MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by nemesh38 | 2026-03-04 20:15:39+00:00
Hi,
I’m looking to sell or bring in an investor for *resonantgenesis.xyz* within the next few hours.

Resonant Genesis is an *Agentic AI infrastructure platform* featuring multi-LLM smart routing (Boyok-based orchestration), multi-agent and team orchestration, and governance enforced at the interaction layer — not only between agents and LLMs, but directly between users and agent responses.

Key features:

• Multi-LLM smart routing
• Agent factory (create, deploy, and manage agents dynamically)
• Workflow orchestration engine
• Built-in IDE (Brasier) for development and system control
• L9 governance enforcement between users and agent outputs
• Fully decentralized logging of LLM and agent interactions
• Per-user memory secured with AES-256-GCM encryption
• Economic state model based on credit deductions per function execution or service usage

Architecture & Infrastructure:

• Hybrid retrieval memory (RAG + custom IP synthetic neural memory persistent memory across platform is dual: user + agent / agent + agent / )
• Physics-enforced encrypted 9-layer architecture
• Economic constraint invariants (SIM-based enforcement)
• SAST and dependency full-stack architecture analysis
• Horizontal scaling architecture (AGI mural hub / ecosystem chat integration)
• Marketplace + on-chain identity registration
• Off-chain decentralized logging
• FastAPI-based microservices architecture
• Kubernetes deployed
• 23 fully independent microservices (~500K LOC)
• 3 externally managed databases
• 6-layer authentication system (centralized identity verification middleware that sets request.state.user_id / role / org / plan, trusted across services)
• Multi-tenant, user-isolated environments
• Blue/Green deployment with CI/CD for zero-downtime operations
• Internal daemons for code self-healing and adaptive modification

The platform is fully live in production with a polished UI.

I built this alone over four intense months, working day and night. Unfortunately, I now lack the time and financial resources to continue operating and fundraising properly. I urgently need an investor, acquisition partner, or strategic buyer.

This infrastructure is designed for LLM providers or AI companies that need a robust, enterprise-grade orchestration layer — potentially stronger than current mainstream infrastructure stacks.

I apologize if this sounds informal; I am the solo architect behind the system. I’m happy to provide full technical documentation, architecture breakdowns, or live demonstrations upon request.

If interested, please contact me directly Im solo founder and ResonantGenesis is registered under DevSwat Inc. California send me email to liubov.nemesh@gmail.com with cc louie@resonantgenesis.xyz

Thank you.
by WarmWash | 2026-03-04 20:15:49+00:00
We would need to see the actual chat logs.

Any lawsuit you read, written by the plaintiff's attorneys, will be written with a tabloid level of sensationalism, cherry-picking, and "telling you how to feel". This is requested to be a jury trial, so on some level the game is "would you rather settle out of court (where hundreds of thousands are grains of sand on Google's level), or have a jury read our tabloid and decide while you, the faceless megacorporation, try to swim uphill against it."
by godelski | 2026-03-04 20:16:05+00:00
I'd suggest that they make it clearer what the user actually changed, in about:config, and show the defaults. If I click that button "Show only modified settings" I see a lot of things, mostly options that I set from the normal settings. I mean "browser.download.lastDir" should be in practically everyone's.

So there's a lot of noise and resetting things can be unclear. Especially given that when you reinstall things not all uninstalls clear out settings. It could definitely help if the about:config page tells you about the user.js file and directs you to more information. Why doesn't editing things in about:config generate the user.js file? Maybe tell people about prefer.js and where it exists?

The other thing I'd suggest, documentation. Like what is "browser.translations.chaos.errors"? There's a million things like that that are hard to learn about and explore. In an ideal system there would be a wiki with every option documented and when hovering over the option you'd get a short explanation and a click is a link to the documentation. But that's also a big undertaking (if you're building a new browser, would be nice to do this from the get go!)

I don't think there's a perfect solution and certainly these things are not easy to implement, but if you're asking how it could be easier for the user, then yeah, I think these things would be major improvements and help prevent the blindly following of random blog posts and copy pasting of things like betterfox (I'm sure it is, but how do I know?)
by layer8 | 2026-03-04 20:16:11+00:00
I disagree as well. Abstractions, or interfaces, define the contract between modules, and then you can reason about the system in terms of those contracts. Without the abstractions, you’d have to reason based on all the details of the whole program, which is obviously much harder. Abstractions are a form of divide and conquer.

Regarding the article’s point about diluting abstractions when new disparate features are required, a third alternative (to the two presented in the article) is often to provide alternative abstractions in parallel, each individually still focused and to-the-point, which prevents both changing and diluting the existing abstraction.

Regrading the article’s point about performance analysis, in principle you can specify performance guarantees for each abstraction. It’s more difficult to check them, but in theory a type system could even encode performance characteristics in an automatically checkable way.
by _the_inflator | 2026-03-04 20:16:18+00:00
I agree.

Also for certain use cases there are constraints like embedded hardware systems with no internet access. These LLMs have to be trained to specialize for clearly defined use cases under hardware constraints.

Frontier LLMs also are rarely function in isolation instead are orchestrating a system of special units aka subsystems and agents.

While costs and effort are one thing, being able to downsize these monster LLMs through finetuning itself in the first place is extremly valuable.
by tw85 | 2026-03-04 20:16:39+00:00
No, it isn't. Anthony Fauci and Rochelle Walensky were both on record, on television, claiming that anyone who takes the covid vaccine will not contract the virus (sterilizing immunity). The medical community and public health in particular disgraced themselves by going all in on demonizing anyone who raised questions about the covid jabs, mocking Ivermectin as "horse paste", claiming cloth masks were very effective against respiratory viruses (they are not, and this has been known for decades), and even that the concept of acquired immunity from recovering from an infection doesn't exist. These are all trivially verifiable things that happened during covid madness, and instead of walking back some of their false claims they simply doubled down on blaming the anti-vaxxers (even after jab uptake exceeded 80%).
by deno | 2026-03-04 20:17:11+00:00
Apparently this is handled by the privileged STK[1] service. It can launch browser which is I think what's happening.

GrapheneOS presently doesn’t do anything different in this case, they pull it from AOSP without modifications. However you can disable it using the frontend app (SIM Toolkit) as someone pointed out, but as far as I can tell this requires the applet on SIM card to cooperate (offer the opt out).

Otherwise you can disable the STK altogether with ADB but that will also block you out of other SIM card interactive functions, which might not be a big deal however.

Edit: "We plan to add the ability to restrict the capabilities of SIM Toolkit as an attack surface reduction measure. (2022)"[2]

[1] https://wladimir-tm4pda.github.io/porting/stk.html
[2] https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/1492-blocking-sim-toolkit-m...
Show HN: Qlog – grep for logs, but 100x faster
by cosm00 | 2026-03-04 20:17:37+00:00
I built qlog because I got tired of waiting for grep to search through gigabytes of logs.

qlog uses an inverted index (like search engines) to search millions of log lines in milliseconds. It's 10-100x faster than grep and way simpler than setting up Elasticsearch.

Features:
- Lightning fast indexing (1M+ lines/sec using mmap)
- Sub-millisecond searches on indexed data
- Beautiful terminal output with context lines
- Auto-detects JSON, syslog, nginx, apache formats
- Zero configuration
- Works offline
- Pure Python

Example:
qlog index './logs/*/*.log'
qlog search "error" --context 3

I've tested it on 10GB of logs and it's consistently 3750x faster than grep. The index is stored locally so repeated searches are instant.

Demo: Run `bash examples/demo.sh` to see it in action.

GitHub: https://github.com/Cosm00/qlog

Perfect for developers/DevOps folks who search logs daily.

Happy to answer questions!
by LoganDark | 2026-03-04 20:18:49+00:00
I like to think of this like tempering the output space. With a temperature of zero, there is only one possible output and it may be completely wrong. With even a low temperature, you drastically increase the chances that the output space contains a correct answer, through containing multiple responses rather than only one.

I wonder if determinism will be less harmful to diffusion models because they perform multiple iterations over the response rather than having only a single shot at each position that lacks lookahead. I'm looking forward to finding out and have been playing with a diffusion model locally for a few days.
by quesera | 2026-03-04 20:19:13+00:00
I use tabs as temporary bookmarks. It's still a lot, sure, but it comes at no cost.

The browser with the highest tab count is the one I use for HN. 21708 right now. The oldest tab is about 3 years old, which reflects the last time I bothered to clean them up.

It's also a measurement of how many HN articles I read. About 20 per day, I guess. I don't usually close HN tabs when I'm "done" with them. I can't defend that practice, really. In the short-term, I might reload to see more comments. In the longer-term, there are some that I will want to revisit. Actually, for particularly relevant/useful comments, I reopen them in new child tabs, so that they're easy to find and see responses to. This inflates my overall count.

Anyway, older tabs scroll off my sidebar viewport and I can mostly forget about them, but I don't want to simply close them all. Obviously the vast majority are closeable, but again, keeping them around has zero cost.

Someday I'll winnow them and sweep the remainder into (real) bookmarks. Or maybe I won't -- it makes little difference, as it turns out.
by kittikitti | 2026-03-04 20:19:24+00:00
I'm not sure why this isn't included in the blog, but I was curious about the ratio between bugs and commits. Presented here are my calculations in order of total number of bugs:

Intel : 11.86%

[1] Independent : 2.27%

Red Hat : 9.74%

Linaro : 12.73%

Google : 12.78%

AMD : 9.70%

The above is based on the bug count table in the article.

[1] I combined the total bug count for independent and kernel.org because they are combined for the total contributions here, https://github.com/quguanni/kernel-archaeology/blob/main/scr...

This suggests that corporations are introducing significantly more bugs than independent developers. However, I have not done statistical testing on this nor have I recreated the numbers. If I had to speculate, I would assume that the analysis from the author was partly vibe-coded or they purposely left this analysis out due to fear of retaliation. Extending my speculation would also include that corporations are purposely introducing bugs out of malice such that there are backdoors available for them. The author mentions that there is no "corporate takeover" but perhaps there are more interesting conclusions to be found.
by shakna | 2026-03-04 20:19:42+00:00
You should probably stop pretending you know what myID is, and what it does.

Its a sovereign identity verification service. That is not limited to above PL2 verifications. There are age-only accredited entities in the registry.

Its one of the approved verification tools for the Online Safety Act 2021 . It was renamed as part of the passage of the law. You're just not forced to use it, for verification.

And yes, it does it poorly, and does not follow a standard. Its using Vanguard's PAS behind the scenes [1], with extras ServiceNow tacked on. Until they rearchitect the entire damn thing.

So... As I might have doxxed myself a little just now... No, uploading identity documents is never a safe process. Its a king's hoard in treasure before nations that never sleep.

Name a provider, and there will be a breach, and it will continue to affect the victims most of their lives.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/administrative-pr...
by SpicyLemonZest | 2026-03-04 20:19:45+00:00
I would gently suggest that the content you consume online has led you to a distorted view of how most people perceive the world. I happen to know what you're talking about, but there's a lot of people out there who will be gravely offended and make quite severe judgements of your personal character if you talk to them about "boundary play" or "kink communities" unprompted.

The boundaries I was referring to are those between "the AI is a product being provided to you" and "the AI is a human-like being Google has matched you with". I'm polite and respectful to AI agents and encourage other people to be, but it's very dangerous to make people start thinking of them as a friend or partner. I'm sure Gemini is perfectly nice to the extent that LLMs can be nice, but you can't be friends with it any more than you can be friends with Alphabet Inc. It's just not the kind of thing to which friendship can validly attach.
by Blackstrat | 2026-03-04 20:19:59+00:00
I've been reading these threads for a while and the one thing that is clear from all of them is that the individual is CHOOSING to surrender their intellectual expectations to the AI. You don't have to make that choice. Further, a developer's value increases exponentially the more familiar they become with the industry/domain of the company for which they are working. No, no human will ever "write" code as quickly as the machine. Nor will any machine ever understand what to build for a given application. It has to be told. As for the continuing level of abstractions? While true, the best programmers didn't depend strictly on that abstraction. They sought to understand the machine. One fundamental problem that I encountered in my later management years was the number of people entering the field that had no business doing so. Consequently, many lasted only a few years before giving up and trying something different. I retired from the business after 40+ years and I knew plenty of greybeards that I would trust far more than any existing "AI" solution.
by paxys | 2026-03-04 20:20:15+00:00
This is not about you or me, it's about the large chunk of New Yorkers (and people in every city) that:

- have no resources for a lawyer

- have limited English skills, and possibly limited literacy in general

- aren't good with computers/internet

- have little understanding of the law

"Oh just browse a complex website" and every other "it works fine for me" scenario doesn't help this class of citizens. A simple chatbot that answers questions does.
by Aardappel | 2026-03-04 20:20:19+00:00
Lobster is meant to be a more high level language than Rust, so encoding what you want 99% of the time in the type made sense. It also makes it easier for people to read, knowing that common types like int2 are always by value.

That said, it be easy to have annotations to force the other use case, just so far that has not been needed :)
by lacoolj | 2026-03-04 20:20:25+00:00
Not a lawyer.

While AI is not a real human, brain, consciousness, soul ... it has evolved enough to "feel" like it is if you talk to it in certain ways.

I'm not sure how the law is supposed to handle something like this really. If a person is deliberately telling someone things in order to get them to hurt themselves, they're guilty of a crime (I would expect maybe third-degree murder/involuntary manslaughter possibly, depending on the evidence and intent, again, not a lawyer these are just guesses).

But when a system is given specific inputs and isn't trained not to give specific outputs, it's kind of hard to capture every case like this, no matter how many safe-guards and RI training is done, and even harder to punish someone specific for it.

Is it neglect? Or is there malicious intent involved? Google may be on trial for this (unless thrown out or settled), but every provider could potentially be targeted here if there is precedent set.

But if that happens, how are providers supposed to respond? The open models are "out there", a snapshot in time - there's no taking them back (they could be taken offline, but that's like condemning a TV show or a book - still going to be circulated somehow). Non-open models can try to help curb this sort of problem actively in new releases, but nothing is going to be perfect.

I hope something constructive comes from this rather than a simple finger pointing.

Maybe we can get away from natural language processing and go back to more structured inputs. Limit what can be said and how. I dunno, just writing what comes to mind at this point.

Have a good day everyone!
by metalman | 2026-03-04 20:20:51+00:00
it is a tool that shows daily snap shots of the SST
to use it you need to have a good grasp on geography/oceanography, and then spen a bit of time each day looking at it, and cross corelating with things like hurricanes, to see the trace spiral of cooler water that a giant storm will imprint into the oceans surface, or this year, the very significant chanhes in the worlds major hot and cold currents, and size of the spill over from the south wester pacific into the atlantic.
by yndoendo | 2026-03-04 20:20:59+00:00
Google changed the way their are the Gatekeepers. It now is tied to requiring a software developer ID attached to a real person; Developer Verification. [0]

And how side-loading will have to go through ADB versus just allowing the application to be installed by a file manager.

This is why GrapheneOS and /e/OS have been popping up, along with Linux based alternatives.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47251763
by sgjohnson | 2026-03-04 20:21:10+00:00
> With records updated. If not, any consequences from wrong information fall on the lessor and lessee.

Not always + there are no consequences whatsoever.

Plenty of leasing services will just provide you with IRR & RPKI, without ever touching the actual records.

> Ping time from different locations on their upstream AS gives a good guess.

Upstream AS is meaningless if it's a T1 carrier. Ping AS6939. They are everywhere.
by Liquid_Fire | 2026-03-04 20:21:10+00:00
> It's incredible that about 80% of people in this thread seem to be commenting without having looked at the website.

In defence of the 80%, there is no indication in any section other than the About page that it is not real money (with the possible exception of the suspiciously high sums of money), and most commercial services have fairly useless About pages. The HN headline presents it as if it's real.

A far cry from GP's implication that "inadvertently click[ing] on the website" is sufficient to see this.
by h3lp | 2026-03-04 20:21:24+00:00
Greg mentions discipline and vision as determinants of successful software, which is correct but I think he misses another aspect of vision: the ability to attract and crystallize a community around their project. Arguably, most successful softwares thrive in the long term because they have a team of people that inspire each other, fill in with complementary talents, and provide continuity.
by eterps | 2026-03-04 20:21:40+00:00
You could have a look at: https://github.com/jurriaan/aico

It does 2 things that are very important, 1: reviewing should not be done last, but during the process and 2: plans should result into verifyable specs, preferably in a natural language so you can avoid locking yourself into specific implementation details (the "how") too early.
by kingstnap | 2026-03-04 20:21:48+00:00
I like the language of fueling being used here instead of the typical causal thing we see as though using AI means you will go insane.

I would completely agree that if you are already 1x delusional then AI will supercharge that into being 10x delusional real fast.

Granted you could argue access to the internet was already something like a 5x multiplier from baseline anyway with the prevalence of echo chamber communities. But now you can just create your own community with chatbots.
by elondaits | 2026-03-04 20:21:48+00:00
AirPods have too much latency for playing music. You want wired audio for running GarageBand or Logic Pro with a MIDI controller. They could have gone with a USB-C to audio adapter, but then you wouldn't be able to plug the MIDI controller and charge the computer.

... Only a few people make music with a Mac, but it's been an important part of its history, and Apple cares about it.
by runamuck | 2026-03-04 20:21:51+00:00
> The lawsuit also alleges that Gemini, which exchanged romantic texts with Jonathan Gavalas, drove him to stage an armed mission that he came to believe could bring the chatbot into the real world.

Maybe "The Terminator" got it wrong. Autonomous robots might not wipe out humanity. Instead AI could use actual human disciples for nefarious purposes.
by basch | 2026-03-04 20:21:57+00:00
That’s not free. Apples Apple ID management is atrocious. How do you password reset an ID you own?

They need to move to having the students ID under both their parents and the school, detachable from the school when a kid moves.

The devices need to be enrolled to the org and then act as thin clients so any kid can log onto any laptop, not have the laptop locked down to a specific kid.

Apple Parental controls are either controllable on the kids device or one parents device but not both at the same time and definitely not two parents at the same time. Whose bright idea was it not to allow two parents to see and manage a kids settings from their own devices, at the same time. That’s a lot of the world that doesn’t appear to anticipate two parents wanting to manage a kid from separate accounts, but Apple should know better.
by orwin | 2026-03-04 20:22:26+00:00
Here is my argument:

Prior political choices prevent the US from saying to Iran "Sorry that Israel attacked you, that's unfair, please don't attack our base, we won't fund Israel military anymore, and we remove the embargo".

Hence, since during the previous ceasefire, Iran told the US "If Israel break the ceasefire again, we will attack your ME bases", US was "forced" into preventive strikes against Iran military installations, and into an offensive war, without any preparation.

I'm not a huge fan of this US admin _at all_, but in this very case, the amateurism isn't caused by the childishness and the whininess (is that a word? i mean constant whining and victimization) of the US admin and their overall lack of skills, but by the fact they were forced into it without preparations.

Is that argument more clear? I feel you talked past my argument which is probably my fault since i have trouble expressing myself without thinking for hours beforehand
by pixl97 | 2026-03-04 20:22:48+00:00
>People don't treat other people as omnipotent

Funny you mention God and this statement, because believing in any particular God that says they are omnipotent is believing that humans are, since you know humans made this crap up.

Given the opportunity a very large part of the population will quickly absolve themselves of any responsibility and put it on another human/system/made up entity.