MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by fc417fc802 | 2026-03-12 23:24:31+00:00
I think I wholly disagree - if sufficiently compensated the tasks would get done. Bit like claiming that abolishing slavery would result in the former slaves refusing to do the necessary work.

Regardless, such observations are not valid arguments against noticing that a particular situation could be improved in a particular way. The logical outcome of such negative lines of thinking is to ultimately arrive at a mentality of trying to drag others down to your own level rather than to lift them up when possible.

Don't be a crab in a bucket.
by akersten | 2026-03-12 23:25:33+00:00
> What stymies IPv6 is human laziness more than anything else. It's not hard to set up.

I think the biggest barrier to IPv6 adoption is that this is just categorically untrue and people keep insisting that it isn't, reducing the chance that I'd make conscious efforts to try to grok it.

I've had dozens of weird network issues in the last few years that have all been solved by simply turning off IPv6. From hosts taking 20 seconds to respond, to things not connecting 40% of the time, DHCP leases not working, devices not able to find the printer on the network, everything simply works better on IPv4, and I don't think it's just me. I don't think these sort of issues should be happening for a protocol that has had 30 years to mature. At a certain point we have to look and wonder if the design itself is just too complicated and contributes to its own failure to thrive, instead of blaming lazy humans.
by tern | 2026-03-12 23:25:36+00:00
Came here to say something similar. For me, the craft aspect is now even more exciting because I can craft more ambitious things without getting bogged down in the details. For me, refining my conceptual model, drawing diagrams, finding the right way to think about something was the craft.

Maybe that's another way of saying: I was trained as a designer, and now the distinction between design (read: architecture, service-design, product, ux, cx) and programming is blurring.
by erichocean | 2026-03-12 23:27:07+00:00
They don't read the things you send them, not even for "safety checks" or sys-admins accessing the system. Totally opaque (as it should be).

Keeping chat content around for 30 days might as well mean "forever." Anyone at the company can steal your customers chats.

My agreements with customers would prevent me from using any service that did that.
by sroussey | 2026-03-12 23:27:14+00:00
Don’t use the “auto” model and you will be fine.

You just described their “auto” behavior, which I’m guessing uses grok.

Using it with specific models is great, though you can tell that Anthropic is subsidizing Claude Code as you watch your API costs more directly. Some day the subsidy will end. Enjoy it now!

And cursor debugging is 10x better, oh my god.

I have switched to 70% Claude Code, 10% Copilot code reviews (non anthropic model), and 20% Cursor and switch the models a bit (sometimes have them compete — get four to implement the same thing at the same time, then review their choices, maybe choose one, or just get a better idea of what to ask for and try again).
by zthrowaway | 2026-03-12 23:27:31+00:00
I mean a program (series of herbal supplements) that can cure gut inflammation and help with digestion, and in some circumstances get rid of parasites. Herbal medicine, things that other cultures have been doing for thousands of years. Do I have to prove that turmeric lowers inflammation in the body? What is going on in this thread lol.

“gut cleanse” obviously is a trigger phrase on HN it seems.
by keybored | 2026-03-12 23:27:38+00:00
Every little minor dispute can be split into some arbitrary dichotomy which is vaguely defensible. Not interesting.

Twelve years ago I would have the bright idea of why not make a little, just a tiny little (what I would call now) preprocessor for Java which does the same thing in less characters and is clearer. Everyone would love it. Of course no one loved it. Well, I never implemented it. Because I got some sense: you can’t just make tiny little preprocessors, a little code generation here and there, just code-generate this and tweak after the fact. Right? It’s not principled.

You can cook up a dichotomy. Good for you. I think the approach is just space age technology meets Stone Age mindset. It’s Flintstone Engineering. It’s barely even serious.

I am not offended that you took my craft. I am offended that you smear paint on the wall with three hundred parallel walls and painters and pick the best one. Or whatever Rube Setup is the thing that will take over the world as of thirty minutes ago.

Make something rock solid like formal verification with LLM assist (or LLM with formal verification assist?). Something that a “human” can understand (at this point maybe only the CEO is left). Something that is understandable, deterministic.

I might be out of a job. But I will not be offended. And I will respect it.
by nickf | 2026-03-12 23:28:09+00:00
While I sort-of see what you're trying to say, if you knew the groups and teams involved - you'd know there was no favouritism and a strong degree of separation between CA and root programs.

The root programs who have their own CAs are also cloud providers, who arguably have a legitimate need for the CA. Or in Apple's case they have their own CA, but don't issue externally. They keep CA and root program separate.
by suzzer99 | 2026-03-12 23:28:10+00:00
I'm banned from Amazon KDP publishing for life because a fraud detection bot hallucinated that my e-book was plagiarizing my paperback (it didn't realize they're the same book). A bunch of email appeals that I'm pretty sure were also bots went nowhere. With each appeal, the reasons for my ban got progressively more vague, until they didn't mention the plagiarism part at all, just something nonsensical about creating a negative customer experience. Evil company.
by sidrag22 | 2026-03-12 23:29:09+00:00
> Might as well just include a verbatim snippet.

I guess im looking more at semantic search as ctrl + F on steroids for a lot of use cases. some use cases you might just want the output, but i think blindly making assumptions in use cases where the pitfalls are drastic requires the reference.
I'm biased the rag system I've been messing with is very heavy on the reference portion of the functionality.
by CharlieDigital | 2026-03-12 23:29:28+00:00
The point of reviews is that the process of reviews is a feedback cycle where we can identify where our docs are short. We then immediately update the docs to reflect the correction.

Over enough time, this gap closes and the need for reviews goes down. This is what I've noticed as we've continued to improve the docs: PRs have stabilized. Mid-level devs that just months ago were producing highly variant levels of quality are now coalescing on a much higher, much more consistent level of output.

There were a lot of pieces that went into this. We created a local code review skill that encodes the exact heuristics the senior reviewers would use and we ask the agent to run this in AGENTS.md. We have an MCP server over HTTP that we use to deliver the docs so we can monitor centralized telemetry.

The objective is that at some point, there will be enough docs and improved models that the need for human reviews decreases while quality of code reaches a steady state that is more consistent than any human team of varying skill level could produce.

One thing we've done is to decouple the docs from the codebase to make it easier to update the docs and immediately distribute updates orthogonal to the lifecycle of a PR.

(I'll have a post at some point that goes into some of what we are doing and the methodology.)
by nyacob27 | 2026-03-12 23:29:37+00:00
Giga | Staff Backend Engineers | In Office | San Francisco

Giga has recently raised a $61M Series A and has several paying customers, including DoorDash. We’re building the next generation of customer experience — real-time AI agents that can understand emotion, resolve issues instantly, and scale across the world’s largest enterprises.

It’s an exciting inflection point for the company. While we have been successful, we have larger ambitions. Our goal is to become the go-to AI platform for all enterprise automation, powered by our voice superintelligence. To achieve this, we need more great engineers.

The work affects millions of people every day and our engineers have autonomy and make true impact. This opportunity is unique because we have brilliant founders, have found commercial success, and see a clear path to becoming a generational company.

Apply here: https://jobs.ashbyhq.com/gigaml/16876587-6ea6-4312-bf38-f62d...
by stopbulying | 2026-03-12 23:29:46+00:00
Merchant Marine Act of 1920 ("Jones Act") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920

> Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act is known as the Jones Act and deals with cabotage (coastwise trade). It requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on ships that have been constructed in the United States and that fly the U.S. flag, are owned by U.S. citizens, and are crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents
by qsort | 2026-03-12 23:30:06+00:00
I think the argument is "a bit too nice," it isn't a binary, motivations are complicated and sometimes both feelings coexist.

If I reflect for a moment about why I personally got into tech, I can find at least a few different reasons:

- because I like solving problems. It's sad that the specific types of problems I used to do are gone, but it's exciting that there are new ones.

- because I like using my skills to help other people. It's sad that one specific way I could do that is now less effective, but it's exciting that I can use my knowledge in new ways.

- because I like doing something where I can personally make a difference. Again, it cuts both ways.

I'm sure most people would cite similar examples.
by jacquesm | 2026-03-12 23:30:26+00:00
Nice try, but no. When I was working for a US bank in the 80's, well before smartphone and even well before mobile phones the plan was hatched to reduce the number of offices because those offices were horrendously expensive. The big cost was the tellers and the handling of cash. For mortgages and other big ticket items there was a profit, but everything involved in the handling of money was a really large cost.

So they decided to reduce the number of offices. The ATMs were very specifically placed in the same location where the closed offices were, often renting just a fraction of the former space (usually a small cubbyhole attached to an outer wall). From 140 branches over a really small area they went to a small fraction of that, and ATMs took up the slack. Many people even preferred dealing with the ATMs rather than with the tellers because the ATMs were (at least initially) open 24x7.

Bank offices have all but disappeared. I think there are still two regional centers here and that's it. All deposits and all withdrawals of cash - as long as we still have cash - is handled by the ATMs. The iPhone came decades later.
by danjl | 2026-03-12 23:30:26+00:00
Just saying "no" is unclear. LLMs are still very sensitive to prompts. I would recommend being more precise and assuming less as a general rule. Of course you also don't want to be too precise, especially about "how" to do something, which tends to back the LLM into a corner causing bad behavior. Focus on communicating intent clearly in my experience.
by dostick | 2026-03-12 23:30:31+00:00
Its gotten so bad that Claude will pretend in 10 of 10 cases that task is done/on screenshot bug is fixed, it will even output screenshot in chat, and you can see the bug is not fixed pretty clear there.
I consulted Claude chat and it admitted this as a major problem with Claude these days, and suggested that I should ask what are the coordinates of UI controls are on screenshot thus forcing it to look. So I did that next time, and it just gave me invented coordinates of objects on screenshot.
I consult Claude chat again, how else can I enforce it to actually look at screenshot. It said delegate to another “qa” agent that will only do one thing - look at screenshot and give the verdict.
I do that, next time again job done but on screenshot it’s not. Turns out agent did all as instructed, spawned an agent and QA agent inspected screenshot. But instead of taking that agents conclusion coder agent gave its own verdict that it’s done.
It will do anything- if you don’t mention any possible situation, it will find a “technicality” , a loophole that allows to declare job done no matter what.

And on top of it, if you develop for native macOS, There’s no official tooling for visual verification. It’s like 95% of development is web and LLM providers care only about that.
by tengwar2 | 2026-03-12 23:30:44+00:00
One of my jobs is taking funerals in the UK. (It's always useful for a project manager to have access to a number of deep holes). As the article says, things are different in Europe, and even between the constituent countries of the UK. In England, where I am, probably 90% of funerals lead to a cremation rather than a burial. There was a revolutionary change from "illegal and heretical" to "absolutely fine and normal" in a short period of the 19C. I've taken a service at the original crematorium in Woking, which has plaques for a few notable people including Eleanor Marx and Alan Turing. That made the London Necropolis obsolete - a huge graveyard in the same town, with its own dedicated railway leading out of Waterloo station, built when London was running out of room.

I said I took a service at the crematorium: most crems are run by local councils, have one or two chapels as part of the complex, and are set in a cemetery. Stand-alone crematoria for direct cremation do exist, and I think that this will be the way of the future, with funerals taken with a box of pre-cremated ashes rather a coffin, mainly to reduce cost. Cost is high, though far from as high as in the USA: no embalming, hence no need for vaults for pollution control, simple coffin which is cheaper and only needs four bearers, crematoria run more as a public service than as a profit centre, ashes often scattered rather than needing a grave. But it still ends up costing a lot because so many people are needed to run the service.

We do have the equivalent of body disposal by the county. A basic funeral is funded by the local authority, and it is a funeral, not just body disposal. I've done a small number where someone has died with little money, and without known friends or family. I have spent some time contacting pubs, churches and clubs to find anyone who might want to come or be able to tell me anything for the eulogy.

It's a fascinating job - I can't think of anyone other than midwives who can visit homes from such a wide section of society and hear life stories. Today I took a huge funeral for a matriarch from a very clannish area of the town - you often get four generations of a family living within a few hundred yards of each other. It's a very different culture to my own middle-class background.

It's also fun to go to the biennial National Funeral Exhibition - several thousand people who are habitually kind and empathetic, descending on an exhibition hall in the middle of an agricultural showground, to see the latest advances in high-altitude disposal of ashes and demonstrations of the manufacture of wicker coffins (personally I would go for the felt coffin). My wife is looking forward to it, though she has advised me that if I continue to call her Morticia she's going to be picking up some business cards for her own use.
by meatmanek | 2026-03-12 23:31:01+00:00
> I’ve got a first gen M1 Max and it destroys all but the largest cloud instances (that cost its entire current market value per month!)

You're either underestimating how big cloud instances can get or overestimating how much it costs to rent a cloud instance that would beat an M1 Max at any multi-core processing.

According to Geekbench, the M1 Max macbook pro has a single-core performance of 2374 and multicore of 12257; AWS's c8i.4xlarge (16 vCPUs) has 2034 and 12807, so relatively equivalent.

That c8i.4xlarge would cost you $246/mo at current spot pricing of $0.3425/hr, which is, what, 20% of the cost of that M1 Max MBP?

As discussed recently in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47291906, Geekbench is underestimating the multi-core performance of very large machines for parallelizable tasks -- the benchmark's performance peaks at around 12x single-core performance. (I might've picked a different benchmark but I couldn't find another benchmark that had results for both the M1 Max and the Xeon Scalable 6 family.)

If your tasks are _not_ like that, then even a mid-range cloud instance like a 64-vCPU c8i.16xlarge (which currently costs $0.95/hour on the spot market) will handily beat the M1 Max, by a factor of about 4. The largest cloud instances from AWS have 896 vCPUs, so I'd expect they'd outperform the M1 Max by about 50-to-1 for trivially parallelizable workloads. Even if you stay away from the exotic instances like the `u7i-12tb.224xlarge` and stick to the standard c/m/r families, the c8i.96xlarge has 384 vCPUs (so at least 24x the compute power of that M1 Max) and costs $3.76/hr.
by lordnacho | 2026-03-12 23:31:05+00:00
I think he means that when you go to watch the symphony orchestra, you are going to watch a bunch of people sitting with their instruments, manually playing them.

There is no way to separate this process from the product of the process.

You're not buying the sound of the music. You can just stream that. As far as that is the product, it has already been automated and scaled so millions of people can hear it at once, whenever they feel like it.

You're buying the sound AND the people sitting in their formal clothes manually moving their strings over a violin, with painstaking accuracy developed through years of manual practice.

You couldn't make a robot do it, for example. You could maybe make a robot play a violin, but that again isn't what the product is.

The product is tied to an expectation of what it is that does not allow for it to be done more effectively.

By contrast manufacturing processes are not tied to this expectation. If I buy a loaf of bread, I don't care whether the wheat was manually harvested or harvested by a huge machine.
by lickmygiggle | 2026-03-12 23:31:16+00:00
We try to limit our kids screen time and for the most part let them watch what they want as long as it’s age appropriate. The one exception with absolutely no compromise in our house is shows or videos of other people playing with toys.
The videos are so insipid on top of the absurdity of watching other people playing with toys. Call me an elder millennial but it’s equally as absurd as people watching twitch players with single player games.
Maybe don’t touch grass but fuck, man, do something yourself.
by tialaramex | 2026-03-12 23:31:41+00:00
> unindexable NaN keys that just sit in your hashmap forever.

Although you shouldn't put nonsense in a HashMap, HashMap::drain will give you (an iterator to get) back everything you put into the HashMap even if it's nonsense and HashMap::retain will let you provide a predicate to throw away the nonsense if you want to keep everything else, while HashMap::extract_if even allows you to get the nonsense back out again to put that somewhere more sensible.

These work because they don't need to find your nonsense in particular using hashing, which may now be impossible, they're just looking at everything.
by flossposse | 2026-03-12 23:31:50+00:00
I agree with you that it's about tradeoffs.

The cost ($$$, opportunity cost, and mental toll) of maintenance is very real. It can be hugely advantageous to outsource that effort to a professional, PROVIDED the professional is trustworthy and competent. To ensure that most professionals are trustworthy and competent two things need to be present:

1. A very high degree of transparency, so that it's very difficult for a service provider to act contrary to their user's interests without the user knowing about it.

2. Very low switching costs, so that if the service provider ever does act against their users' interests, they will be likely to lose their users.

As long as our laws encourage providers to operate in black-box fashion, and to engineer artificially high switching costs into their products, I believe there will continue to be a case for self-hosting among a minority of the population. And because they are a minority, they will be forced to also make use of centralized services in order to connect to the people who are held hostage by those high switching costs.

Somewhere in the multiverse, there's a world in which interoperability and accountability have been enshrined as bedrock principles and enforced since the beginning of the internet. It would be very interesting to compare that world with the one we inhabit.
by reconnecting | 2026-03-12 23:31:56+00:00
After 30 years in front of the desktop, we are processing dopamine differently.

When I speak about 10 years from now, I’m referring to who will become an average developer if we replace the real coding experience learning curve with LLMs from day one.

I also hear a lot of tool analogies — tractors for developers, etc. But every tool, without an exception, provides replicable results. In the case of LLMs, however, repeatable results are highly questionable, so it seems premature to me to treat LLMs in the same way as any other tool.
by ineedasername | 2026-03-12 23:32:08+00:00
Last year Jamie Dimon said there were some going to be some “cockroaches” found lingering unattended to in lots of private credit portfolios— the implication at the time was not that it was systemic and deep, merely that various incentives and market forces have meant a shakeout of either the incremental as-it-happens variety or slightly larger ones of multiple happening at a time.

Since then I’ve seen small things indicating lots of people quietly checking their books for such.

In the last week or two this has accelerated. A lot. Every few days there are ratchets tightening things up. Dimon just put some hard limits on some private credit lines and what they could take out. A few other banks trying to take other precautions.
by 6thbit | 2026-03-12 23:32:22+00:00
Huh. I hadn't digested the iphone indicator was also software based only.

But it's not like hardware indicators are foolprof, even apple has suffered hardware based circunvent via firmware: https://appleinsider.com/articles/13/12/18/researchers-find-...

I guess for Neos it's back to the good old postit.
by ptobey | 2026-03-12 23:32:30+00:00
I just open-sourced a project called Local Memory MCP:
https://github.com/ptobey/local-memory-mcp

It’s a local-first personal memory layer for AI assistants:
- text-first chunks + lightweight metadata
- local ChromaDB persistence
- MCP tools for store/search/update/delete/version chain
- stdio and SSE transports
- Docker-first setup

I’m looking for technical feedback from people building with MCP/RAG:

1. Does this chunk/version model seem practical for long-lived personal memory?
2. Any obvious risks in the retrieval/ranking approach for real usage?
3. For local-first projects, what integration path has worked best for you (stdio vs SSE)?
4. What would make this more useful in your own workflow?

I’m happy to hear blunt criticism and prioritize fixes.
by mcphage | 2026-03-12 23:33:03+00:00
> So what you really want is to be in a state that will make you chose one box and you want to already be in that state at the time the predictor makes its predictions because the predictor will see this and place the million dollars into the second box.

Here’s the thing: no, I don’t. I’d much rather walk away with the easy million instead of risking it all for an extra thousand.