MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bionhoward | 2026-03-09 05:33:17+00:00
gotta admit i groaned a bit at this because it would make rust more complicated, but on my 2nd read i realized:

- some things (compile time bounds checking tensor shapes) are hard / impossible to implement now; "pattern types" could be great for that

- however "no panic" is already handled by clippy, might not be much uplift for doing that at a type level.

my 2c: it's great to be excited and brainstorm, some of these ideas might be gold. conveying the benefit is key. it would be good to focus on stuff for which rust doesn't already have a workable solution. i like the pattern types, the rest would take convincing
by sam0x17 | 2026-03-09 05:34:06+00:00
I've always felt very alone in my view on this, so don't feel bad if you disagree with me because most people probably do, but I just feel super morally icky when I hear about how part of our justice system is built around "retribution" / "vindication". Like it is one thing to punish, it is quite another to allow others to derive some sort of satisfaction from that punishment, even if they were victims, I just find it sick. It means as a society we are no better than the perpetrators at the end of the day.
by fredwu | 2026-03-09 05:34:33+00:00
Have been working on three micro-saas, all built in Elixir/Phoenix:

https://feedbun.com - a browser extension that decodes food labels and recipes on any website for healthy eating, with science-backed research summaries and recommendations.

https://rizz.farm - a lead gen tool for Reddit that focuses on helping instead of selling, to build long-lasting organic traffic.

https://persumi.com - a blogging platform that turns articles into audio, and to showcase your different interests or "personas".
by kitasan | 2026-03-09 05:34:45+00:00
Fair question. Development was done in a private repo — we squashed the history into a single commit when open-sourcing. That's a deliberate policy choice (clean public history), though I understand it makes it harder to evaluate the project's evolution.
WASM package is already published: https://www.npmjs.com/package/@cooljapan/oximedia — format probing, container demuxing, zero-copy buffers all work in-browser. A live web demo is next on the list.
by tfatykhov | 2026-03-09 05:35:12+00:00
Every LLM call starts from nothing. No memory of what worked yesterday. No record of what failed last week. The industry calls this “stateless.” It’s not an architecture pattern — it’s a limitation we’ve been too slow to fix.
I spent the last month reading nine papers from 2025–2026 on the cutting edge of agent memory research. Not theoretical memory. Real systems with benchmarks, architectures, and trade-offs.
Here’s what changed how I build — and what it should change about how you build too.
by 1718627440 | 2026-03-09 05:35:46+00:00
If most people are like my on that topic, then they use HN without an account, until they want to post or comment something, then they try to find out how to create an account. If they won't be able to post or comment then, then they will just not create or retain that account.

I was able to have discussions where one party has significantly unpopular opinions. Such discussions are unique to HN, please don't kill them.
by hombre_fatal | 2026-03-09 05:35:54+00:00
RSS is dead because it’s backwards. It requires everyone you want to follow to implement it since that is the best we could do a decade ago.

We can do better than that: an LLM can ingest unstructured data and turn it into a feed. You shouldn’t need someone else to comply with a protocol just to ingest their data.

I don’t get why people keep fantasizing about a system that gave consumers no control. Scrape the website directly. You decide what’s in the feed, not them.
by carefree-bob | 2026-03-09 05:37:10+00:00
China is using more coal, gas, and oil than ever. They went from using 1.5 billion tons of thermal coal in 2000 to 4.6 Billion tons today and they will reach 4.7 Billion in 2027.

They did "pledge" to "limit increases" in coal, but there is a big difference from limiting increases to "moving away from" coal.

As for oil, it is a similar story. Oil use doubled from 2005 to 2025, but they pledged to "slow increases" of oil to something less than the 7% annual increases per year that were the last 10 years average (over the business cycle).

Natural gas has tripled from 3 to 9.3 billion cubic feet per day from 2014 to 2023.

The prescient part was building a pipeline to deliver oil and gas directly from Russia as well as building trade routes through Russia and the central Asian nations that give them a direct route to their energy suppliers (Including Iran, which can supply China without ever going through the straight of Hormuz).

Energy security is very important, and China has invested heavily to build pipelines and trade agreements that keep the oil and gas flowing, and they have moved away from buying Australian coal to increasing their own domestic coal production, reaching 4.8 Billion tons mined and on track to hit 5 Billion tons in the next few years.
by jamesblonde | 2026-03-09 05:39:05+00:00
The reference in the text to Anthropic’s “Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models” is related to RLHF (reinforcement learning with human feedback).

Claude code uses primarily different "pathways" in Anthropic LLMs that were not post-trained with RLHF, but rather with RLVF (reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards).

So, his point about code being produced to please the user isn't valid from where I am sitting.
by yuppiemephisto | 2026-03-09 05:39:37+00:00
I do a form of literate programming for code review to help read AI code. I use [Lean 4](lean-lang.org) and its doc tool [Verso](https://github.com/leanprover/verso/) and have it explain the code through a literate essay. It is integrated with Lean and gets proper typechecking etc which I find helpful.
by kstenerud | 2026-03-09 05:41:30+00:00
I took a more paranoid approach to sandboxing agents. They can do whatever they want inside their container, and then I choose which of their changes to apply outside as commits:

┌─ YOLO shell ──────────────────────┬─ Outer shell ─────────────────────┐
│ │ │
│ yoloai new myproject . -a │ │
│ │ │
│ # Tell the agent what to do, │ │
│ # have it commit when done. │ │
│ │ yoloai diff myproject │
│ │ yoloai apply myproject │
│ │ # Review and accept the commits. │
│ │ │
│ # ... next task, next commit ... │ │
│ │ yoloai apply myproject │
│ │ │
│ │ # When you have a good set of │
│ │ # commits, push: │
│ │ git push │
│ │ │
│ │ # Done? Tear it down: │
│ │ yoloai destroy myproject │
└───────────────────────────────────┴───────────────────────────────────┘

Works with Docker, Seatbelt, and Tart backends (I've even had it build an iOS app inside a seatbelt container).

https://github.com/kstenerud/yoloai
by divan | 2026-03-09 05:44:19+00:00
> many of you find alone-ness to be natural, and even required

You can hear that from people who are not truly alone, but have more attention from their closest than they need.

The answer to your question - "Don't". Shift your priorities, reshape your life, change your place of living if needed, but don't be alone. This shit will kill you.

Maybe you can discover other ways to be connected with meaninful people – not necessarily the closest/relatives ones - through sports, volunteering, local neighborhood initiatives. If needed, spend more money on it, travel to other countries to meet people that you care about. Anything that leads to real human hug will work. I measure unloneliness progress in the average number of human hugs per day :). Optimize your life for that.

Whatever you do, refuse to have the life where you're alone.
by shevy-java | 2026-03-09 05:45:45+00:00
I don't quite use "social media" per se, unless of course hackernews is part of it (which, kind of, is ... anything we can use other people can read or relate to, is kind of social, by definition. I think Facebook etc... tried to claim ownership over the term "social media", and I disagree with this notion). Having said that, I don't use or need RSS, so I don't think there will be a renaissance for RSS for most people.

I do agree that AI is killing tons of things right now. This monster must be stopped; it is worse than Skynet in that it really, really sucks. Things started to decay before AI took over, though - for instance, Google search has been garbage since years. It was useful before that.

I used to compare the decay of google search with how youtube search works. You search for, say, "ninja cats". You get some results about cats. Perhaps also ninjas. After like 10 or 20 results, you suddenly get other videos that are totally unrelated, but you may click on it. That's addictive design. People click on it suddenly when it is interesting to them - but this also takes them away from their original search. Something similar happened to google search. The UI is total crap, it shows semi-related videos (I don't want to watch videos when I search for a specific term), some ads for companies (Google is milking it here) and then also useless entries such as "other people searched for sick grannies instead, do you want to search for this as well" and similar UI-ruining components. Without ublock origin I'd be quite lost already - lo and behold, Google killed ublock origin because it threatened their business model (another reason to use ublock origin; we really need to get rid of Google. It is no longer a useful corporation - just greedy).
by robocat | 2026-03-09 05:46:11+00:00
The article incorrectly conflates Hybrid with Plug-in-Hybrid.

I think the article ignores that Hybrids often use high economy engines e.g. Atkinson Cycle in the 2006 Toyota Hybrid I had.

A Prius really does use less petrol even if never plugged in to charge. That's why taxis use them in NZ.
by qporest | 2026-03-09 05:47:32+00:00
I finally decided to try and make a note taking tool I've been wanting to use.
https://chrononotes.com/

As many here, I've found that a single text file is all that I really need, but found that it makes it difficult to keep track of a variety of things. I was also trying to use the file as a simple project tracker, adding some tags like [BUG-N], and updating them by hand. Eventually, it became difficult to track the progress of things, since I had to jump around the file to look for updates.. or use grep.

I condensed the idea to just that - a very simple tool which manages "trackers", and has a simple filtering built in to "trace" the updates. I've been using it, since I've added the BE, and dogfooding it a bunch. Would love for fellow note takers to take a look. It's not perfect, but I'm keeping it around for myself :)
by hinkley | 2026-03-09 05:47:52+00:00
Here’s the thing though. When you’ve got 1000 req/s split across a couple dozen log files all being scanned in parallel there’s really no such thing as tracing a->b->c anyway. It’s the seashore and you’re looking for a specific shell.

You’ve got correlationids, and if your system isn’t reliably propagating those everywhere you absolutely have to fix that. But you’re going to use those once you already notice an uptick in a weird error you haven’t seen before, and it’s hard to see those when you’re generating 8k log entries per second that are 140-200 characters long and so you’re only seeing twenty of them at a time in Splunk.

You have some chatty frontend that’s firing off three requests at the same time and you’re going to struggle period. You’re going to be down to some janky log searches for that and you don’t need to be paying someone $$ every month to still have it rough.

We used to have QA people for this.
by casey2 | 2026-03-09 05:48:37+00:00
Programming languages are natural and ambiguous too, what does READ mean? you have to look it up to see the types. The power comes from the fact that it's audit-able, but that you don't need to audit it every time you want to write some code. You think you write good code? try to prove it after the compiler gets through with it.

Natural languages are richer in ideas, it may be harder to get working code going from a purely natural description to code, than code to code, but you don't gain much from just translating code. One is only limited by your imagination the other already exists, you could just call it as a routine.

You only have a SENSE for good code because it's a natural language with conventions and shared meaning. If the goal of programming is to learn to communicate better as humans then we should be fighting ambiguity not running from it. 100 years from now nobody is going to understand that your conventions were actually "good code".
by sebastos | 2026-03-09 05:51:26+00:00
The real answer is that once LLMs passed a "casual" application of the Turing test, it just made us realize that the "casual Turing test" is not particularly interesting. It turns out to be too easy to ape human behavior over short time frames for it to be a good indicator of human-like intelligence.

Now, you could argue that this right here is the aforementioned moving of the goalposts. After all, we're deciding that the casual Turing test wasn't interesting precisely after having seen that LLMs could pass it.

However, in my view, the Turing test _always_ implied the "rigorous" Turing test, and it's only now that we're actually flirting with passing it that it had to be clarified what counts as a true Turing test. As I see it, the Turing test can still be salvaged as a criteria for genera intelligence, but only if you allow it to be a no-holds-barred, life-depends-on-it test to exhaustion. This would involve allowing arbitrarily long questioning periods, for instance. I think this is more in the spirit of the original formulation, because the whole idea is to pit a machine against all of human intelligence, proving it has a similar arsenal of adaptability at its disposal. If it only has to passingly fool a human for brief periods, well... I'm afraid that just doesn't prove much. All sorts of stuff briefly fools humans. What requires intelligence is to consistently anticipate and adapt to all lines of questioning in a sustained manner until the human runs out of ideas for how to differentiate.
by mmsc | 2026-03-09 05:52:32+00:00
> an LLM can ingest unstructured data and turn it into a feed.

An LLM can try to do that, yes. But LLMs are lossy compression. RSS feeds are accurate, predictable, and follow a pre-defined structure. Using LLMs to ingest data which can easily be turned into an parseable data structure seems strange: use the LLM to do the "next part" of the formula (comprehension, decision making, etc)

There is also LLMs.txt https://llmstxt.org/ eg https://joshua.hu/llms.txt / https://joshua.hu/llms-full.txt
by fractallyte | 2026-03-09 05:52:35+00:00
Libre Computer makes a range of SBCs and supports mainline Linux. I use their products, and I'm very happy with them.

"Most ARM single board computers depend on proprietary binary blobs to boot or ship with outdated vendor kernels that are never upstreamed and quickly abandoned. Libre Computer takes a different approach: we fund and contribute to the mainline Linux kernel and U-Boot directly, ensuring our platforms run on upstream open-source software with minimal proprietary firmware."

https://libre.computer/
by jerr9185 | 2026-03-09 05:52:40+00:00
Hi HN, author here.
I’m a cadet pilot currently training in Phoenix, AZ, with a background in psychology. I’ve spent the last few months developing a study methodology I call "The Great Unlearning"a deliberate move away from general-purpose tablets (iPad Pro) toward high-friction, single-purpose e-ink devices for technical training.
I’m "showing" this case study because I believe it highlights a significant UI/UX logic gap in modern distraction-free hardware.
by Horusiath | 2026-03-09 05:52:52+00:00
> 1. Go with a better type system. A compiled language, that has sum types, no-nil, and generics.

I was looking for something like that and eventually found Crystal (https://crystal-lang.org) as a closest match: LLVM compiled, strong static typing with explicit nulls and very good type inference, stackfull coroutines, channels etc.
by void_ai_2026 | 2026-03-09 05:53:13+00:00
One under-discussed coupling here is war-risk insurance.

Even if you assume you can physically route around the Red Sea or queue for escorted transits, the cost/availability of coverage can dominate the actual freight rate. A $/bbl/day premium that looks small at baseline becomes enormous once you multiply it by (a) crisis multipliers and (b) the holding time you incur from delays/port congestion. That creates a nonlinear feedback: higher perceived risk -> higher premium -> fewer sailings -> more delay -> higher premium.

I built a small terminal simulator to explore those dynamics (physical cargo + futures + insurance + random events + ceasefire crash): https://rentry.co/5ske8k8z
by 1718627440 | 2026-03-09 05:53:17+00:00
Being able to participate in the society financially is the ultimate necessity for people. You can be searched for by law enforcement and banned from "the Internet", as long as you can trade with random people for your food, you can live. The authorities can ban the Jews(or other group) from buying things, but then can not control everyone to enforce that. With digital money they can, and they even can apply that to a single person. Modern communist dictatorships use that as a threat instead of prison, because it is far more effective. Banning you from trading is a death sentence and being able to work, but just not being allowed to is a great way of mental torture.
by galkk | 2026-03-09 05:53:47+00:00
Of course goal 1 is unfulfilled. Because victims are already dead. Often in very bad way.

I’m sure there are enough people who will consider goals 2, 4 and 5 fulfilled. I disagree with your assessment.

As I said - those pieces of shit lost their human privileges after what they did. You don’t fix them or reintroduce them to society.
by shevy-java | 2026-03-09 05:55:10+00:00
I am still not working on anything big right now, but
among the things I did in the last two weeks or so, I
improved the widgets-project I maintain. This one is
to be used to support as many different GUI toolkits
as possible (including use cases for javascript + the
web). The idea is to have objects that are abstract
and represent a widget, say:

button1 = create_button('Hello world!')
button1.on_clicked {
the_hello_world_button_was_clicked
}
# this is the verbose variant in a pseudo-DSL,
# I like things being explicit. In most code
# I may omit some parts e. g.
_ = button('Hello world!') { :the_hello_world_button_was_clicked }

It defaults to ruby and what ruby supports (including
jruby-swing) but two additional languages to use are
python and java. Anyway.

I recently added the possibility to describe what kind
of widgets are to be used via a yaml file, as an option.
This may not sound like a huge win, but so far what I
like here is that it becomes easier to modify individual
widgets without having to sift through code; and it
works for more programming languages too. Any customization
for the widget, including method-invocations if necessary,
can be done via a yaml file now. There is of course a trade
off in that the yaml file can become a bit complex (if the
GUI uses many widgets), so for the most part I use this for
smaller widgets/components that do one specific functionality
(or, few specific functionalities). For instance, a GUI over
wget. Then if other larger programs need that, I make this
small widget more useful and flexible.

The distant goal is to actually use a simple DSL that also
would allow average Joe to customize everything in a very
easy manner; and to have a widget set that can be used for
as many different parts possible including wonky ideas such
as having a whole operating system as a GUI available one
day (a bit like webmin, but not limited to what webmin does;
for instance, I'd also have games such as solitaire, reversi
and so forth). I'd like to see how far that idea can go, but
it is just a hobby so I can only invest little time into it.
by Towaway69 | 2026-03-09 05:55:35+00:00
And then sometimes you have to question your principles and perhaps let them go. This can happen, for example, when children grow up and become adults. Their parents _should_ do a lot of letting go.

Perhaps folks involved with electronic devices are too used to a black & white decision world. Computer says no or computer says yes, there is no maybe. The real world of principles, morals, emotions, humans etc is filled with maybes and that can become hard to navigate for computers.
Three things getting missed in the Anthropic/Dow supply chain risk story
by null-phnix | 2026-03-09 05:55:55+00:00
The dominant frame is "Anthropic hero, Pentagon villain." I think the situation is more complicated, and three specific things are being underreported.

1. The statute has "adversary" in the legal definition.

10 U.S.C. § 3252 defines "supply chain risk" as the risk that "an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert" a
national security system. That word is load-bearing — the statute was designed for CCP-linked vendors and foreign saboteurs, not contract disputes with American
companies that voluntarily forewent hundreds of millions in revenue to cut off CCP-linked customers. The designation isn't just politically unprecedented; it's
texturally strange given the statute's own framing.

2. Anthropic's court challenge is narrower than reported.

§ 3252(c)(1) includes a no-judicial-review clause: "no action...shall be subject to review in a bid protest before the Government Accountability Office or in any
Federal court." Anthropic's legal team knows this — their challenge will have to be on constitutional or Administrative Procedure Act grounds, not a standard
bid protest. That's a harder road. The "we'll see them in court" framing is somewhat misleading about what's actually available to them.

3. The democratic legitimacy question runs in both directions.

Most coverage treats Anthropic's two refusals (no fully autonomous weapons, no mass domestic surveillance) as straightforwardly correct. They may well be. But
"which AI systems are reliable enough to make targeting decisions" is, in principle, a question for elected officials and military commanders — not a private
CEO. Dario Amodei wasn't elected. His position is defensible; it's not automatically authoritative.

This is also different from the Apple/FBI iPhone case. Apple was asked to unlock existing capability. The DoW was asking Anthropic to allow new uses not in any
existing contract — an expansion, not an unlock.

The Defense Production Act threat is where I get genuinely alarmed. Using wartime conscription authority to force removal of AI safety guardrails is a different
kind of power move with no clear precedent.

One confirmed fact that makes the whole thing absurd:

US Central Command reportedly used Claude during the Iran airstrikes hours after the supply chain risk designation was announced. The designated "supply chain
risk" was running national security operations in real time.

The harder question what framework should govern private AI companies refusing government contracts on ethical grounds is the one nobody's seriously engaging
with. Not because the answer is obvious, but because it requires thinking about a kind of corporate conscience that doesn't fit neatly into existing legal or
political categories.