MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by fragmede | 2026-03-10 19:46:06+00:00
Adversarial AI code gen. Have another AI write the tests, tell Codex that Claude wrote some code and to audit the code and write some tests. Tell Gemini that Codex wrote the tests. Have it audit the tests. Tell Codex that Gemini thinks its code is bad and to do better. (Have Gemini write out why into dobetter.md)
by chrisweekly | 2026-03-10 19:46:38+00:00
Fantastic article. I've always felt that institutional knowledge flow is one of the most essential factors in a given company's ability to survive. In the nascent age of AI, this "Enterprise Context Layer" approach seems more likely to catch on (and become table stakes, in order to keep up) than something like https://dotwork.com which looks amazing but seems to imply vendor lock-in.
by pfortuny | 2026-03-10 19:46:40+00:00
The human labor aspect is very little discussed and essential and very abusive, I am sure.

People think of these models as "magic" and "science" but they do not realize the immense amount (in human years) of clicking yes/no in front of thousands of pairs of input/outputs.

I worked for some months as a Google Quality Rater (wow), and know the job. This must be much worse.
Ask HN: I built an AI-native codebase framework–could you evaluate it?
by xodn348 | 2026-03-10 19:46:48+00:00
I built this open-source project and would really appreciate technical feedback from people here:

https://github.com/xodn348/ai-native

The goal is to make AI-assisted development more reliable through clearer project structure, explicit contracts, and verification workflow.

I made this because applying these patterns from scratch in every project was repetitive and hard to maintain, so I wanted a reusable framework.

If you have time, I’d love your evaluation on:

1. What is useful in practice?

2. What is unclear or unnecessary?

3. What should be improved first?

4. What evidence/tests would you want to see for stronger credibility?

If you find it useful, I’d appreciate a GitHub star as well.
I’m open to direct criticism.
by hinkley | 2026-03-10 19:46:48+00:00
> After we started hiring, it became a disaster.

When it stopped being two people he still forbade tests. In this decade. That is fucking nuts.

Fun fact: the guy I worked a 2 man project with and I had a rock solid build cycle, and when we got cancelled to put more wood behind fewer arrows, he and I built the entire CI pipeline. On cruisecontrol. And if you don’t know what that is, that is Stone Age CI. Literal sticks and rocks. Was I ahead of a very big curve? You bet your sweet bippy. But that was more than twenty years ago.
by HenriTEL | 2026-03-10 19:47:07+00:00
Location: Paris, France
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: No
Technologies: Python, AWS, Rust, kubernetes, terraform, linux
Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/henrihannetel/
Email: henri.hannetel+hn@pm.me

Backend engineer with 9 years experience building systems on AWS.
Recently exploring Rust for high-performance services and infrastructure.
by JumpCrisscross | 2026-03-10 19:47:08+00:00
> What right does Amazon have to block this

18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2) [1] lets site owners restrict access to a “protected computer”, which is “a computer…which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States” [2].

It’s unclear if this applies to public website. But the courts seem to apply it to any password-protected content.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840...

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and none of this is legal advice.
by egeozcan | 2026-03-10 19:47:49+00:00
You can always tell claude to use red-green-refactor and that really is a step-up from "yeah don't forget to write tests and make sure they pass" at the end of the prompt, sure. But even better, tell it to create subagents to form red team, green team and refactor team while the main instance coordinates them, respecting the clean-room rules. It really works.

The trick is just not mixing/sharing the context. Different instances of the same model do not recognize each other to be more compliant.
by jdlshore | 2026-03-10 19:47:57+00:00
Pet peeve: this post misunderstands “TDD.” What it really describes is acceptance tests.

TDD is a tool for working in small steps, so you get continuous feedback on your work as you go, and so you can refine your design based on how easy it is to use in practice. It’s “red green refactor repeat”, and each step is only a handful of lines of code.

TDD is not “write the tests, then write the code.” It’s “write the tests while writing the code, using the tests to help guide the process.”

Thank you for coming to my TED^H^H^H TDD talk.
by smokel | 2026-03-10 19:48:25+00:00
This is an interesting topic. I always loved the idea of extensions, for multiple reasons. But they do have their disadvantages, and I'm eager to find out how extension systems will hold up in the time of LLMs.

A major advantage of (certain) extension mechanisms is that you can update them in real-time. For example, in Emacs you can change functions without losing the current state of the application. In Processing or live coding environments, you can even update functions that affect real-time animation or audio.

Another advantage is that they can pose a very nice API, that allows for other people to learn an abstraction of the core application. If you are the sole developer, and if you can spend the time to keep an active memory of the core application, this does not help much. But it can certainly help others to build upon your foundation. Gimp and Emacs are great examples of this.

A disadvantage is that you have to keep supporting the extension mechanism, or otherwise extensions will break. That makes an ecosystem somewhat more slow to adapt. Emacs is the prime example here. We're still stuck with single-threaded text mode :)
by pessimizer | 2026-03-10 19:48:41+00:00
I don't understand a lot of the anti-LLM venom within this specific context. Debian doesn't have to worry about stealing GPL code, so the copyright argument is nearly nil. There's still the matter of attribution-ware, but Debian includes tons of attribution and I'm sure would happily include anyone who thinks their OSS might have been trained on.

So leaving that aside, it just seems to be the revulsion that programmers feel towards a lot of LLM slop and the aggravation of getting a lot of slop submissions? Something that seems to be universal in the FOSS social environment, but also seems to be indicative of a boundary issue for me:

The fact that machines have started to write reasonable code doesn't mean that you don't have any responsibility to read or review it before you hand it to someone. You could always write shit code and submit it without debugging it or refactoring it sanely, etc. Projects have always had to deal with this, and I suspect they've dealt with this through limiting the people they talk to to their friends, putting arbitrary barriers in front of people who want to contribute, and just being bitchy. While they were doing this, non-corporate FOSS was stagnating and dying because 1) no one would put up with that without being paid, and/or 2) money could buy your way past barriers and bitchiness.

Projects need to groom contributors, not simply pre-filter contributions by identity in order to cut down on their workload. There has to be an onboarding process, and that onboarding process has to include banning and condemning people that give you unreviewed slop, and spreading their names and accounts to other projects that could be targeted. Zero tolerance for people who send you something to read that they didn't bother to read. If somebody is getting AI to work for them, then trust grows in that person, and their contributions should be valued.

I think the AI part is a distraction. AI is better for Debian that almost anyone else, because Debian is copyleft and avoids the problems that copyleft poses for other software. The problem is that people working within Free Software need some sort of structured social/code interaction where there are reputations to be gained and lost that aren't isolated to single interactions over pull requests, or trying to figure out how and where to submit patches. Where all of the information is in one place about how to contribute, and also about who is contributing.

Priority needs to be placed on making all of this stuff clear. Debian is a massive enough project, basically all-encompassing, where it could actually set up something like this for itself and the rest of FOSS could attach itself later. Why doesn't Debian have a "github" that mirrors all of the software it distributes? Aren't they the perfect place? One of the only good, functional examples of online government?
by therealdrag0 | 2026-03-10 19:48:56+00:00
> METR

Yes I’ve seen it. It was certainly interesting at the time. If you refresh yourself on the study, it admits to reflecting a narrow point in time on a narrow task type and toolset.

Last July most people I know weren’t automating Jira tickets, pull requests, comment addressing, design docs, multi repo research, and customizing rule sets. Now everyone I know does, each of these incrementally speed up productivity.

> Not to mention the absolute lack of well known AI-produced products that we know of.

This is a strange comment. We have a well known example in openclaw, which is notoriously vibe coded, which again if you follow the thread, I’m not defending. whereas I know senior and staff engineers at most FAANG companies and every single one uses AI to code, so many many products you know are being written with AI.

I don’t wanna dox myself but last year my company developed a greenfield product with a pretty large headcount of eng (multiple teams)that was built with an AI first development workflow, now that doesn’t mean the 20 engineers just stood around and twiddling their thumbs. They were doing real engineering and software development work with heavy agentic AI use. They shipped it in six months and it’s been in prod for months. If you can’t see how AI is being used I don’t know what to tell you.
by adrian_b | 2026-03-10 19:49:18+00:00
Unpowered SSD data retention time is quite long for SSDs that have not been used previously

The data retention time diminishes quickly with the number of times that the sectors used for storage have been written previously.

That is why the retention time of 1 year that is guaranteed for consumer SSDs is specified for a SSD that has been written with the maximum amount of data specified by the vendor.

Moreover, the retention time decreases quickly with increasing ambient temperature. It can be much longer in a fridge than in a place with tropical climate.
by asdff | 2026-03-10 19:49:32+00:00
Have you seen these photos though? They barely capture the driver to be honest. The angle is shit for it, decent enough for plate ID but that is it. When I got one it didn't really catch my face and the image quality was terrible anyhow, tons of noise and blur and low resolution and lighting conditions couldn't have been better at the time too. Imagine dead of night, when my interior is unlit.
by moregrist | 2026-03-10 19:50:53+00:00
It’s basically a royalty model. That’s common in some industries and with some products. I haven’t looked lately but both Unity and Unreal Engine had royalty models; game devs would pay either a fixed per-unit fee or a percentage of revenue after a certain volume of sales.

To be viable as a business plan, this requires that a certain percentage of your customers have viable products.

Here’s the thing though: anyone who has a high volume of sales will want to shed the royalty. This could be by negotiating different terms or just rewriting to avoid the component or service that wants the royalty.

For Unity and Unreal, it’s pretty common knowledge that AAA studios have separately negotiated licenses, presumably to reduce or eliminate the per-unit royalty. Some studios write their own engine, though that has its own costs.

For vibe coding I have real doubts about this model. There’s effectively no moat and no defensive IP (ie: patents), so anyone making enough revenue to pay $$$ on royalties will probably end hiring SWEs to rewrite their software to avoid royalties.
by HPSimulator | 2026-03-10 19:51:42+00:00
One thing that might also be happening is that LLMs tend to converge on metaphors that compress complex ideas quickly.

If you look at how engineers explain messy systems, they often reach for anthropomorphic metaphors — “gremlins in the machine”, “ghost in the system”, “yak shaving”, etc. They’re basically shorthand for “there’s hidden complexity here that behaves unpredictably”.

For a model generating explanations, those metaphors are useful because they bundle a lot of meaning into one word. So even if the actual frequency in normal conversation is low, the model might still favor them because they’re efficient explanation tokens.

In other words it might not just be training frequency — it could be the model learning that those metaphors are a compact way to communicate messy-system behavior.
by throwyawayyyy | 2026-03-10 19:51:48+00:00
I am afraid that we are heading to a world in which we simply give up on the idea of correct code as an aspiration to strive for. Of course code has always been bad, and of course good code has never been a goal in the whole startup ecosystem (for perfectly legitimate reasons!). But that real production code, for services that millions or even billions of people rely on, should be reliable, that if it breaks that's a problem, this is the whole _engineering_ part of software engineering. And we can say: if we give that up we're going to have a whole lot more outages, security issues, all those things we are meant to minimize as a profession. And the answer is going to be: so what? We save money overall. And people will get used to software being unreliable; which is to say, people will not have a choice but to get used to it.
by awesome_dude | 2026-03-10 19:52:32+00:00
It's the committee vs the dictator issue - a small driven individual (or group) can achieve a lot, but they can also turn into tyrants.

A committee forms when there's widespread disagreement on goals or priorities - representing stakeholders who can't agree. The cost is slower decisions and compromise solutions. The benefit is avoiding tyranny of a single vision that ignores real needs.
by thaumasiotes | 2026-03-10 19:52:35+00:00
> By the time of Julius Caesar, the solstices were on the 25th

That is false. See https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2022/05/julian-calendar.h... , or "Digression #2: why do Roman writers report the date of the solstice as 25 December?" at https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2015/12/christmas-and-its... .

Solstices were on the 25th a few hundred years before the time of Julius Caesar. He did not even attempt to put them back there; his calendar put the summer solstice on the 24th.
by afro88 | 2026-03-10 19:52:39+00:00
I guess to reach this point you have already decided you don't care what the code looks like.

Something I'm starting to struggle with is when agents can now do longer and more complex tasks, how do you review all the code?

Last week I did about 4 weeks of work over 2 days first with long running agents working against plans and checklists, then smaller task clean ups, bugfixes and refactors. But all this code needs to be reviewed by myself and members from my team. How do we do this properly? It's like 20k of line changes over 30-40 commits. There's no proper solution to this problem yet.

One solution is to start from scratch again, using this branch as a reference, to reimplement in smaller PRs. I'm not sure this would actually save time overall though.
by matheusmoreira | 2026-03-10 19:53:19+00:00
It tells you for how long the time displayed by the watch is valid. If a watch loses ten seconds per day, in a month it will be about five minutes off.

The objective is to minimize this number as much as possible. The open source sensor watch has a temperature sensor and software which turns it into a temperature compensated quartz watch. Mine loses time every year instead of every day or every month.
by MarkusQ | 2026-03-10 19:53:21+00:00
Clarke's second law:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Also see Minsky's "Perceptrons"

The problem with almost all such proofs is that people (even those who know better) read them as "this can't be done" when in fact they tell you "it can't be done unless you break one of the following assumptions."

I agree that it's unfair to say they failed, but it's likewise unfair to say that their success was in telling us our limits rather than exploring what we need to do to get around the roadblocks.
by pzo | 2026-03-10 19:53:46+00:00
FWIW this RCLI is only MIT license but their engine MetalRT is commercial. Not sure the license of their models I guess also not MIT. So IMHO this repo is misleading.

Not sure why they decided to reinvent the wheel and write yet another ML engine (MetalRT) which is proprietary. I would most likely bet on CoreML since it have support for ANE (apple NPU) or MLX.

Other popular repos for such tasks I would recommend:

https://github.com/FluidInference/FluidAudio

https://github.com/DePasqualeOrg/mlx-swift-audio

https://github.com/Blaizzy/mlx-audio

https://github.com/k2-fsa/sherpa-onnx
by neilv | 2026-03-10 19:54:11+00:00
(Even the glossy hype intro aside) The laughing enthusiasm in parts of this video, such as when mentioning a bombing, and technological capability movements in connection with that, hits a note that should be called out.

This is one of many recent occasions to remind ourselves: War is not entertainment.

War is horrific. It's lives and families ruined. Misery, and destruction.

Professionals in quiet rooms may have moments of dark sense of humor about some of the finer details, which they keep to themselves.

Everyone else should be universally horrified. Except for moments of noting genuine goodness in face of the horror.

Not morbid entertainment.
by trox | 2026-03-10 19:55:57+00:00
It's true that a single private jet is causing tons of CO2 emissions. But in the end, all consumers control the market.
You can jump one link further in the chain to regions with much lower emissions. Somalia/Congo emit over 200x less CO2 per capita in comparison to the US. Do you think that's fair for them if the "regular salaried people" don't care?
If responsibility always gets dismissed by pointing to someone emitting more, nothing changes.
by Snowfield9571 | 2026-03-10 19:56:24+00:00
Add it to the list. Here are just a few more of their flagrant privacy violations.

Facebook/Meta pays teens to install a VPN so they can snoop on user traffic and decrypts competitors traffic (Snapchat) under guidance of Zuckerberg himself. [1]

Facebook/Meta covertly backdoors users phones [2]

Facebook requests phone number for 2FA and then uses for ads/tracking without disclosure [3]

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/26/facebook-secret-project-sn...

[2] http://web.archive.org/web/20260116094503/https://localmess....

[3] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/press-release/file/1186...
by AnthonyMouse | 2026-03-10 19:56:30+00:00
> Ditching first past the poles and mitigating gerrymandering would also obviously help.

Mitigating gerrymandering is basically a lost cause with first past the post because someone has to draw the lines and whoever is in the majority at the time is going to find a way to benefit themselves. It's especially hard because in a state which is e.g. 60% for one party, drawing the lines in a "normal" way can pretty easily result in a bunch of districts that are each 60% for that party (i.e. they get 100% of the seats with 60% of the votes), and getting it to not do that could require a bunch of strange looking lines.

Whereas if you switch from first past the post to score voting, gerrymandering is basically irrelevant.

First past the post de facto disenfranchises the majority of the district including members of both parties whenever the split isn't almost exactly 50:50, because then the outcome is effectively a certainty even if significant numbers of voters change their minds, everyone who supports the losing major party or any third party fails to benefit them, and everyone who supports the victorious major party in excess of what they needed to secure the district is also not moving the needle even a hair.

Whereas with score voting, you can have more than two viable candidates, and then hyper-partisans can't win in a district where 40% of the voters hate them because they'd lose to a member of their own party, or a now-viable third party candidate, who can appeal to voters on both sides. Changing the composition of the district changes which candidate wins even when the change doesn't put a different party in the majority, and with more than two viable parties there may not even be a "majority" party anymore.

The problem is someone got the Democrats to start promoting IRV, which is barely better than first past the post in many cases and actually worse (i.e. more partisan) in some pretty common ones. Which in turn got a lot of Republicans to start opposing all voting system reforms because they didn't like the results. Meanwhile they would both benefit from using score voting instead of FPTP or IRV. I mean seriously, does either party actually like this partisan hellscape?
by seanmcdirmid | 2026-03-10 19:56:36+00:00
Iran's biggest threat to the US is that it adds slightly more manufacturing capacity to make Chinese weapon designs.

> Surely it’s attack on a U.S. embassy is sufficient to prove the country’s motivations?

Which happened 40+ years ago and all of the fatalities were from a helicopter crash in a failed rescue attempt. Yes, it sucked, but no, this is not why Trump decided to humor Netanyahu with the current invasion.
by steelbrain | 2026-03-10 19:56:52+00:00
Since we're on the homepage, please forgive my shameless plug: https://lemur.cam/

I built this macOS app that allows you to use any off the shelf wifi camera as your webcam with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, etc. It has lower latency than OBS, VLC etc based on my testing, its Swift-Native and pretty lightweight.

It was built mainly for my own team so they don't have to run long wires of USB cameras or pay a lot of money for a "wireless webcam". I hope you find it useful!
Tell HN: Apple development certificate server seems down?
by strongpigeon | 2026-03-10 19:56:52+00:00
I don't see anything on https://developer.apple.com/system-status/, but I haven't been able to install apps for development on my own devices starting at 11AM PDT.

Other people on Reddit seem to be hitting this too [0]. Anyone knows anything about it?

[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/iOSProgramming/comments/1rq4uxl
by pessimizer | 2026-03-10 19:57:06+00:00
> It's extremely frustrating to see such a lack of conviction to argue this point forcefully and repeatedly.

It is. You haven't argued it at all, right here. You just asserted it as if it were self-evident, talked about your feelings, then demanded policy.

Your only job here was to convince people to align with you, and you didn't bother. It makes me suspect that you haven't really solidified the argument in your own mind.
by zenethian | 2026-03-10 19:57:08+00:00
I still have my node address memorized. The very late 1980s and mid 90s were the very best era for the vibe of hobbyist computing. Amazing ANSI art and text driven menus still fill my heart with joy.

I still think that some of those systems are easier to use than what we have now.

I miss the quality of EchoMail conversations with friends around the world. I even ended up moderating a few echoes myself after mods had moved on.

Good times.