end up with streaming pipelines instead of "load everything into memory" approaches, which scale better regardless of hardware.
by ricksunny | 2026-03-13 06:22:27+00:00
Haven't opened the article yet, but surprised the comments so far are generally in the framework of "oh, economy produces more X, but too much more of a proportion of X is going to [the fortunate few] and too little to [the unfortunate many]." where is X is some kind of fungible consumable. Rather what I see are asset holders and liabilities holders (same spectrum, some enjoy the positive side, some struggle on the negative side). Goods (the consumable, fungible sort) flow in, around, between, and all throughout them. But the only ledger that matters, the one that makes some stressed out and others feel empowered & satisfied, is the asset-liability spectrum.

Update:

And now I've read at the article. Decent, it might sa well be the GPT of "Update Das Kapital for the 21st century". (GPT here being a figure speech, i.e. irrespective of whether an LLM helped in composing the piece). Article still fixates too much on differential parceling out the flow of economic product, and not the asset-liability ledger which everyone is jostling around with each other on. (It almost touches on it in "Mechanism #3", but not quite).
by vladdoster | 2026-03-13 06:22:46+00:00
Location: Nashville, TN
Remote: true
Willing to relocate: boston || nashville
Technologies: Python, Django, IaC, Terraform, Golang, CI/CD, Azure/AWS, {ba,z}sh, Lua, Springboot,
Redis, Docker, Open Service Broker, {,non}relational & vector dbs, shared services, SOA
Email: mvdoster@gmail.com

resume: https://linkedin.vdoster.com && http://github.com/vladdoster

sr. cloud software engineer @ Mastercard (5 years)

Designed and built Platform-as-a-Service for microservice workloads running on Azure and AWS
to migrate on-prem workloads to the cloud. The platform operates globally, allowing teams to
deploy to several Azure-backed regions worldwide. Helped plan and create regional landing zones
in Azure for application teams wanting to perform globally. Designed platform components using
Terraform, Go, and Node; developed support tooling using Bash, Python, and Azure CLI. De-risk the
platform by addressing security vulnerabilities and ensuring the platform is PCI compliant.

api/devops software engineer @ Harvard Medical School (2 years)

Worked as part of the DevOps team to manage a 15k core CentOS HPC cluster. Designed and implemented
Python-based security scanning pipeline to securely deploy & run Apptainer images via SLURM.
Coordinated cross-team emergency patching eﬀorts. Collaborated with researchers and engineers across
3-letter institutions to deliver secure research infrastructure. Built CI/CD Pipelines with GitHub, Jenkins,
to automate code builds, testing, and deployments. Wrote Puppet modules to manage configuration of HPC fleet.
Wrote custom Puppet module & Python scripts to automatically remediate Tenable findings.

full-stack software engineer @ Global Prior Art (3 years)

Used Django, Celery, Selenium grid, and AWS API Gateway for IP rotation to scrape USPTO patent PDFs,
apply CV for data extraction, and generate reports with relevant claims, saving employees 4-5 hours daily.
Wrote E2E black-box/fuzzing unit tests. Automated on-premise deployment via Github Actions and Ansible.

maintainer @ Zinit (5 years)

Develop and maintain a zsh plugin manager on Github with 4k stars. Implemented unit tests,
containerization, bug fixes, and new features.
See: https://github.com/zdharma-continuum/zinit

contributor @ Open-source documentation (5 years)

Contributed hundreds of documentation corrections and enhancements to 400+ open source projects.
by Ajakks | 2026-03-13 06:23:48+00:00
I absolutely will check out Kerbal - I have done nothing more than thought experiments - which I'm sure is obvious, its obvious to me. I'm sure I am saying things exactly wrong - the idea is to save fuel and remove all of the difficulties that may arise with timing or aiming. Using more fuel is exactly opposite intent.

I may be confused but I dont mean a "larger orbit than the earth" -> I mean the exact identical orbit, the exact path that earth takes around the sun -> ahead (or behind, it does not matter) of where we are and instead of 365 days to circle the sun, the asteroid is moving at a rate that will take MORE days -> so the earth will smash into the asteroid, bc it can't do anything else. I dont mean "park" in the sense that I stop its movement, nor would I select an asteroid that has such an orbit that it couldn't be manipulated into position with little difficulty.

Like, imagine the solar system was a record on record player (I've never used one either) and the earth is on a line/groove - a choice asteroid is moving in the same direction on an immediately adjacent line/groove - the asteroid only needs to move onto the earth's groove (anywhere on that specific groove the earth occupies on the record works) and then the asteroid is then sped up or slowed down (not much tho) on that exact orbit -> either will result in a collision with earth.

The only real way to stop such activities is with spaceships. That is my entire argument - you are saying that is less feasible than making a missle out of an asteroid? I appreciate the explanation fr

Tbh, it wasn't until the game Terra Invicta that I really considered the solar system, as it actually is. That game has no other relevance to this particular conversation - good game, very different kind of 4x that I recommend but unrelated.
by fulafel | 2026-03-13 06:23:58+00:00
You can configure it statically but there used to be the anycast address 192.88.99.1 and the idea was that you'll get routed to the nearest one by magic of BGP. It was retired once native IPv6 deployment took off.

Apparently the practical problems were related to people haplessly firewalling it out (ref. https://labs.ripe.net/author/emileaben/6to4-why-is-it-so-bad...)
by al_borland | 2026-03-13 06:24:18+00:00
Do you not have to be online at a certain time when remote?

I’ve been remote for 6 years now, and did it on and off for a while before that. I’m still woken up by an alarm clock, because I can’t get myself to go to bed at a reasonable time, but have to be online for meetings and stuff and 9am… I think many would prefer 8am, but that’s just a symptom of a broken meeting culture.
by Ao7bei3s | 2026-03-13 06:24:47+00:00
It has a fixed maximum number of concurrent sockets, and each socket has queues backed by per-socket fixed-size transmit and receive buffers (see `rxmem` and `txmem` in `struct tsocket`[1]). This is fine, because in TCP, each side advertises remaining buffer space via the window size header field [2] (possibly with its meaning modified by the window scale option during the initial handshake - see [3] & `struct PACKED tcp_opt_ws`), and possibly also how much it can maximally receive in one packet (via the MSS option on the initial handshake [4]; possibly modified by intermediary systems for PMTU discovery). wolfip has unusually small buffer sizes, and hardcodes them via #define, and everything else (e.g. congestion control) is pretty rudimentary too, but otherwise it's pretty much the same as in a "normal" implementation.

[1] https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfip/blob/60444d869e8f451aa2dca...
[2] https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfip/blob/60444d869e8f451aa2dca...
[3] https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfip/blob/60444d869e8f451aa2dca...
[4] https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfip/blob/60444d869e8f451aa2dca...
by eslaught | 2026-03-13 06:24:58+00:00
For context I've been an AI skeptic and am trying as hard as I can to continue to be.

I honestly think we've moved the goalposts. I'm saying this because, for the longest time, I thought that the chasm that AI couldn't cross was generality. By which I mean that you'd train a system, and it would work in that specific setting, and then you'd tweak just about anything at all, and it would fall over. Basically no AI technique truly generalized for the longest time. The new LLM techniques fall over in their own particular ways too, but it's increasingly difficult for even skeptics like me to deny that they provide meaningful value at least some of the time. And largely that's because they generalize so much better than previous systems (though not perfectly).

I've been playing with various models, as well as watching other team members do so. And I've seen Claude identify data races that have sat in our code base for nearly a decade, given a combination of a stack trace, access to the code, and a handful of human-written paragraphs about what the code is doing overall.

This isn't just a matter of adding harnesses. The fields of program analysis and program synthesis are old as dirt, and probably thousands of CS PhD have cut their teeth of trying to solve them. All of those systems had harnesses but they weren't nearly as effective, as general, and as broad as what current frontier LLMs can do. And on top of it all we're driving LLMs with inherently fuzzy natural language, which by definition requires high generality to avoid falling over simply due to the stochastic nature of how humans write prompts.

Now, I agree vehemently with the superficial point that LLMs are "just" text generators. But I think it's also increasingly missing the point given the empirical capabilities that the models clearly have. The real lesson of LLMs is not that they're somehow not text generators, it's that we as a species have somehow encoded intelligence into human language. And along with the new training regimes we've only just discovered how to unlock that.
by imiric | 2026-03-13 06:25:04+00:00
Great article.

I've observed this behavior at work. It doesn't present itself only as not sharing. People with recognition and political leverage can share wrong ideas confidently, and others will naturally follow them. If they're challenged on that idea, and even presented evidence that it's wrong, they often push back and double down on it, or don't acknowledge the correction at all.

I think this is more detrimental to the team and organization than the fear of sharing the wrong idea. For some reason, some senior people will do anything to avoid losing face in public, yet they still seek recognition for their work.

On the other hand, it is a real pleasure to work with senior people who can acknowledge their mistakes, are willing to learn from them, and course correct if needed. It shows maturity and humility, and sets a good example for others, which is exactly what good leaders should do.
by gizajob | 2026-03-13 06:25:04+00:00
I totally admire raspberry pi and their attempt to get kids a gateway into cheap computing - made by people the generation who started on those BASIC machines. But I’ve always found it to be a radically different experience on Raspberry Pi given it boots into a full desktop and has endless things to do, compared to the empty terror-filled void that is a blinking BASIC cursor with nothing else on the screen except for some arcane copyright message. Loading a game from tape and experiencing the 5-minute cacophony of that noise was also a surreal and tedious experience for the nippers of the 1980s. It made you really want it in a way that machines since can’t deliver.