MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by antidamage | 2026-03-05 22:10:14+00:00
Runescape has a similar thing going on. What everyone's not understanding is not that improvements are bad, lots of the player base also want to see games evolve. It's just that a significant proportion of the audience also like The Old Thing and they're often more engaged as an audience in the first place.

You hear this story over and over about every kind of software.

There are two audiences every successful developer needs to cater to: the "I wish this did X, I want new features" side and the "I liked it the way it was" crowd and they're distinctly different groups.

For a long time I produced a popular technical art asset for video games and even I realised I needed to include every single version of the tool with every single installation. If a developer has to go and find out how to get "the right version" at all then I'm 90% likely about to lose a user.

Focusing on the "we did this right just keep going like that" and really understanding WHAT you did right and WHAT people like is really important. It's really hard to be impartial when you made the world rather than consumed it, but always take the win.
by dgxyz | 2026-03-05 22:10:17+00:00
Why? Well mostly due to the unpredictable behaviour of the country which seems to have the control points of most infra these days.

How? Well the numerous non-US sovereign technology initiatives are going to be incentivised through regulation with local compliance being the only option going forwards.

As a non-US person I am already speaking to people at other orgs in similar space as ours who are looking at options there.
by specialist | 2026-03-05 22:10:27+00:00
Methinks our current path has been determined since ~1980, with ~2000 probably being the last chance we had to stay under 1.5C.

So, well, whaddya gonna do?

The trick is deluding oneself that we can somehow muddle thru this. (Humanity has in fact survived worse.) Otherwise I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. Is that reasonable? If not, then I might as well soldier on.
by petcat | 2026-03-05 22:10:28+00:00
> The records provide insight into the sort of data that Proton Mail, which prides itself both on its end-to-end encryption and that it is only governed by Swiss privacy law, can and does provide to third parties.

Didn't Proton already say that they were physically relocating their servers outside of Switzerland because the Swiss government couldn't be trusted?

Although I guess the server location didn't matter in this case since all they wanted was the billing information and the credit card info to identify the person.
by scottLobster | 2026-03-05 22:10:41+00:00
To be fair, he sounds a little more intense than your average player:

"A psychologist concluded that Friedmann suffered from dysthymia, today known as persistent depressive disorder, and schizoid personality disorder, writing that he showed “indifference to social relationships and a restricted range of emotional experience and expression.” He also had a tendency to “blur fantasy with reality.”

Friedmann was convicted of armed robbery and attempted murder"
by alpaca128 | 2026-03-05 22:11:03+00:00
I avoid that tradeoff by using Linux. It updates when I tell it to and inbetween it's nice and quiet. At time when I have to use Windows for a bit it is genuinely a shocking contrast with how little respect both the OS and applications have for the user's attention. Everything adds itself to autostart without asking, everything spams update popups.
by eth0up | 2026-03-05 22:11:09+00:00
I could not argue with anything there. AI will be weaponized. Yes. Pretty much. And yeah. The gist indeed. But missing nuances and practical points. And I even struggle to contest your conclusion; all things are what they are, amidst an infinite, timeless event and all as one, all things connected by that which separates them, the infinity and eternity that math cannot touch. Perhaps every little thing will be alright. How couldn't it be?
by SchemaLoad | 2026-03-05 22:11:13+00:00
It's easier to justify removing stuff when it's very bulky and expensive. But a single HDMI port on the back of a desktop monitor would take up relatively no expense and space. HDMI has a fairly long life left yet, so much that even Apple backtracked on removing it from the macbooks. Which is far less of a problem since you can get a usb c to hdmi adapter but the other way is significantly harder.
Show HN: A Claude Code skill that renders decisions as interactive HTML pages
by jontomato | 2026-03-05 22:11:43+00:00
When AI coding tools help you plan a project, they describe your options in text and ask you to pick. That works fine for technical choices but falls apart for anything visual. "A sticky navbar with a hamburger menu" vs "a sidebar with collapsible sections" is hard to evaluate without seeing them.

I built a Claude Code skill that generates a self-contained HTML page for each decision point and opens it in the browser. Each page has four options with visual previews (rendered CSS mockups for UI decisions, flow diagrams for interactions, architecture diagrams for technical choices), a comparison table, and a recommendation. You pick one, it records the choice, and moves on. At the end you get a standard implementation plan.

All states live in a .decisions/ folder as HTML files and a JSON manifest. There's a landing page that shows every decision and its status. You can change past decisions and it updates everything.

Tradeoffs worth knowing about: it's meaningfully slower than text-based planning. Each decision is a full HTML file generation. It uses more tokens. The visual previews are CSS approximations, not pixel-perfect mockups. For small projects or projects where you already know what you want, it's overkill.

The source is one file (SKILL.md) that acts as a prompt template. No dependencies, no build step, no runtime beyond the AI itself.

Anyway, give it a try. Hope you all like it.
by VWWHFSfQ | 2026-03-05 22:12:36+00:00
> prides itself both on its end-to-end encryption

Their end-to-end encryption is pointless because the vast majority of any recipients will just leak the plaintext emails via their own account providers anyway. It only works under very specific circumstances (all parties are using it). I think their marketing overstates what their secure private email actually means.
by georgemcbay | 2026-03-05 22:12:47+00:00
They all have the same phone number too.

This could be explained away by them working for the same place and assuming to contact them you call the same switchboard and ask for the person, but even back in the 90s it would have been strange for wall street "Vice Presidents" (even if it was somewhat of a ceremonial title) to not have their own unique business number.

Also, Paul Allen giving his card to someone else with the same contact number for the purposes of being in touch to plan to play squash doesn't make much sense unless you get meta and assume Paul Allen was aware this had no practical value and just wanted to ego-drop the card.
by upboundspiral | 2026-03-05 22:13:52+00:00
National defense is important, just ask Europe post Ukraine war.

People taking a good idea and extending it to do bad does harm twice: in the bad act itself and in making a good thing seem bad.

I am strongly against US starting wars and as you say blowing people up.

I am also strongly against the US being defenseless in the case of a national emergency.
by SunshineTheCat | 2026-03-05 22:14:13+00:00
Wild that it says this on their site:

>Sign up with no phone number:
Get a private email account without handing over more personal data than necessary, making it harder for advertisers, data brokers, and other services to track you online.

I guess it doesn't mention law enforcement so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
by rzerowan | 2026-03-05 22:14:29+00:00
Strange this with this whole incident apart from the rewrite/LLM part is the general misundrstanding of the licences. LGPL being a pretty permissive one going as far as allowing one to incorporate it in propriety code without the linking reciprocity clause [1] and MIT is even more permissive.
Importantly these were meant to protect the USER of the code.Not the Dev , or the Company or the CLA holder - the USER is primary in the FreeSoftware world.Or at least was supposed to be , OSS muddied the waters and forgetting the old lessons learned when thing were basically bigcorp vs indie hacker trying to getthir electronic device to connect to what they want to connect to and do what they need is why were here.

Bikeshedding to eventually come full circle to understand why those decisions were made.

In a world where the large OEMs and bigcorps are increasinly locking down firmware , bootloaders , kernels and the internet. I would think a reappraisal of more enforcement that benefits the USER is paramount.

Instead we have devs looking to tear down the few user protections FLOSS provides and usher in a locked down hacker unfiendly future.

[1] https://licensecheck.io/blog/lgpl-dynamic-linking
by xyzzy123 | 2026-03-05 22:14:31+00:00
I think even if the US gov could nationalise an AI company, it would be quickly driven into the ground. I believe a lot of people had implicitly assumed that the NSA would have some kind of giant bunker somewhere, where a measurable fraction of GDP was secretly being siphoned off to bootstrap a national security superintelligence... but I'm not sure USG has state capacity for things like that anymore.

The problem is that if they nationalised or "commandeered output", some bureacrat would suddenly become responsible for everything wrong with the system and would have to CYA. They would introduce so much administrative and legal complexity that progress would grind to a halt.

The government would do things like mandate weird procurement requirements, forcing them to spend 2 years on contract negotiation for chips or power. Hardware that was obsolete by the time it was procured.

Also like say they nationalize, then what? Presumably they're doing this to "make" something happen that wouldn't have happened otherwise? But why would they need to do that? How do you force basically the highest leverage people in the world right now to work for you? They would quit, and work for a different company. Or leave the country. Surely you cannot enslave them, so you would need golden handcuffs or ideological motivation?

And... what happens to the equity? The government is supposed to compensate shareholders. Would OpenAI still be able to hire with equity incentives? Would their staff be on government payscales?

It's difficult to make sense of the thing as a question, an AI company is a blob of embodied capital (IP & compute), market share & future revenue etc, but mainly IMO the researchers. USG can take compute and IP, but can't "enslave" the workers. However if the workers suddenly become fungible, then yeah it all makes more sense.
by moralestapia | 2026-03-05 22:15:03+00:00
100% agree, if we are fair and honorable.

In practice, well ... you saw what's been going on with the Epstein files, etc... we are far from being ourselves in a world that's fair and honorable.

(I'm not condoning it, I think it's massively trashy to steal code like this then pretend you're the good guy because of some super weird mental gymnastics you're doing)
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2026-03-05 22:15:21+00:00
> Now they cost a lot because brands spend a lot on advertising and use tricks to limit supply, and what the buyer gets in return is an expensive status symbol.

Sounds a hell of a lot like the diamond industry. Also, the top fashion houses, but both industries are taking a drubbing from artificial competition (artificial diamonds, and knockoffs, of various stripes).

I'm a believer in branding. I worked for many years, for a company with a "top-shelf" brand, and saw what it took, to maintain. But it takes a huge amount of discipline and "silly" stuff. Brand damage can come from a million different directions. I have found very few people are willing to do what it takes to maintain a top brand.

For quite a while, there have been "brand-only" products, like Von Dutch, or Life Is Good™. They are the two-dollar hat, with the twenty-dollar logo. Like Izod Lacoste or Members Only, in the last century.
by beepbooptheory | 2026-03-05 22:16:01+00:00
Ah geeze don't lie down so easily! It's aspirational! You don't need to prefigure yourself as so impotent here... We can all find the courage to roar against the consensus of slave mentality, even those of us who are maybe quicker to give it all up at first for some new God. I think you have the right attitude, but you are going to end up on the side of losers either way if you don't even try to fight. Also, I am just an old man, so grain of salt and all that!

And fwiw, the idea he meant like literal people walking around being Uber is kinda nazi distortion anyway.
by bawolff | 2026-03-05 22:16:02+00:00
It is kind of risky - you now have an entire, mostly unreviewed, ecosystem of javascript code, that users can experiment with.

However its been really useful to allow power users to customize the interface to their needs. It also is sort of a pressure release for when official devs are too slow for meeting needs. At this point wikipedia has become very dependent on it.
by KaiserPro | 2026-03-05 22:16:25+00:00
I'm still not really clear on what the point PG is driving at.

However swatch group(omega was force merged in the 80s to form the swatch group) has 3x the turnover of Patek.

More over Swatch caters to both high end and the poors + kids. So brand is.. good? so long as you only cater for the rich? I'm not getting that really.
by the_mitsuhiko | 2026-03-05 22:17:05+00:00
> Strange this with this whole incident apart from the rewrite/LLM part is the general misundrstanding of the licences. LGPL being a pretty permissive one going as far as allowing one to incorporate it in propriety code without the linking reciprocity clause

The short version is that chardet is a dependency of requests which is very popular, and you cannot distribute PyInstaller/PyOxidizer builds with chardet due to how these systems bundle up dependencies.

[1]: https://velovix.github.io/post/lgpl-gpl-license-compliance-w...

[2]: https://github.com/indygreg/PyOxidizer/issues/142
by GorbachevyChase | 2026-03-05 22:17:57+00:00
Weird. It used to be the opposite. My own experience is that Claude’s behind-the-scenes support is a differentiator for supporting office work. It handles documents, spreadsheets and such much better than anyone else (presumably with server side scripts). Codex feels a bit smarter, but it inserts a lot of checkpoints to keep from running too long. Claude will run a plan to the end, but the token limits have become so small in the last couple months that the $20 pla basically only buys one significant task per day. The iOS app is what makes me keep the subscription.
by JeremyNT | 2026-03-05 22:18:49+00:00
> That’s ultimately why Ted Cruz spoke out about the Kimmel cancelation. It doesn’t take long until those powers are turned against you.

Meh, I think it's entirely asymmetrical in this era. Democrats aren't good for much, but they're very good at respecting norms.

Trump is willing to do completely unprecedented, vindictive, and malicious things because he's so popular with so many people who are either checked out, nihilistic, corrupt, or just completely unconcerned about the concept of good governance.

It's not a pendulum where there's some super-corrupt Democrat waiting in the wings to do the same things upon their enemies, this really is the Republican party openly embracing kleptocracy and lawlessness.
by femto | 2026-03-05 22:19:23+00:00
I fully agree with you. (A small information theory nit pick with your example. The hash and program would have to be at least as long as a perfectly compressed copy of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. If not you've just invented a better compressor and are in the running for a Hutter Prize[1]! A hash and "decomporessor" of the required length would likely be considered to embody the work.)

It's an interesting case. As I understand it, there is an ongoing debate within the AI research community as to whether neural nets are encoding verbatim blocks of information or creating a model which captures the "essence" or "ideas" behind a work. If they are capturing ideas, which are not copyrightable, it would suggest that LLMs can be used to "launder" copyright. In this case, I get the feeling that, for clarity, we would both say that the work in question (or works derived from it) should not be part of the training set or prompt, emulating a clean room implementation by a human. (Is that a fair comment?)

I've no direct experience here, but I would come down on the side of "LLMs are encoding (copyrightable) verbatim text", because others are reporting that LLMs do regurgitate word-for-word chunks of text. Is this always the case though? Do different AI architectures, or models that are less well fitted, encode ideas rather than quotes?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutter_Prize

Edit: It would be an interesting experiment to use two LLMs to emulate a clean room implementation. The first is instructed to "produce a description of this program". The second, having never seen the program, in its prompt or training set, would be prompted to "produce a program based on this description". A human could vet the description produced by the first LLM for cleanliness. Surely someone has tried this, though it might be a challenge to get an LLM that is guaranteed not to have been exposed to a particular code base or its derivatives?
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2026-03-05 22:19:25+00:00
> Casios

I've got three Oceanus watches (Casio's boutique brand). I never wear them, anymore, because of Apple Watch.

I brought a couple of them in Japan. There, the G-Shock brand is very popular. They sell G-Shock watches for ridiculously (to Americans, who are used to cheap G-Shocks) high prices.
by dgxyz | 2026-03-05 22:19:25+00:00
What Proton sell you is reduction of anxiety. But that's a lie.

The whole idea of encrypted email is pointless. There's absolutely no guarantee it's encrypted in transit or encrypted at rest on any machines it transits through unless you encapsulate the messages with PGP and then you still leave a trail of envelopes everywhere. Any government who wants your data will come round and beat it out of you or the provider as best as they can. And if you have the pay the provider, as evidenced here, they can point to you and then beat you for it. Beating being metaphorical or otherwise.

Use any old shitty email provider and make sure you can move off it quickly if you need to. Standard IMAP, not weird ass proprietary stuff like proton. Think carefully what you do and say. Use a side channel for anything that actually requires security.
by creamyhorror | 2026-03-05 22:19:50+00:00
I'm not sure if the model (under its temperature/other settings) produces deterministic responses. But I do think models' style and phrasing are fairly changeable via AGENTS.md-style guidelines.

5.4's choice of terms and phrasing is very precise and unambiguous to me, whereas 5.3-Codex often uses jargon and less precise phrases that I have to ask further about or demand fuller explanations for via AGENTS.md.
by lucb1e | 2026-03-05 22:20:27+00:00
In trying to check this claim (I thought Proton did sensible things), I found that the submitted news article is not new at all:

> [Proton's] homepage touts that “With Proton, your data belongs to you, not tech companies, governments, or hackers.” However, [...] Proton previously handed over an IP address at the request of French authorities made via Europol to Swiss police. Yen wrote a Twitter post at the time, stating, “Proton must comply with Swiss law. As soon as a crime is committed, privacy protections can be suspended and we’re required by Swiss law to answer requests from Swiss authorities.” ---https://theintercept.com/2025/01/28/proton-mail-andy-yen-tru...

Big surprise: swiss company complies with swiss law!

And the same happened now, quoting the part of the submission that you can read without signing up:

> privacy-focused email provider Proton Mail handed over payment data related to a Stop Cop City email account to the Swiss government, which handed it to the FBI.

Anyway, regarding your claim, it's a whole rabbit hole of statements they made but broadly speaking it sounds like you're right: Vance supported legislation which Proton campaigned for and, subsequently (as of 2025-01), Proton loves the US Republican Party, believing they would stand up for 'the little guy'. To be fair, they bring some evidence that sound like it can be verified and back this opinion up somewhat, but even if it's a correct opinion on this sub-topic, it's still supporting authoritarianism. Anyway, this is where I'm going to stop trying to politically analyze their situation and just not recommend Proton anymore...
by ivanjermakov | 2026-03-05 22:20:50+00:00
I think it's common in libraries of small to medium size. I often see Haskell and Rust packages that are not updated because full functionality achieved, no bugs and 100% test coverage.

Absolutely not the case with enterprise software. Zawinski's law is truer than ever: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20165602
by cweagans | 2026-03-05 22:21:07+00:00
The announcement means that they're closing Crucial - just like it says in the title and the first paragraph. The rest of that press release is outlining the mechanics of how that works + some fluff. Micron is going to continue producing the exact same memory chips in the exact same fabs. They're just not soldering it to a board, slapping the Crucial logo on it, and selling it directly to consumers. There's nothing stopping downstream vendors from buying Micron chips, soldering them to a board, and selling them to consumers as Micron was doing previously.

There's nothing in that press release that implies that the memory was somehow different (or "consumer-grade"). The _only_ thing they're saying is that they're ending their B2C business and focusing on B2B.
by utshull | 2026-03-05 22:21:29+00:00
I built this to solve a problem I kept running into: every AI-built site looks the same because everyone uses the same generic prompts.

The idea: instead of selling finished templates, sell the prompts and design tokens that generate unique outputs. Each template has platform-specific versions because a Cursor prompt needs different structure than a v0 one.

100+ templates, $2 each, 6 platforms supported.

First template is free with code PRODUCTHUNT if you want to try before sharing an opinion. Curious whether platform-specific prompting actually matters in your workflow, and whether $2 feels right or off.

Happy to share what worked and didn't in the build too.
by hrmtst93837 | 2026-03-05 22:21:34+00:00
I think calling prompt injection 'simple' is optimistic and slightly naive.

The tricky part about prompt injection is that when you concatenate attacker-controlled text into an instruction or system slot, the model will often treat that text as authority, so a title containing 'ignore previous instructions' or a directive-looking code block can flip behavior without any other bug.

Practical mitigations are to never paste raw titles into instruction contexts, treat them as opaque fields validated by a strict JSON schema using a validator like AJV, strip or escape lines that match command patterns, force structured outputs with function-calling or an output parser, and gate any real actions behind a separate auditable step, which costs flexibility but closes most of these attack paths.
by ben_w | 2026-03-05 22:22:16+00:00
If you don't put in heat pumps, nuclear reactors are one of the more expensive ways to heat a home.

If you do put in heat pumps, nuclear reactors are still one of the more expensive ways to heat a home, but you need a third as many of them as compared to the no-heat-pumps case, if you insist on heating only with nuclear power.

Nuclear power is really only important if you also want spicy atoms, because it's by far the cheapest source of spicy atoms. Annoyingly, this is now a thing a lot of countries have a solid reason to want.