MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by xtiansimon | 2026-03-05 12:52:59+00:00
I visit HN from RSS feed. Articles are listed on my feed, but I have to click through to really read anything-—there is no summary in the RSS feed.

So I could visit HN directly and prolly save a step. But in truth, I like having one place to go. And here I’ve collected and curated all the places I like to visit. And I find it much better than using bookmarks.

Which is all a lot to say that I’d be more likely to return to visit this site if it had an RSS feed.

Obviously, part of the charm of the site is the telemetry and data widgety bits (weather, stock ticker) which are mixed in with newsy and fun bits (I love the quotes). But I can tell you with all honesty, if I make a bookmark for this site, it’s going into a sea of links.

RSS isn’t just for consuming site data without dealing with the design cruff. It’s also good as a bookmark.
by femto | 2026-03-05 12:53:05+00:00
> If you had a hermetically sealed code base that just happened to coincide line for line with the codebase for GCC, it would still be a copy.

That's not what the law says [1]. If two people happen to independently create the same thing they each have their own copyright.

If it's highly improbable that two works are independent (eg. the gcc code base), the first author would probably go to court claiming copying, but their case would still fail if the second author could show that their work was independent, no matter how improbable.

[1] https://lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch11s13.php?lscsa_prod%5Bpage%...
by rswail | 2026-03-05 12:53:18+00:00
Because the authors of the original content deserve recompense for their work.

That's what the whole copyright and patent regimes are designed to achieve.

It's to encourage the creation of knowledge.

US Constitution, Article I, section 8:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;
by foltik | 2026-03-05 12:53:23+00:00
Turns out there’s no need to speculate. Someone pointed out on GH [0] that the AI was literally prompted to copy the existing code:

> *Context:* The registry maps every supported encoding to its metadata.
Era assignments MUST match chardet 6.0.0's `chardet/metadata/charsets.py` at
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/chardet/chardet/f0676c0d6a...

> Fetch that file and use it as the authoritative reference for which encodings
belong to which era. Do not invent era assignments.

[0] https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/327#issuecomment-4...
by sub3suite | 2026-03-05 12:53:43+00:00
I built SpiderSuite to consolidate several fragmented web security workflows into one high-performance platform. Most existing tools excel at either static crawling or proxying, but often struggle with modern JavaScript-heavy SPAs or specialized environments like Onion services.

Features:

Hybrid Crawling: Five distinct engines—Standard (static), Headless (JS-execution), Bruteforce (directory discovery), Onion/TOR, and a specialized Links crawler for file formats.

Intercepting Proxy: Real-time HTTP(S) traffic manipulation with minimal overhead.

Precision Request Crafter: Manual control over headers, payloads, and authentication flows.

Automated Fuzzer: Multi-technique fuzzing with response analysis to find edge cases and vulnerabilities.

Surface Mapping: Generates interactive graphs to visualize site architecture.

Serialization: SpiderSuite supports importing from common security tools and exporting results in multiple formats JSON, CSV, XML, and HTML.

Why I Built This:
I wanted a tool that was faster than Java-based alternatives but more comprehensive than simple CLI Go/Rust scripts. SpiderSuite is designed for attack surface mapping, bug bounty hunting, and deep reconnaissance.

I'm looking for feedback on the headless crawler's efficiency and how the UI handles large-scale crawl data. I'll be here to answer any questions about the architecture or roadmap.
by embedding-shape | 2026-03-05 12:53:58+00:00
> which is much more the case for local inference than sending it away over a network

Of course, but that isn't what unclear here.

What's unclear is why a 7b LLM model would be better for those things than say a 14b model, as the difference will be minuscule, yet parent somehow made the claim they make more sense for verification because somehow latency is more important than accuracy.
by Forgeties79 | 2026-03-05 12:57:06+00:00
People already throw things on the ground because it’s somebody else’s job to pick it up. It’s a culture issue broader than simply “personal responsibility.” People in the US don’t like to be inconvenienced or we tend to shriek about personal freedoms.

In the US you likely need wildly punitive measures - not just small fines - to deal with the issue. Also would fall along party aligns with minutes and become a partisan issue immediately.
by mschuster91 | 2026-03-05 12:57:35+00:00
> For example huge banking corporations have been caught laundering money for drug cartels and got away with fines -- if your fintech startup tried that on, you would never see the outside of a prison cell.

German bank N26 was embroiled in money laundering, scams and other issues stemming from bad KYC for years, and all they got was a slap on the wrist from regulators.
by jmyeet | 2026-03-05 12:57:36+00:00
There's a subtext in your point that I want to expand on.

Tech people, particularly engineers, tend to make a fundamental error when dealing with the law that almost always causes them to make wrong conclusions. And that error is that they look for technical compliance when so much of the law is subjective and holistic.

An example I like to use is people who do something illegal on the Internet and then use the argument "you can't prove I did it (with absolute certainty)". It could've been someone who hacked your Wifi. You don't know who on the Wifi did it, etc. But the law will look at the totality of the evidence. Did the activity occur when you were at home and stop when you weren't? How likely are alternative explanations? Etc.

All of that will be considered based on some legal standard depending on the venue. In civil court that tends to be "the preponderance of the evidence" (meaning more likely than not) while in criminal court it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" (which is a much higher standard).

So, using your example, an engineer will often fall into a trap of thinking they can substitute enough words to have a new original work, Ship of Theseus-like. And the law simply doesn't work that way.

So, when this gets to a court (which it will, it's not a question of "if"), the court will consider how necessary the source work was to what you did. If you used it for a direct translation (eg from C++ to Go) then you're going to lose. My prediction is that even using it in training data will be cause for a copyright claim.

If you use Moby Dick in your training data and ask an LLM to write a book like Moby Dick (either explicitly or implicitly) then you're going to have an issue. Even if you split responsibilities so one LLM (training on Moby Dick) comes up with a structure/prompt and another LLM (not trained on Moby Dick) writes it, I don't think that'll really help you avoid the issue.
by larodi | 2026-03-05 12:58:01+00:00
> No one cares about how the code is written.

I would overstate:

No one even cares how architecture is done. Unless you are the one fixing it or maintaining it.

Sorry, no one. We all know Apple did some great stuff with their code, but we care more about the awful work done on the UI, right? I mean - the UI seems to not be breaking in these new OSs which is amazing feature... for a game perhaps, and most likely the code is top notch. But we care about other things.

This is the reality, and the blind notion that so-many people care about code is super untrue. Perhaps someone putting money on developers care, but we have so many examples already of money put on implementation no matter what the code is. We can see everywhere funds thrown at obnoxious implementations, and particularly in large enterprises, that are only sustained by the weird ecosystem of white-collar jobs that sustains this impression.

Very few people care about the code in total, and this can be observed very easy, perhaps it can be proved no other way around is possible.
by jacquesm | 2026-03-05 12:58:05+00:00
No, the burden of proof is on the defender: if you didn't create it you are not the copyright holder.

Copyright is automatic for a reason, the simple act of creation is technically enough to establish copyright. But that mechanism means that if your claimed creation has an uncanny resemblance to an earlier, published creation or an unpublished earlier creation that you had access to that you are going to be in trouble when the real copyright holder is coming to call.

In short: just don't. Write your own stuff if you plan on passing it off as your own.

The accuser just needs to establish precedence.

So if you by your lonesome have never listened to the radio and tomorrow morning wake up and 'Billy Jean' springs from your brain you're going to get sued, even if the MJ estate won't be able to prove how you did it.
by Bishonen88 | 2026-03-05 12:58:20+00:00
Didn't realize who's blog I'm reading. I was intrigued by the title, being a fan of 'self help' books. I mostly read about productivity (i.e. Feel-Good Productivity is a good one IMO), health, living a balanced life etc. and was expecting to find some a-ha moments in this post. I didn't. It confused me more than anything often talking about 'relationships' as if this is the only self-help kind of book there is.

And I have learnt a ton of lessons from self help books like the one I mentioned above, Arete, "how to make friends and influence people", Atomic Habits and others, without looking to fix any unhappiness, flaws of myself or whatnot. Was just curious what other, more experience people have learned about life that I can learn without having to wait 20-30+ years.
by notepad0x90 | 2026-03-05 12:58:42+00:00
The framing of an LLM's response as truth vs lie is in itself incorrect.

In order to lie, one needs to understand what truth and objective reality are.

Even with people, when a flat-earther tells you the earth is flat, they're not lying, they're just wrong.

All LLM output is speculation. All speculation, by definition, has some probability of being incorrect.

---

We can go even deeper in a philosophical sense. If I made the audacious claim that 2 +2 = 4, I may think it's true, but I'm still speculating that the objective reality I experience is the same one others also experience, and that my senses and mental faculties, and therefore the qualia making up my reality, are indeed intact, correct, and functional. So is there a degree of speculation when I made that claim?

Regardless, I am able to agree upon a shared reality with the rest of the world, and I also share a common understanding of truth and untruth. If I lied, it can only be caused by an intention to mislead others. For example, if I claimed to be the president of the united states, of course that would be incorrect (thankfully!), but since we all agree that no one reading this post would actually be mislead into thinking I am the POTUS, then it isn't a lie. Perhaps sarcasm, a failed attempt at humor, or just trolling. it is untruth, but it isn't a lie, no one was mislead. You need intent (LLM isn't capable of one), and that intent needs to be at least in part, an intent to mislead.
by twoodfin | 2026-03-05 12:59:23+00:00
I’m told that Germans in general are “cheap” and that this is an expected consequence of their economic policies designed to reinforce their industrial base.

I wish I could find the reference I’m thinking of, but the idea was that Germans buying absurdly cheap wine and their constantly underfunded trains were part of a pattern of deliberate domestic under-investment to keep exports competitive.

Someone ITT surely knows more.
by speeder | 2026-03-05 12:59:50+00:00
I worked on BMW infotainment for a time. My opinions are my own obviously, I don't even work at BMW anymore.

So, when I was working, I found the decisions regarding the infotainment mind boggling, to me they made zero sense, until I found some random documents deep in the BMW intranet, where I found the logic of it all: The focus was actually increasing the car range, so for example instead of having one infotainment dedicated hardware, one for the doors, one for the brakes, etc... now the cars have the least amount of computers as possible, located in the locations that result in the least wires as possible, with the goal of saving weight. Because of this, the software layer now had to deal with extra virtualizations, software that originally was to run on a specific microcontroller and do a specific task, and communicated with other parts by wire, now shares a generalized CPU with many other software, and communicate by virtual machines sending messages to each other.

Marvelous stuff from the point of mechanical engineering, indeed results in lighter car and less parts. But the end result for the user? It is mind bogglingly bad, several VMs running on top of each other, everything is slow, the Infotainment instead of being just Infotainment now do several other things.

I had written some of the surprising non-Infotainment stuff the Infotainment do, but that probably would cross into violating NDAs territory, so better not. Just let's say the Infotainment has to meet some non-entertainment related EU regulations.
by josephg | 2026-03-05 13:00:09+00:00
> It is also not fair to claim that an AI-copy is fundamentally different from photocopying.

If you clean-room copy it, I think it is different. Eg, first get one agent to make a complete spec of what the program does. And a list of all the correctness guarantees it meets. Then feed that spec into another AI model to generate a program which meets that spec.

The second program will not be based on any of the code in the first program. They'll be as different as any two implementations of the same idea are. I don't think the second program should be copyrighted. If it should, why shouldn't one C compiler should be able to own a copyright over all C compilers? Why doesn't the first JSON parsing library own JSON parsing? These seem the same to me. I don't see how AI models change anything, other than taking human effort out of the porting process.
by Asm2D | 2026-03-05 13:00:20+00:00
Because pg_jitter uses AsmJit's Compiler, which also allocates registers. That's much more work than using hardcoded physical registers in SLJIT case. There is always a cost of such comfort.

I think AsmJit's strength is completeness of its backends as you can emit nice SIMD code with it (like AVX-512). But the performance could be better of course, and that's possible - making it 2x faster would be possible.
by semolino | 2026-03-05 13:00:40+00:00
I first found this site a few months back when researching the logo for Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (it appears on a shipping container at a construction site in my area): https://www.modernillustration.org/archive/mol1969ryoheiyana...

Semi-relatedly to the OP, I dug deeper and found that M.O.L. continues to regularly update their site in honor of the logo's illustrator (including fresh monthly wallpapers and printable stationery). I was pleasantly surprised by the ongoing reverence they have for their illustator's legacy.
by Extasia785 | 2026-03-05 13:00:41+00:00
I don't agree with many statements in the article. It almost seems like an article from about a year ago, despite it being posted yesterday, not sure if the author had the idea a long time ago and just took his time to finish it up.

While LLMs are surely used to generate a lot of slop-code and overwhelm (open source) code bases, this surely isn't the only thing they can do. I dislike discussing the potential of a technology exclusively by looking at its negative impact.

LLMs in proper hands don't create code which is "stolen", they also shouldn't create unnecessary code and definitely don't remove any of the ownership of the programmer, at least not any more than using a mighty IDE does.

The problem seems to be in the usage of LLMs. These effects definitely do happen when just releasing an agent on a codebase without any oversight. But they can also largely be mitigated by using frameworks such as Openspec or Spec-Kit, properly designing a spec, plan, granular tasks and manually reviewing all code yourself. The LLM should not be responsible for any creative idea, it should at most verify the practicality against the codebase. When doing that, the entire creative control is in the hands of the programmer and so is the mechanical execution. The LLM is reduced to a very powerful autocomplete with a strict harness around it. Obviously this also doesn't lead to 10x or even 100x improvements in speed like some AI merchants promise, but in my personal experience the speedup is still significant enough to make LLMs a very, very useful technology.
by adampunk | 2026-03-05 13:01:06+00:00
Those can all be true and it can be true that they shipped a bunch of these north and then had need for them. Last year when they retaliated over the nuclear site bombing they sent about 100-200 weapons at Israel. That wasn’t enough because the name of the game w air defense is saturation or economics. You either send more than they can intercept at once or you eventually send more than they can afford to intercept.

Iran gave away that capability.
by utopiah | 2026-03-05 13:01:08+00:00
> AI sits in a space where if you know how to use it, it can tell you all the thin spots of the ice accurately. You can then verify those spots, but there's a level of personal responsibility of verification.

Right, but AFAICT most people just venture over the ice and don't bother to check. In fact a lot of people venture there, do check once or twice, then check less and less frequently. The fact that you do it is great but others seem a lot less careful, until cracks start to show and then it might be too late.
by brians | 2026-03-05 13:01:18+00:00
I do not agree with your interpretation of copyright law. It does ban copies: there has to be information flow from the original to the copy for it to be a "copy." Spontaneous generation of the same content is often taken by the courts to be a sign that it's purely functional, derived from requirements by mathematical laws.

Patent law is different and doesn't rely on information flow in the same way.
by mtct88 | 2026-03-05 13:01:58+00:00
Employee costs vary greatly depending on where the factory is located. Here in Italy, a line operator costs around €60,000–70,000 per year, and half of that goes back to the government for public welfare redistribution.

Robots costs have a fixed CapEx that humans don't have.
If they become expensive you can move the factory to a cheaper nation.

People keep saying that a humanoid robot will cost around €30,000, but is that just for the hardware, or does it include all the additional services required to operate it? Will they be as interchangeable as humans, who can be reassigned to a different task in 30 minutes without notice?

Honestly, it still doesn’t make sense to me; to use an analogy, it's like you're building and "horseless carriage" instead of a car.
by Ukv | 2026-03-05 13:02:22+00:00
Many sites already exist to sell products (like Temu) or a paid subscription (like Dropbox), such that ads or crypto miners would just be double-dipping. On average, you would need to pay less than you do now if resources were not wasted on ads/crypto miners.

For websites that aren't costly to host (blogs, tutorials, ...), there's often no need to monetize at all. Non-commercial sites on some topic ran by passionate hobbyists are already typically higher quality than sites designed for profiting through adspam/SEO.

Donations and volunteer work (like Wikipedia) can be viable where there are non-negligible costs to cover. Grants and public funding can also help if it's a worthwhile cause.

Some institutions/people benefit indirectly in recognition from putting information online - like universities, product support forums, or a security researcher writing up an investigation into a malware campaign. Could consider this a form of advertising, but the resources are being used in a productive way rather than just intentionally wasting time.

Non-wasteful use of your time and computing resources are also fine by me, like torrent trackers that require you to maintain a minimum seed ratio. Google's CAPTCHAs are already sneakily giving you annotation work, just not paying for it.

I'd claim federation also helps, in that services that ostensibly benefit from being one massive site (due to network effect) can actually be split up into smaller more feasible nodes. I use SDF's Mastodon/Lemmy instances for example, and host a Matrix server.
by 8organicbits | 2026-03-05 13:04:33+00:00
This is cool.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the feed-per-column style as I like to subscribe to personal blogs which post a handful of times per year. Maybe 100 feeds which average 2-5 posts per year. Is there a way to merge columns? But may not be the intended audience.

I suggest OPML import to make it easier for people to move subscriptions. Feed discovery tools also like to integrate with feed readers, can you add an API like https://agglu.com/subscribe?url=https://example.com/feed.xml
by h2zizzle | 2026-03-05 13:04:48+00:00
Tbf Spore's acclaim comes with the caveat that it completely failed to live up to years of pre-release hype. Much of the goodwill it's garnered since, which is reflected in review scores, only came after the storm of controversy over Spore not being "the ultimate simulator which would mark the 'end of history' for gaming" died down.

And you wouldn't really have any idea this was the case if you weren't there when it happened.
Show HN: Voice skill for AI agents – sub-200ms latency via native SIP
by nia-agent | 2026-03-05 13:05:11+00:00
Built an open-source voice skill for AI agents with real phone conversations via OpenAI Realtime API + Twilio SIP. Native speech-to-speech, no STT-LLM-TTS chain, sub-200ms latency. Features: inbound/outbound calls, tool calling mid-conversation, recording, transcription, session bridging, health monitoring, metrics, call history API. Use case: missed-call auto-callback for appointment booking ($2,100 avg lost per missed call). Tech: Python + Node.js, 97 tests, MIT licensed, 5-min quickstart.
by croes | 2026-03-05 13:05:24+00:00
> because the rivers were too hot to be used for cooling.

Where does it say physically?

> being a major deal, when it affects only 0.2% of generation per year

Interesting choice of time period.
Energy problems are rarely viewed from a yearly perspective.

> being an unfixable issue, which is again false.

Who said unfixable?
It’s a current problem and any change needs time and money.

That time and money can be used for decentralization.

Drones will get cheaper and cheaper and more capable and many nuclear power plants aren’t built for that threat
by latexr | 2026-03-05 13:05:58+00:00
There are few types of people more annoying and less successful at changing anyone’s mind than those who are condescending while failing to understand the point being made.

Developing the skill to recognise when you’re being one is paramount to having fruitful conversations.

Unless, of course, one just cares about sounding right, not actually understanding the conversation and reaching a truthful conclusion.