MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by somethingsome | 2026-03-10 00:12:38+00:00
Sometimes you don't need a collaborator if you have the idea. If the other party is not at all working on the angle that you're interested in, it's probably not the correct collaboration to ask to.

Also, a collaborator is usually not a stranger over the internet, it's often someone who you know and you already worked with, so it is not that ackward to expose a new idea and propose to work together.

It takes time and social skills to make long lasting collaborations, the two parties must trust each other in order to collaborate. In this context, exchanging ideas is not really an issue.
by monster_truck | 2026-03-10 00:13:10+00:00
Great example of the userbase quality to be found here: https://bsky.app/profile/patriotnicole.bsky.social/followers

This account has posted once and has over 700 followers in like an hour, which looks like this: https://i.imgur.com/hQcKDZQ.png

There are countless "patriot" "true blue" "blue heart emoji american flag emoji" accounts just like this
by joshjob42 | 2026-03-10 00:13:46+00:00
If the cost to copying code based on specifications, tests, etc is so close to zero as to be functionally zero cost, then any user can simply turn their AI on any library for which there is documentation and any ability to generate tests, have it reverse engineer it, and release their reverse engineered copy on GitHub for others to use as they like.

So I'm not sure it matters whether a giant company uses it because random users can get the same thing for ~ free anyway.
by joshjob42 | 2026-03-10 00:15:41+00:00
"If you distribute modified code, or offer it as a networked service, you must make the source available under the same terms. This is not a restriction on sharing. It is a condition placed on sharing: if you share, you must share in kind."
-- This is, on any plain reading, a restriction on sharing. "You can share only under these conditions" is plainly more restrictive than "sure do whatever you want". You can argue that it's a restriction that ultimately leads to more sharing overall. But it is a restriction on sharing in any given case of sharing nevertheless.
by 0x457 | 2026-03-10 00:15:48+00:00
> Antirez does not address this directional difference. He invokes the GNU precedent, but that precedent is a counterexample to his conclusion, not a supporting one.

Morally - yes, technically - no. I think it's odd to be mad at someone doing the exact thing you praise in another case just because license isn't copyleft within license allowance. Make a better copyleft license?
by angry_octet | 2026-03-10 00:15:53+00:00
I can see that you have sand in your underpants about getting infringements for breaking the law. It is obviously uneconomic to have very expensive police officers enforce traffic crime when automated cameras are so effective. What you are really arguing for is individual exceptionalism for rich people to violate speed limits.

It isn't a "social experiment" to deter crime, and calibrating punishment to have an actual deterrent effect has a long precedent. If it is "nanny state" policy to set speed limits that penalise repeat offenders and hoons in high powered cars, you will find it has broad community support.
by MFHava | 2026-03-10 00:16:10+00:00
> Most crucially, both keyboards introduced a new tenant: Control (⌃). This was modifier key number four, and to this day, I don’t fully understand why ⌘ wasn’t repurposed here

Because then we would have ended up with the same mess that is Windows (and Linux for that matter) when it comes to ^C being ambiguous...
by starkparker | 2026-03-10 00:16:29+00:00
No idea. One such account's posted 24 articles in the last two weeks, most from either nytimes.com, theguardian.com, or newyorker.com. Half of them are unrelated to tech.

They averaged 14 karma per post, but most of that (218) is in one NYT share that hit.

That's right on the norm for this account. The prior two weeks of spam had one hit in 26 (Guardian, 500+ karma). The prior two weeks of spam had one hit in 30 (London Review of Books, on the Iran war, 100+ points before getting flagged). The prior two weeks, one hit in 15 (Guardian, 81 points, a dupe of an earlier submission).
by avidiax | 2026-03-10 00:16:42+00:00
I highly doubt that there is. I'm just saying that if you can discriminate on drivers based on protected characteristic Y and data suggesting that characteristic Y is more/less dangerous, then you should be able to discriminate on protected characteristic X based on similar data, or both characteristics X and Y, or characteristics X, Y, Z, U and W.

If characteristic X was race, religion or sexuality, I think people would be extremely opposed to this, and not even entertain the idea that this would be acceptable.
by susam | 2026-03-10 00:17:51+00:00
I first came across Tony Hoare about 24 years ago while learning C from The C Programming Language by Kernighan and Richie. I knew him only as C. A. R. Hoare for a long time. When I got on the Internet, it took me a while to realise that when people said Tony Hoare, it was the same person I knew as C. A. R. Hoare. Quoting the relevant text from the book:

> Another good example of recursion is quicksort, a sorting algorithm developed by C.A.R. Hoare in 1962. Given an array, one element is chosen and the others partitioned in two subsets - those less than the partition element and those greater than or equal to it. The same process is then applied recursively to the two subsets. When a subset has fewer than two elements, it doesn't need any sorting; this stops the recursion.

> Our version of quicksort is not the fastest possible, but it's one of the simplest. We use the middle element of each subarray for partitioning. [...]

It was one of the first few 'serious' algorithms I learnt to implement on my own. More generally, the book had a profound impact on my life. It made me fall in love with computer programming and ultimately choose it as my career. Thanks to K&R, Tony Hoare and the many other giants on whose shoulders I stand.
by sowbug | 2026-03-10 00:18:39+00:00
We might be talking past each other. Call Haifa a parable, if you will. I understand why you find fault with the study, but I invoked it to call out (quoting myself) that a fine can also give permission for unwanted behavior. That point adds to yours and doesn't contradict it.

The reason I said anything in the first place is that I object to automatically administered punishment. Either separately can be OK. Automatically administered? No problem, that's called a tax (including use taxes like tolls). Punishment? Then we'd better have due process, and yeah, it's going to be expensive and labor-intensive to administer, but that's critical in a free country. That's why I called out the "is better than" quote. I think it's strictly worse.
by smsm42 | 2026-03-10 00:19:05+00:00
> Blanchard's account is that he never looked at the existing source code directly. He fed only the API and the test suite to Claude and asked it to reimplement the library from scratch.

I don't see how it matters what he looked at. If I took a copyrighted code and run it through a script that replaces all variable names, and then claimed copyright on the result because it's an entirely new work and I did not look on the original work, I'd be ridiculed and sued, and would lose that lawsuit. AI is a more complex machine, but still a machine. If you feed somebody'd work into a machine, what comes out is a derivative work.

Test suite is a part of copyrighted code, is it not? If he used just the API description, preferably from a copyright-clean source, then we could claim new work (regardless of how it was produced, by using Claude or trained pigeons or by consuming magic mushrooms). But once parts of the copyrighted code had been used, it becomes derivative work.
by jerf | 2026-03-10 00:19:56+00:00
From a 2026 perspective I couldn't possibly have had as a teenager in the 1990s, it kind of feels like a well-polished, extended SCP story.

As I can in 2026 gorge myself on "mysterious things doing mysterious tasks mysteriously", now an entire sub-genre of its own, I'm pretty sure the impact if I read it for the first time today would be somewhat muted by comparison.

I am also reminded of the J. J. Abrams "mystery box storytelling" technique. Rendevous with Rama was perhaps one of my first encounters with the technique, so I have fond memories of it. But in 2026 I find myself tired of the "woo woo there's a mystery and we're not going to tell you what it is" because in the end, all mystery boxes are fundamentally the same, and I've seen enough of the mystery box. It has its place in history but if a random person who has never read sci-fi of this era wanted a recommendation to start with, this would be way, way down on my list, unless you explicitly want to read things significant to the genre.

But as I've tried to make clear by my repeated references to the present time, that's my 2026 review. For the time it was a fine book.
by zacklee-aud | 2026-03-10 00:20:34+00:00
Most discussions here focus on quicksort and the null reference mistake, but his work on communicating sequential processes (CSP) laid the theoretical foundation for modern concurrent and distributed system design. Hoare logic also created the baseline for all formal verification work that's only now starting to see widespread production use, decades after he first published it. Few computer scientists have contributed work that impacts day-to-day coding, algorithm design, and core system architecture at this fundamental a level.
by brucehoult | 2026-03-10 00:21:26+00:00
Out of interest I tried running my Primes benchmark [1] on both the x86_64 and x86 Alpine and the riscv64 Buildroot, both in Chrome on M1 Mac Mini. Both are 2nd run so that all needed code is already cached locally.

x86_64:

localhost:~# time gcc -O primes.c -o primes
real 0m 3.18s
user 0m 1.30s
sys 0m 1.47s
localhost:~# time ./primes
Starting run
3713160 primes found in 456995 ms
245 bytes of code in countPrimes()
real 7m 37.97s
user 7m 36.98s
sys 0m 0.00s
localhost:~# uname -a
Linux localhost 6.19.3 #17 PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon Mar 9 17:12:35 CET 2026 x86_64 Linux

x86 (i.e. 32 bit):

localhost:~# time gcc -O primes.c -o primes
real 0m 2.08s
user 0m 1.43s
sys 0m 0.64s
localhost:~# time ./primes
Starting run
3713160 primes found in 348424 ms
301 bytes of code in countPrimes()
real 5m 48.46s
user 5m 37.55s
sys 0m 10.86s
localhost:~# uname -a
Linux localhost 4.12.0-rc6-g48ec1f0-dirty #21 Fri Aug 4 21:02:28 CEST 2017 i586 Linux

riscv64:

[root@localhost ~]# time gcc -O primes.c -o primes
real 0m 2.08s
user 0m 1.13s
sys 0m 0.93s
[root@localhost ~]# time ./primes
Starting run
3713160 primes found in 180893 ms
216 bytes of code in countPrimes()
real 3m 0.90s
user 3m 0.89s
sys 0m 0.00s
[root@localhost ~]# uname -a
Linux localhost 4.15.0-00049-ga3b1e7a-dirty #11 Thu Nov 8 20:30:26 CET 2018 riscv64 GNU/Linux

Conclusion: as seen also in QEMU (also started by Bellard!), RISC-V is a *lot* easier to emulate than x86. If you're building code specifically to run in emulation, use RISC-V: builds faster, smaller code, runs faster.

Note: quite different gcc versions, with x86_64 being 15.2.0, x86 9.3.0, and riscv64 7.3.0.

[1] http://hoult..rg/primes.txt
by gosub100 | 2026-03-10 00:21:44+00:00
I hate the guy personally, but still understand that at that scale, if the leader is so conservative that s/he never risks losing, they are already losing. Like airline manufacturers never investing in jets because early ones weren't safe.

MSFT's bumbling idiot Ballmer Threw away at least a billion on one of the failed early versions of the Surface, but it went on to be profitable (or at least successful with customers) later. They also burned billion(s) acquiring skype, only to switch to Teams. Say what you want about their terrible products, but somehow they are still successful businesses.
by whycome | 2026-03-10 00:21:47+00:00
There's the timing aspect of it as well. As it stands, you only find out about your 'offense' weeks after the fact. If it were a human interaction (eg speeding/police stop) you'd know right away and still have the relevant information in mind to understand the charge and maybe defend. The ability to know and defend should be critical to any charge. K
by swq115 | 2026-03-10 00:22:03+00:00
Interesting approach. The mmap streaming idea is clever, but I'd love to see real-world benchmarks beyond TinyLlama — especially for the 140B claim. Running that on a Mac Mini with 16GB would be the real proof point.

For context, I run a Mac Mini M4 as a homelab server and the memory pressure from even 7B models is noticeable. Curious how this handles sustained inference without thermal throttling.
by dragonwriter | 2026-03-10 00:22:31+00:00
> But the actual bit that's doing the thinking is restarting from scratch every time.

A sibling comment questions the relevance of this by asking what would change if that were true of some low-level component of the human thinking engine, which is a good point, but also: what "actual bit" does this? Both commercial backends and even desktop inference software usually does prefix caching in memory, so arguably that doesn't model the core piece of software running low-level inference, except when either the past context is changed (e.g., when compacting to manage context, or if you are using one software instance and swapping logical histories because you are running multiple agents concurrently — but not in parallel — on one software engine.) And it obviously doesn't match the system at any higher level.

> This is not "highly autonomous" Artifical Intelligence.

Even if that was an accurate model of a component of the system, that a component considered alone is not highly autonomous artificial intelligence is not an argument that the aggregate system is not a highly anonymous artificial intelligence.
by mgilroy | 2026-03-10 00:22:39+00:00
I think the more interesting question is how much longer does oracle have and at what point does a hostile takeover make sense.

Their databases are heavily used in government, banking and other large industries which have been slower to adapt to change and strugglyto migrate away. At what point does purchasing oracle to gain customer share, existing data centres and the opportunity to migrate to your cloud platform make more sense than competing?

They still have a high market value. However, the debt they will need to service will result in ongoing price increases which will encourage people to migrate away. Over time they will struggle to service the debt and a buyout will be the best of the bad options.
by jltsiren | 2026-03-10 00:22:45+00:00
"Having taste" is mostly about predicting the future. Which problems are worth studying, which problems you are capable of solving, and which solutions turn out to be important, in retrospect. If there was an actionable way of developing taste in something, the activity itself would probably be so predictable that it would not be a particularly good research topic.

Taste is mostly about having a good intuition on the topics where your intuition is worth following. It tends to develop with experience. But if you want to develop the kind of taste that helps picking good research topics, you need the right kind of experience for that field of research. Experience that turns out to be of the right kind, in retrospect. If your experiences and interests align (again in retrospect), you will probably develop a good taste for research problems in your field of interest. But that requires some amount of luck, in addition to everything else.
by craftkiller | 2026-03-10 00:23:06+00:00
Hmm so oddly enough this works fine for me:

$ curl -v https://vivianvoss.net/ 2>&1 | tail -3
<script src="/assets/scripts/perf.js"></script>
</body>
</html>

And the logs show it is going to the same address:

* Established connection to vivianvoss.net (78.46.78.181 port 443) from 172.16.245.55 port 36208

Any chance you're a comcast xfinity customer? Searching for safebrowse.io shows that xfinity "advanced security" does this whole redirect to safebrowse.io.

--

Unrelated, but the site also returns an AAAA record for an ipv6 address that does not work. So they've misconfigured their server in that regard.

$ drill vivianvoss.net AAAA @1.1.1.1
[...]
vivianvoss.net. 3600 IN AAAA 2a01:4f8:120:34ad::1
[...]

$ curl --header 'Host: vivianvoss.net' 'https://[2a01:4f8:120:34ad::1]:443'
<hangs forever>

$ curl https://ipv6.google.com
<works immediately>
by vansbel | 2026-03-10 00:23:20+00:00
This is a fascinating breakdown of EBMs. Regarding your 'ship vs. tune' dilemma: one of the biggest risks of shipping with a 34% FP rate isn't the tech itself, but how it's messaged on the landing page. If users expect a perfect firewall and get blocked on benign code, they’ll churn.

I actually built a tool called AI Website Roast that helps founders in this exact 'stuck' phase. It analyzes your landing page to see if your value prop and 'Beta constraints' are clear enough to prevent that frustration you're worried about. Happy to run a roast on ebmsovereign.com for you to help make sure your first impressions don't get hit by the 'weak' categories you mentioned.

If you can check it out and give me some feedback as well if helps
https://websiteroasters.com/
by CamouflagedKiwi | 2026-03-10 00:23:48+00:00
It's been a long time now, but from what I remember, you're not wrong. It's often a mistake to try to explain too much in sequels, which they certainly do.

Also they seemed to have a weird obsession about who was going to have sex with who to minimise inbreeding in the next generation. Maybe I'm doing them a disservice by not remembering so well, but I recall that seeming pretty weirdly prominent.
by mchusma | 2026-03-10 00:25:51+00:00
I’m skeptical.

The average cost of car ownership is $0.69 per mile without insurance, $0.25 per mile to store it, and $0.49 per mile in societal costs (death, injuries, delays due to accidents). So about $1.43 per mile. I do not enjoy driving, so would add more cost per mile, maybe some would want to pay more but I do t see that much joyriding outside of teenagers and classic car enthusiasts, so I don’t think those that do it for pleasure is a large population.

Tesla cybercab is targeting $0.20 per mile. Waymo projections are $0.40 per mile by 2030. Assuming both hit $0.50 and are twice as safe, this is basically $0.75 per mile.

I don’t see may paying more to drive themselves. And I think as society there will be non economic reasons human driven cars get banned. Like MADD but for human cars.

So I expect 5 years and human cars will not make sense in many cases, 10 years new human car sales to be <50% current levels, 15 years you start seeing bans. 20 years bans common.
by kfse | 2026-03-10 00:26:02+00:00
> Just serialize stuff to text if somebody wants to "edit" and then parse it back when they are done. What happens to the text in between of course is the programmer's problem.

I think that's working against the way that a lot of people write code.

You need things like syntax highlighting and code completion even while typing something like "my_var = " on a line. A normal parser doesn't work here, and bailing out to make it the programmer's problem leaves the programmer with a lot of work
by aidanadd | 2026-03-10 00:26:55+00:00
i've spent the last few years shipping learning products at scale - Andrew Ng's AI upskilling platform, my MIT Media Lab spinoff focused on AI coaching. the retention problem was the same everywhere. people would engage with content once and not return. not because the content was bad - rather because there was no mechanism/motivation to make it a habit.
the standard industry answer is gamification — streaks, points, badges. Duolingo has shown this works for language. but I'm skeptical it generalizes. duolingo's retention is built on a very specific anxiety loop that feels increasingly manipulative and doesn't translate well to topics like astrophysics or reading dense research papers.
i've been building Daily - 5 min/day structured social learning on any topic, personalized by knowledge level. Eerly and small (20 users). the interesting design question i keep running into: what actually drives someone to return to learn something they want to learn but don't need to learn? no external accountability, no credential at the end, no job pressure. pure intrinsic motivation is notoriously hard to sustain.
my current hypothesis: the return trigger isn't gamification, it's social - knowing someone else is learning the same thing, or that someone will notice if you stop. testing this in month 1.

has anyone built in this space or thought carefully about the retention mechanic for purely intrinsic learning? curious what the HN crowd has seen work.
by toraway | 2026-03-10 00:27:45+00:00
That’s called moving the goalposts.

No one ever claimed CA would have “so much surplus electricity that USX and Tata are rushing to build steel mills”.

Your “concern” was that there is no non-fantasy means to deal with transient output of solar or other renewables, I showed you how that is being implemented in the real world as we speak to deal with CA’s notorious peak evening load without blackouts. And it will only become more cost effective over time thanks to economies of scale.

CA has just started bringing grid storage online in the last few years but it’s already making an appreciable difference during peak times that in the past years resulted in blackouts.

It shows the clear, achievable path to a renewable + battery (+ nat gas) future that’s 95% renewables and highly resilient. Grid storage isn’t a “10 years away” fantasy like anti-renewable advocates might wish and it’s the critical piece to make those plans possible.

https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/supply
by pelcg | 2026-03-10 00:28:11+00:00
Maybe not, but in the past some here see that the blog is the product that is being promoted here.

Even in this thread alone https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47314929 some commenters here are clearly annoyed with the way AI is being shoved in each place where they do not want it.

I don't care, but I can see why many here are getting tired of it.
by lmeyerov | 2026-03-10 00:28:41+00:00
We can play that game - items like GIL-free interpreters and memory views are pretty relevant to folks on the more demanding side of scientific computing. But my point is this is a head-in-sand game when the community vastly outweighs any individual feature. My experience with the scientific computing community is that the non-pypy portion of it is much bigger.

I'm not a pypy maintainer, so my only horse in this race is believing cpython folks benefit from seeing the pypy community prove Things Can Be Better. Part of that means I rather pypy live on by avoiding unforced errors.
by easterncalculus | 2026-03-10 00:28:58+00:00
> In my opinion, inappropriately leaked information should probably still be considered private.

I'd love to see the limitations of this opinion you definitely hold honestly and without favor.

You started by posting a change.org petition that links to a deleted post - in other words an "appeal to petition" that has no evidence. Now you are suggesting there is another leak that was published (presumably not mentioned in this petition?) that also has no evidence. Where is the evidence?

Everything from an actual search engine request for these posts (which to be clear, are deleted) suggests that these are anonymized and public, and contain no identifying information.
by hyperific | 2026-03-10 00:29:16+00:00
Maybe the Osprey's reputation is due not only to the accident rate but also to the fatality rate. A fatal accident in a standard F-16 (not the 2 seater), assuming no one outside the plane is killed, means 1 death. A fatal accident in a V-22 with the same assumptions would have a minimum of 2 deaths (pilot and copilot) at a soft maximum of 26 deaths (2 crew + 24 passengers, possibly more if overloaded).