MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by PaulHoule | 2026-03-11 20:02:39+00:00
I bought two pairs of premium wireless headphones about 10 years ago. These failed gradually, I patched them up with tape and kept them going. One of them had the Bluetooth electronics fail but still works wired, the electronics are fine on the other one but physically it is a jumbled mess that I can't really tape together anymore but it kinda sits on my head.

I went looking for the state of the art in headphones and bought (1) a set of AirPod Pros and (2) a recent Sony headset.

My feelings about the AirPods are terribly mixed.

10 years ago I think the best reason to spend $250 instead of $25 on a set of Bluetooth headphones was that the $250 device would pair properly with multiple devices whereas it might take you 15 minutes of screwing around to unpair and repair the $25 headphones every time you need them. But hey they are so cheap maybe you can pack one for each device you have and not worry about it.

Today it is the other way around, somehow $25 headphones "just work" with Windows, Mac, iOS, Android, Steam Deck, whatever. After I disabled the microphone and switched to the microphone on my camera, the AirPods got reliable with Windows. Inside Apple's ecosystem it tries really hard and almost works, yet the $25 headphones "just work" and don't seem to be trying so hard. I don't get messages warning me that somebody else's $25 headphones are following me around but my iPhone tells me that about my AirPods all the time but I think it is a KPI for somebody in Cupertino that I see the word "AirPods" as much as possible.

Now the sound quality of the AirPods is just great, I'll grant that, but I'm not going to be one of those annoying youngsters who is as hard as hearing as the oldest oldsters because I have some genetic polymorphism that makes me produce copious amount of earwax that eject the AirPods from my ears if I move too much. My doc says one of these days my ears are going to plug up and I shouldn't get so excited about it.
by kstrauser | 2026-03-11 20:02:53+00:00
The last time certain family members asked me for a computer recommendation, I gave them a detailed breakdown of which MacBook they could get to meet their lightweight needs for the next decade. They thanked me, agreed, went to Best Buy, and came back with the laptop that the salesperson convinced them was better "because he knows computers". It was an utter piece of crap and they've had nothing but problems with it.[0]

Had this existed when they were shopping, I would've just asked what color they wanted it in, ordered it for them, and been done with it.

[0] OTOH, that got me out of all future tech support duties. "Hey, why can't I connect our new printer to it?" "I'm not sure. Does that Best Buy expert still work there? He might have some suggestions." (Phrased more politely IRL because I'm not a monster, but the intent was there.)
by munk-a | 2026-03-11 20:02:54+00:00
You could mirror article postings and upvotes to another site and let AI play around there - if it's interesting to people maybe it will gain a following. I don't see any reason it'd need to happen in this specific forum as that'd likely just cause confusion.

At the time being, at least, HN is a single uncategorized (mostly, lets ignore search) message board - splitting it into two would cause confusion and drastically degrade the UX.
Show HN: Saguaro: CLI that makes Claude Code fix its own mistakes
by Mitchem | 2026-03-11 20:03:00+00:00
I've been using Claude Code Max and Codex daily and kept hitting the same problem; AI quickly ships working code that have real issues: logic errors, security gaps, subtle regressions. You catch them in review, fix them, but the agent session has already closed. Doesn't it make sense to have the AI fix its own mistakes
while it still knows why it made them?

Saguaro is a background daemon that reviews AI-generated code and feeds findings
back to the same agent that wrote it. The agent evaluates the critique, it knows why it made those decisions in the first place, and self-corrects what's actually wrong.

The flow: you tell Claude Code to build something. Claude writes code. Saguaro's
stop hook triggers a background review (the user sees nothing). On the next turn, findings come back to Claude. Claude says "I see some issues with my approach, fixing now" and corrects itself. No human typed anything. No blocking.

It uses your existing Claude Code / Codex / Gemini subscription. No API key
needed. No external account. Everything runs locally. The daemon self-spawns on demand and auto-shuts down after 30 minutes of inactivity.

There's also a rules engine for teams that want more deterministic enforcement.
You write rules as markdown files with YAML frontmatter, scoped to specific
file globs. But the daemon works out of the box with zero rules. It reviews like a senior staff engineer: bugs, security, regressions, dead code. The rules engine adds more precision for teams/individuals that need it.

Setup is "sag init" + restart CC + go back to coding. That's it.

Apache-2.0. TypeScript.
by neves | 2026-03-11 20:03:01+00:00
Peru is a marvelous country, and one of the greatest trip destinations in the world. A travel guide described Peru as the Egypt of the Americas. I went there just knowing about the Incas, but they one just one among dozens of civilizations. It blows your mind.

The greatest sadness is to see the amount of wonders destroyed by the Spanish invaders.
by andyjohnson0 | 2026-03-11 20:03:01+00:00
Interesting aeticle. A few years back I implemented a bunch of maths primitives, including trig functions, using Taylor sequences etc, to see how it was done. An interesting challenge, even at the elementary level I was working at.

So this article got me wondering how much accuracy is needed before computing a series beats pre-computed lookup tables and interpolation. Anyone got any relevant experience to share?

How much accuracy does ray tracing require?
by Someone1234 | 2026-03-11 20:03:51+00:00
"AI-edited comments" is a very interesting one. Where is the line between a spelling/grammar/tone checker like Grammarly, that at minimum use N-Grams behind the scenes, and something that is "AI" edited? What I am asking is, is "AI" in this context fully featured LLMs, or anything that improves communication via an automated system. I think many people have used these "advanced" spellcheckers for years before Chatgpt et al came on the scene.

I think "generated comments" is a pretty hard line in the sand, but "AI-edited" is anything but clear-cut.

PS - I think the idea behind these policies is positive and needed. I'm simply clarifying where it begins and ends.
by ahmedfromtunis | 2026-03-11 20:04:05+00:00
As a (former) reporter, site monitoring is a big part of what I do on a daily basis and I used many, many such services.

I can attest that, at least from the landing page, this seems to be a very good execution of the concept, especially the text-based diffing to easily spot what changed and, most importantly, how.

The biggest hurdle for such apps however are 'js-based browser-rendered sites' or whatever they're called nowadays. How does Site Spy handle such abominations?
by Kim_Bruning | 2026-03-11 20:04:30+00:00
I often edit my comments rather manically; get into discussions, and sometimes email exchanges with other HNers. I also often use claude, kimi, gemini to check my comments for tone, adherence to HN rules etc. I probably spend way too much time.

So technically the prompts involved might expand into megabytes all told. And in the end I formulate a post by myself (to adhere to HN rules), but the prompting can be many many many megabytes and include PDFs, images, blocks of text from multiple sources, and ... you know. Just Doing The Work.

I think this is valid. Previously I would have (and have) (and still do) search google, wikipedia, pubmed, scientific literature, etc. Not for everything. But often. And AI tooling just allows me to do that faster, and keep all my notes in one place besides.

Again, the final edit is typically 90-100% me. (The 10% is if the AI comes with a really good suggestion) . But my homework? Yes. AI is involved these days.

This should be ok. I'm adhering to the letter and the spirit. My post is me.
by ranger_danger | 2026-03-11 20:04:32+00:00
Agreed... there's often other perspectives people never thought of like this, which is why they say "strong opinions about issues do not emerge from deep understanding."

Even if you're just inexperienced in the language you're communicating in and are trying to have better conversations, it's very helpful.

For cases like that, I say just don't tell people... I think it's unlikely anyone will be able to tell either way.
by khrbrt | 2026-03-11 20:04:43+00:00
A fun application of this is hooking mushrooms up to synthesizers for groovy beats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbP2DgDp890

Their channel: https://www.youtube.com/@BionicandtheWires

> We connect bionic arms to fungi and plants so they can play music and be creative. Our art explores new ways of thinking about the natural world.

>All life creates bio-electrical signals. Our equipment converts them into signals that control the bionic arms. Recent research suggests that fungi and plants exhibit surprising levels of intelligence, including decision-making, learning, memory and the ability to respond to sounds waves.
by kstrauser | 2026-03-11 20:04:46+00:00
> I understand the can, not sure about the should. Not trying to be snarky, we just seem to be producing PhDs with the slimmest of justifications. The bar needs to be higher.

I couldn't disagree more. Sure, making a 4% faster asin isn't going to change the world, but if it makes all callers a teensy bit faster, multiplied by the number of callers using it, then it adds up. Imagine the savings for a hyperscaler if they managed to made a more common instruction 4% faster.
by bonoboTP | 2026-03-11 20:05:36+00:00
How can it be that what you just wrote is such a widely known fact? I've been reading this and hearing this from consultancy people as well for many years now. If the guy lacks the political power, why don't his internal political opponents say, "nice try hiring the consultants, but we know this trick very well, you still don't get it your way".

It has to be some kind of higher level protection racket or something. Like if you hire the consultants there is some kind of kickbacks to the higherups or something with more steps involved where those who previously opposed it will now accept it if it's rubberstamped by the consultants.

Or perhaps those other players who are politically opposing this person are just dummies and don't know about this trick and actually trust the consultants. Or maybe it's a bit of a check, that you can't get anything and everything rubberstamped by the consultants, so it is some kind of sanity filter that the guy isn't proposing something that only benefits himself and screws everyone else.

And if it's the latter, then it is genuine value, a somewhat impartial second opinion. Basically there is a fog-of-war for all the execs regarding all the internal politics going on, it's not like they see through everything all the time and simply refuse to take the obviously correct decision for no reason.
by rob | 2026-03-11 20:05:45+00:00
Some basic things to do while thinking about longer-term bot detection:

1. Prevent any account from submitting an actual link until it reaches X months old and Y karma (not just one or the other.)

2. Don't auto-link any URLs from said accounts until both thresholds in #1 are met, so they can't post their sites as clickable links in comments to get around it. Make it un-clickable or even [link removed] but keep the rest of the comment.

3. If an account is aged over X months/years old with 0 activity and starts posting > 2 times in < 24 hrs, flag for manual review. Not saying they're bots, but an MO is to use old/inactive accounts and suddenly start posting from them. I've seen plenty here registered in 2019-2021 and just start posting. Don't ban them right away, but flag for review so they don't post 20 times and then someone finally figures it out and emails hn@.

4. When submitting a comment, check last comment timestamp and compare. Many bots make the mistake of commenting multiple detailed times within sixty seconds or less. If somebody is submitting a comment with 30 words and just submitted a comment 30 seconds ago in an entirely different thread with 300 words, they might be Superman. Obviously a bot.

5. Add a dedicated "[flag bot]" button to users that meet certain requirements so they don't need to email hn@ manually every time. Or enable it to people that have shown they can point out bots to you via email already. Emailing dozens of times a day is going to get very annoying for those that care about the website and want to make sure it doesn't get overrun by bots.
by SecretDreams | 2026-03-11 20:05:46+00:00
No, it's as simple as income ratios between the lowest and highest paid employee in a company. Above a threshold starts to be completely divorced from their respective work ethics and general intelligences. It's more just an abuse of systems that have been built up over time specifically to allow for that level of exploitation.

Quoting supply and demand in labour is just insulting and indicative of someone maybe getting a bit too high on their own supply.
by ashdksnndck | 2026-03-11 20:06:21+00:00
I’ve been wondering if ChatGPT is actually coming up with the idea of posting to Reddit when the user is asking a question and ChatGPT can’t find a good source to answer it. ChatGPT has never suggested this to me, but it wouldn’t be a completely crazy thing to do. A lot of ChatGPT answers are sourced from Reddit (via search, and also via training data). If everyone starts asking ChatGPT everything instead of Reddit, there won’t be as many new conversations happening. Promoting users to post questions to Reddit would help solve the user’s direct problem, and also make the ensuing answers available to ChatGPT to help with future conversations.

I understand that a lot of people would be very unhappy if this is true, but I can imagine from the perspective of a product person at OpenAI that it helps them in multiple ways.
by hellcow | 2026-03-11 20:06:24+00:00
One way to improve things could be to charge for each new account signup if you don’t have an invite from an existing member that vouches for you. Spamming when you risk losing $5-20 per account raises the cost substantially.

Invites could be earned at karma and time thresholds, and mods could ideally ban not just one bad actor but every account in the invite chain if there’s bad behavior.
by jaysonelliot | 2026-03-11 20:06:33+00:00
You should use your own words. It might seem that a tool like Grammarly is just an advanced spellcheck, but what it's really doing is replacing your personal style of writing with its own.

It's better to communicate as an individual, warts and all, than to replace your expression with a sanitized one just because it seems "better." Language is an incredibly nuanced thing, it's best for people's own thoughts to come through exactly as they have written them.
by cityofdelusion | 2026-03-11 20:06:50+00:00
Assuming this isn’t an LLM bot, I don’t see how you ship that bug multiple times. The docs for JS time are pretty minimal and it’s clear it only stores UTC epoch, so why would you assume it can handle “wall clock time” with no other context?

It doesn’t matter if it’s python or tsql or JS or perl — you read the docs on the date time impl every time.
by bikamonki | 2026-03-11 20:06:58+00:00
My words:

This feels like don't buy at Walmart, support the local small shop. We passed the no return sign miles ago.

Gemini's:

This is like advocating for artisanal blacksmithing in the age of industrial steel. It sounds great in theory, but we passed the point of no return miles back.

Yeah, we can tell the difference :)
by Mitchem | 2026-03-11 20:07:08+00:00
Hey HN, author here.

The thing that makes this work is where in the loop the review happens.
CodeRabbit, Greptile, etc review at the PR level after the agent is done.
The findings go to a human who has to interpret them. The agent that wrote
the code never sees the critique. We find that most people just spin up a new agent and ask "Are these review findings correct?" anyways.

Saguaro reviews during the agent's session and sends findings back to the same
agent. Because the agent still has its full context window, it knows why
it made each decision, it can evaluate the findings intelligently. "I made
this choice for X reason, but this review shows a gap in my thinking, let me
fix that." Or "This finding isn't relevant because of Y." The agent has the
context to make that judgment call. That's why false positives are lower.

The daemon is completely invisible to the user. It self-spawns from the
Claude Code stop hook, runs a SQLite-backed job queue on localhost, and
auto-shuts down after 30 minutes idle. The review happens in the background
while the user keeps working. We feed context from the original programming
session into the review process. The findings surface on the next stop hook,
your agent just starts fixing things.

For teams that want more precision, there's a rules engine: markdown files
with YAML frontmatter that enforce specific patterns (architectural boundaries,
security invariants, etc). But the daemon works with zero rules out of the box.
The rules engine works great for teams with well-defined rules.

Some technical decisions:
- SQLite (via better-sqlite3) as job queue, right amount of infrastructure
for a local dev tool.
- The daemon reviewer gets the original agent's summary ("the developer
described their work as...") for context
- Agent gets read-only tools (Read, Glob, Grep) with up to 15 tool calls
per review, it can inspect the full codebase for context but can't edit.

Limitations:
- The daemon review is async. Findings arrive on the next stop hook,
not the current one. Fast iterations may miss a cycle.
- Review quality depends on the model. We default to your configured
model but you can override for daemon specifically.
- Cost is your normal AI provider usage. `sag stats` tracks it.

Happy to answer technical questions about the architecture.
by hurricanepootis | 2026-03-11 20:07:13+00:00
I wish Arch could learn some lessons from NixOS packaging. One thing that really bothers me about Arch is how many pain points there are in the packaging tooling. Furthermore, I wish AUR packagers used utilities like namcap and chroot building to check their packages before pushing their slop onto the AUR; whenever I use new software from the AUR, I check the PKGBUILD to see how well it was made.
by Kim_Bruning | 2026-03-11 20:07:21+00:00
To begin with, some people have handicaps and use AI for assist. Other times people use AI for research. Finally, in general, when it comes to guidelines, making the lines slightly fuzzy makes enforcement more practical and believable.

It'd be silly if the rule gets interpreted such that people aren't allowed to do research with modern tools, and only gut takes are permitted.

I'm sure that's not the intent!

I think the important part is to have the human voice come through, rather than -say- force humans to run their text through an ai-detector first. (Itself an ai editing tool!)

See also : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47290457 "Training students to prove they're not robots is pushing them to use more AI"
Show HN: Portal (SPC F25) – Try products with browser session sandboxes
by zach4123 | 2026-03-11 20:07:44+00:00
Hey HN, I'm Zach, founder of Portal.
Portal lets you share a live sandbox browser session as a link.

Try it here: https://www.makeportals.com/try

Instead of asking someone to sign up, install software, or book a demo for user research, onboarding, or sales, you send a link and they interact with the real product in a sandboxed browser environment, then you get session replays.

Each viewer gets a fresh remote browser instance that starts from a defined state (URL, cookies, extensions, local files, etc). Sessions are isolated and expire automatically.

The sessions have configurable guardrails: - disabling buttons - restricting URLs - API rate limits - Time limits

In Watch Mode, an AI Agent with contextual awareness clicks through a demo and explains the product. In Play Mode, users explore a guardrailed session while the AI answers questions.

Portal came from trying to get feedback on a chrome extension I’d built to help people with disabilities control gmail with voice. People were cautious to download it & I kept wishing I could send a browser session with the extension already installed to try safely & an AI to explain async.

Portal grew out of that idea: share an exact browser state where your product works without requiring installs or already logged into demo accounts.

Some early uses: - Getting user feedback on local projects in Claude Code with a temporary links/rate limits - Helping onboard to high friction/integration products like extension/add-ons or code reviewers - Replacing inbound product demos in sales for SMBs by embedding on landing pages or sending to prospects with the AI agent self-serve created - Ending live presentations with a QR code open to a live product environment - PMs sharing prototype links for feedback in slack

Docs: https://www.makeportals.com/docs/mcp
Try in Claude Code: claude mcp add --transport http portal https://mcp-portal-sogv.onrender.com/mcp
OpenClaw: https://clawhub.ai/Zach213/portal

Curious about the browser sessions you’d want to share w/ an AI guide- we’re improving latency of interaction every week & think stateful URLs/shareable product states are the future. Love any feedback as we're early!
by Multicomp | 2026-03-11 20:07:46+00:00
I still hold my uncles HTC dream and my droid 2 and wish for a landscape slider android phone. This is not Atlantis technology! Though it is 20 years old now, so probably there are HN readers here who think of that device with the same alien fascination I have for those who carried around Psion 3s in their college days when I was eating crayons.
by szabadkai | 2026-03-11 20:08:10+00:00
I built NotepadX as a side project — partly because writing a text editor is a programmer rite of passage, and partly because when the Notepad++ supply chain attack happened in February (compromised hosting provider redirecting updates to deliver malware), I saw an opportunity. I wasn't a Notepad++ user myself, but it was clear a lot of people wanted something simple that just edits text without the attack surface.

NotepadX is a native Rust app using wgpu for GPU-accelerated rendering. ~5MB binary, ~100ms startup, no Electron.

Features: multi-cursor editing, syntax highlighting, find/replace with regex, 20 themes, session restore, and large-file support.

Deliberately excluded: plugins, LSP, terminal, AI, auto-updater. The goal is a fast, self-contained editor with minimal surface area.

MIT licensed. Feedback welcome.

https://github.com/szabadkai/NotepadX
by SecretDreams | 2026-03-11 20:08:17+00:00
Your comment is one of semantics. Worth discussing if we're talking a truly hard line rule rather than the spirit of the rule.

I benefit from my phone flagging spelling errors/typos for me. Maybe it uses AI or maybe it uses a simple dictionary for me. Maybe it might even catch a string of words when the conjunction isn't correct. That's all fair game, IMO. But it shouldn't be rewriting the sentence for me. And it shouldn't be automatically cleaning up my typos for me after I've hit "reply". That's on me.