MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by 7777777phil | 2026-03-05 13:43:56+00:00
Classified multi-year contracts and government-funded compute are hard to walk away from when you're burning cash at that rate. Defense economics always do this to companies. Same thing that consolidated the primes in the 90s.

Wrote about why the door only opens one way: https://philippdubach.com/posts/when-ai-labs-become-defense-...
by matthewadams | 2026-03-05 13:43:59+00:00
Nothing. And there’s nothing wrong with Anthropic sticking to their principles.

What is wrong, however, is that the retaliatory move to label Anthropic as a supply chain risk is not ok. Further, the timing of it all stinks.

Everyone smells a rat, not just me. Ever heard of “ask the audience”? The crowd is right a HUGE majority of the time.
by moooo99 | 2026-03-05 13:44:41+00:00
> which would make them insanely competitive vs a human or a custom automation (which is easily over 100k€).

But the humanoids are not competing with custom automation.

Judging by some of the footage from BMW and the humanoid manufacturers themselves, they very frequently boil down to pick n place tasks, which is a field where lower to low cost automation solutions have been available for a while. Often times with significantly higher throughput as well.

Its been a while since I was dealing with shopfloor stuff and I am not an expert, but I do not see these humanoids anywhere near as compelling as many people pretend they are
by rramadass | 2026-03-05 13:45:00+00:00
Very Nice and Thank You.

Your last link (BCPL history) contains links to a lot of papers (all?) by Martin Richards one of which is (pdf) INTCODE - An Interpretive Machine Code for BCPL which i presume was what "vincent-manis" was referring to in addition to the other papers on BCPL Language/Compiler/Manuals. Seems quite comprehensive, i must say.

We really need to publicize all of Martin Richards' contributions to computer science. He seems to be one of those unsung heroes mentioned everywhere having contributed to Languages/Compilers/VMs/OSes but not that well-known.

From the site;

BCPL—the language and systems built with it—connects the first few generations of computer scientists and software engineers, spanning mainframes to minis to micros. It was driven from the UK, but with a tributary into the heart of US research institutions, where it begat C, the most popular systems programming language of all time.
by gruez | 2026-03-05 13:45:09+00:00
>FUTO not being FOSS means that the community cannot fork and maintain the keyboard in case of a rug pull

But they can? It literally says anyone can do it as long as it's non-commercial.

>not being FOSS means that FUTO [...] requires a payment on other stores.

What are you talking about? It's free on google play.
by pocksuppet | 2026-03-05 13:45:57+00:00
In the legal system there's no such thing as "code that is LGPL". It's not an xattr attached to the code.

There is an act of copying, and there is whether or not that copying was permitted under copyright law. If the author of the code said you can copy, then you can. If the original author didn't, but the author of a derivative work, who wasn't allowed to create a derivative work, told you you could copy it, then it's complicated.
by bdavisx | 2026-03-05 13:46:12+00:00
>While I don't personally support the examples that I am aware of, I also recognize that in those specific cases the executive branch appears to be within the bounds of the law. I don't even object to the executive branch having the power to cancel the visas of political dissidents

It's my understanding that the 1st amendment applies to everyone, not just citizens. So if that's true (not 100% sure about that), how can political speech (protesting) be a valid reason to remove someone from the US?
by ImPostingOnHN | 2026-03-05 13:46:53+00:00
> Sam Altman admits OpenAI can’t control Pentagon’s use of AI

Here's Sama lying again. Of course it can. He chose not to.

> “You do not get to make operational decisions,” Altman told employees, according to reports by Bloomberg and CNBC.

> “So maybe you think the Iran strike was good and the Venezuela invasion was bad. You don’t get to weigh in on that,” Altman reportedly said.

Sorry OpenAI employees: you thought you get input things that you work on? You thought you're allowed to have moral qualms about killbots and domestic mass surveillance of civilians? Wrong. Only Sama makes the decisions, and he decided to let the government use your work for killbots and mass domestic surveillance of civilians. You just sit down, shut up, and do what Sama tells you to do. Peons should be seen and not heard.
by ndriscoll | 2026-03-05 13:46:53+00:00
They do not. Here's the California bill[0]. Here's the Colorado bill[1]. They're short. Nowhere is there something about letting me set policy (e.g. blocking applications/services, presenting plaintext traffic to filtering software, setting time-of-use restrictions, etc.). In fact, it requires my operating system to give any application developer PII about me and requires the application to collect it, even when it's irrelevant (functionality is not age-restricted).

Or did you have some other laws in mind?

[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

[1] https://leg.colorado.gov/bill_files/112795/download
by diacritical | 2026-03-05 13:46:54+00:00
> https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/android.html#rootin...

I'm trying to understand why rooting Android is such a sin.

If I give root to my terminal so I can browse and edit any files I want, I'm placing a lot of trust in the terminal, sure. But trusting the terminal seems reasonable, as it's an important (basic; fundamental; necessary) part of any "real" OS. If I don't trust the terminal to not be malicious, why should I trust my OS? Anything could be compromised from a supply-chain attack. If we don't trust anything, we can turn off the computer and have perfect security, but if we accept that there's a trade-off between security and usability, we have to place some trust in some parts of the system.

> It does not matter if you have to whitelist apps that have root — an attacker can fake user input by, for example, clickjacking, or they can exploit vulnerabilities in apps that you have granted root to. Rooting turns huge portions of the operating system into root attack surface; vulnerabilities in the UI layer — such as in the display server, among other things — can now be abused to gain complete root access.

So if some app can somehow exploit the display server, it can inject commands on the terminal and hide the real output? I know the X server on Linux has (or has had) major security issues [1] that don't provide any real GUI isolation. Is that the type of issues Madaidan is talking about?

I don't know much about Android's display server, but if it's possible for an app without root access to exploit it, couldn't that app inject touch events or keystrokes in another app, or read the other app's screen? How would not having root benefit me if a random can view or control other apps without my knowledge by exploiting the display server? [2]

From what I gather if an app with root access has vulnerabilities, it makes it easier for another app (or other type of malicious code) to use it to gain root. But if the UI layer, to use Madaidan's example, has a vulnerability, it seems like it could be exploited successfully, with awful consequences, even if the malicious code doesn't get root in the end. So if I choose several apps to give root access to, I would just extend the attack surface from {all of the OS and its various layers} to {all of the OS and its various layers and those several apps}.

> root fundamentally breaks verified boot and other security features by placing excessive trust in persistent state.

I don't understand this. Could someone explain it with more details to me, please?

[1] https://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2011/04/linux-securi...

[2] https://xkcd.com/1200/
by gunapologist99 | 2026-03-05 13:46:56+00:00
> the U.S. Supreme Court (on March 2, 2026) declined to hear an appeal regarding copyrights for AI-generated material. By letting lower court rulings stand, the Court effectively solidified a “Human Authorship” requirement.

Not quite. A cert denial isn’t a merits ruling and doesn’t "solidify" anything as Supreme Court precedent. It simply leaves the DC Circuit decision binding (within that circuit) and the Copyright Office’s human-authorship policy intact, for now.

SCOTUS doesn’t explain cert denials, so why they denied is guesswork. my guess: they’re letting it percolate while the tech matures and we all start to realize how deep this seismic fracture really is.

(For example: what does "ownership" of intellectual "property" even mean, once "authorship" is partly probabilistic/synthetic, and once almost everything humans create is AI assisted? Hard to draw bright lines.)
by neom | 2026-03-05 13:47:45+00:00
They don't work well if you do that: https://arxiv.org/html/2509.16332v1 - they apparently require a sense of self to preform the way they do - You'd have to do it deterministically on the front end I suspect.

2 problems of many are:

context windows + compacting + whatever they do behind the scene to stitch cohesive narrative over time - single LLM convos should just never be allowed to get that long, you can effectively build whatever you want as a personality, people return to the same convo a lot, It gets wild fast.

Cross Section memory is a bad feature as implemented in many chat bots, the memory feature can effectively poison any conversation. Anthropic figured this out, their memory feature is a search not a memory that informs the personality/manipulates the current session.
by incomingpain | 2026-03-05 13:47:56+00:00
Qwen 3.5 was an epic drop.

Qwen3.5 27b is frontier intelligence density.

GPT 20b high used to be top; and only barely inches out 35b.

glm 4.7 flash strong 4th place.

nemotron 30b 4th place.

Its very interesting that GLM 5 didnt manage to get the same density as they were able to with 4.7 flash.
by throawayonthe | 2026-03-05 13:48:35+00:00
no? again above it says:

By accessing or using the Service, you (“You” or “Customer”) agree to these Terms of Service, the Data Processing Addendum (“DPA”), available upon request, and Zed’s Privacy Policy (collectively, the “Terms”).

If you are not eligible, or do not agree to the Terms, you may not access or use the Service.

pretty clearly again referring to only 'the Service' -- which does not include their website or app
by SiempreViernes | 2026-03-05 13:48:37+00:00
> but we all have training by looking at copywrited[sic] source code at some time.

The single word "training" is here being used to describe two very different processes; what an LLM does with text during training is at basically every step fundamentally distinct from what a human does with text.

Word embedding and gradient descent just aren't anything at all like reading text!
by rayiner | 2026-03-05 13:48:47+00:00
That comparison is ignorant. We’re not talking about Mitt Romney, okay? We’re talking about a hypothetical where polygamists overthrow the government of Utah, stone Mitt Romney to death, and threaten to do the same in Idaho. That’s the equivalent of what happened in Iran, what happened in Egypt recently, and the threat across the Muslim world.

The last time we faced a similar risk from Christianity, it resulted in a military occupation of Utah: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF3UqUH6y-M&vl=en. If that was happening now, we’d be having a serious conversation about military responses to “political Christianity.” But it’s not.
by xattt | 2026-03-05 13:49:15+00:00
> There were OS improvements too, but I have forgot what …

Hold up, there is no need for this revisionist history.

At the very least, Windows 95 introduced the ability to run 32-bit apps pre-emptively that was otherwise only available on Windows NT. You continued to maintain the ability to run 16-but apps that wouldn’t run on Win NT.

You also gained support for long filenames, and to the chagrin of many, plug-and-play.

These were foundational and set the tone for the next 30 years of computing.
by adrian17 | 2026-03-05 13:49:39+00:00
The compatibility claims are also just wrong? I ran it on the old test suite from 6.0 (which is completely absent now), and quickly checking:

- the outputs, even if correctly deduced, are often incompatible: "utf-16be" turns into "utf-16-be", "UTF-16" turns into "utf-16-le" etc. FWIW, the old version appears to have been a bit of a mess (having had "UTF-16", "utf-16be" and "utf-16le" among its outputs) but I still wouldn't call the new version _compatible_,

- similarly, all `ascii` turn into `Windows-1252`

- sometimes it really does appear more accurate,

- but sometimes it appears to flip between wider families of closely related encodings, like one SHIFT_JIS test (confidence 0.99) turns into cp932 (confidence 0.34), or the whole family of tests that were determined as gb18030 (chinese) are now sometimes determined as gb2312 (the older subset of gb18030), and one even as cp1006, which AFAIK is just wrong.

As for performance claims, they appear not entirely false - analyzing all files took 20s, versus 150s with v6.0. However, looks like the library sometimes takes 2s to lazy initialize something, which means that if one uses `chardetect` CLI instead of Python API, you'll pay this cost each time and get several times slower instead.

Oh, and this "Negligible import memory (96 B)" is just silly and obviously wrong.
Show HN: Captain Claw local AI agent, 29 tools, multi-session, DAG orchestration
by kstedev | 2026-03-05 13:49:50+00:00
Captain Claw is a local AI agent runtime I've been building. Install with pip install captain-claw or Docker, point it at any provider (OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, Ollama), and get a persistent multi-session agent with a web UI out of the box.
The thing I haven't seen elsewhere: sessions are first-class citizens. You can run session #1 on Claude and session #2 on GPT simultaneously, pass context between them, and resume everything exactly where you left off - backed by SQLite.
29 built-in tools the agent picks automatically — shell, files, web search/fetch, PDF/DOCX/XLSX/PPTX extraction, image gen/OCR/vision (DALL-E 3), Gmail (read), Google Calendar, Google Drive, email sending, TTS, todo, contacts, cron, a relational datastore with web dashboard, deep memory via Typesense, playbook distillation, personality profiles, BotPort agent-to-agent routing, and even Termux for Android (camera, GPS, torch, battery).
Orchestrator mode decomposes complex tasks into a parallel DAG across separate sessions with real-time progress monitoring. Also ships with an OpenAI-compatible /v1/chat/completions proxy so you can point existing tools at it.

Terminal demo: https://asciinema.org/a/814073

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g_aA_WnEaw

GitHub: https://github.com/kstevica/captain-claw

Happy to answer questions about the architecture or design decisions.
by andai | 2026-03-05 13:51:09+00:00
Well how did they rewrite it? If you do it in two phases, then it should be fine right?

Phase 1: extract requirements from original product (ideally not its code).

Phase 2: implement them without referencing the original product or code.

I wrote a simple "clean room" LLM pipeline, but the requirements just ended up being an exact description of the code, which defeated the purpose.

My aim was to reduce bloat, but my system had the opposite effect! Because it replicated all the incidental crap, and then added even more "enterprisey" crap on top of it.

I am not sure if it's possible to solve it with prompting. Maybe telling it to derive the functionality from the code? I haven't tried that, and not sure how well it would work.

I think this requirements phase probably cannot be automated very effectively.
by Horos | 2026-03-05 13:51:49+00:00
Quick question before going further: is this an exercise in language internals, or do you have a concrete use case in mind?

Asking because the answer changes the architecture significantly.
If you're targeting live in-page data — extracting objects from the DOM as you browse, filtering them reactively — you may not need storage at all.

A Proxy-based observation layer gives you reactive queries without allocating anything new: the objects already exist in the tab's heap, you're just watching them mutate.
No GC pressure, no persistence headaches, no query planner needed.
That covers most of what you described: "items where price < 50 updates as you browse" is an event subscription with pattern matching, not a database problem.

The cases where you actually need storage — and therefore need to think about heap budgets, GC, serialization, query planning — are narrower:

Cross-session persistence (you want the data after the tab closes)
Cross-tab aggregation (comparing prices across multiple open tabs simultaneously)
Queries over historical data (not just what's on screen now, but what you saw across 20 pages of browsing)

Those are real storage problems.

But they're also the cases where you're competing with IndexedDB, OPFS, and SQLite WASM — and "I hate SQL" stops being enough of a reason to rebuild from scratch.
What's the actual workflow you're trying to support?
by ViewTrick1002 | 2026-03-05 13:52:20+00:00
The proposed subsidies for the EPR2 program is 11 cents kWh and interest free loans. Sum freely, but you end up towards 20 cents kWh.

Why always the German comparison? Who even brought up Germany Can’t the nuclear handouts stand on their own?

The EEG costs are quickly going down as expensive early projects are losing their subsidies.

Renewables and storage are built in massive amounts all over the world without subsidies.

Why this completely one sided focus on absolutely massive handouts for the electricity sector, which is already solved by renewables and storage for the 99% of the cases when we still need to decarbonize industry, agriculture, construction, aviation, maritime shipping etc?

It makes absolutely and sounds like a solution looking for a problem, with a bunch of people who can’t let go attached to it.

It is the fax machine of the internet age. It is time to let go.
by bilekas | 2026-03-05 13:52:29+00:00
> This makes them AMD’s first desktop chips to qualify for Microsoft’s Copilot+ PC label, which enables a handful of unique Windows 11 features like Recall and Click to Do.

This is not the selling point they think it is.

The problem I see with the AM5 socket is simply the fact that DD5 RAM to support it is just too expensive. So this will not really make the big impact they were hopin for.
Show HN: Keep large tool output out of LLM context: 3x accuracy 95% fewer tokens
by loumaciel | 2026-03-05 13:53:08+00:00
LLM agents often place raw JSON tool outputs directly in the prompt. After a few tool calls, earlier results get compacted or truncated and answers become incorrect or inconsistent.

I built Sift, a drop-in MCP gateway that stores tool outputs as local artifacts (filesystem blobs indexed in SQLite) and returns an `artifact_id` plus compact schema hints when responses are large or paginated.

Instead of reasoning over full JSON in the prompt, the model runs a small Python query:

def run(data, schema, params):
return max(data, key=lambda x: x["magnitude"])["place"]

Query code runs in a constrained subprocess (AST/import guards + timeout/memory caps). Only the computed result is returned to the model.

Benchmark (Claude Sonnet 4.6, 103 questions across 12 datasets):

- Baseline (raw JSON in prompt): 34/103 (33%), 10.7M input tokens

- Sift (artifact + code query): 102/103 (99%), 489K input tokens

Open benchmark + MIT code:
https://github.com/lourencomaciel/sift-gateway

Install:

pipx install sift-gateway
sift-gateway init --from claude

Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, Zed, and VS Code. Existing MCP servers and tools require no changes.
by theshrike79 | 2026-03-05 13:53:23+00:00
Customers want a very specific thing, rules exist that say if you sell something called Specific Thing it must be made a very specific way or you can't call it that.

Even if you make something that tastes and looks exactly like the original, you still can't call it Specific Thing because the process wasn't followed as it's an integral part of the product. Think of it like a trademark. You can't create some brown sugary stuff and sell it as Coca-Cola - even if it tastes EXACTLY like it does.

Nothing about this is about profit or economic viability, it's not even a small part of the equation. The purpose is to preserve cultural heritage and not dilute it with shitty imitations calling themselves something they are not.
by embedding-shape | 2026-03-05 13:54:00+00:00
It's a UI authoring toolkit, you could do entire games in it I suppose, but you'd be fighting against it, rather than being helped by it.

Better to go the route of doing Spine2D animations then leverage a real game engine like Godot or Unity and load the animations there.

But then you're essentially back to "traditional game development" which is very different from what you could do with Macromedia's Flash back in the day.
by dudeinhawaii | 2026-03-05 13:54:48+00:00
It usually refers to situations without access to the source code.

I've always taken "clean room" to be the kind of manufacturing clean room (sealed/etc). You're given a device and told "make our version". You're allowed to look, poke, etc but you don't get the detailed plans/schematics/etc.

In software, you get the app or API and you can choose how to re-implement.

In open source, yes, it seems like a silly thing and hard to prove.
by AlexandrB | 2026-03-05 13:54:58+00:00
How do you do phase 2 with an LLM when the LLM is likely trained on the original source code? Isn't this equivalent of "rewriting" Harry Potter by describing the plot to an LLM trained on the original books[1]?

[1] https://arstechnica.com/features/2025/06/study-metas-llama-3...
by krzyk | 2026-03-05 13:54:59+00:00
github? I just do some click here, click there, copy paste and gh cli is ready.

For google I need PhD to setup any kind of API access to my own data. And it frequently blocks you, because you can setup as a test product, add test accounts (but it can't be owner account (WTF?)) etc.

I gave up on using a google calendar cli project because of all that lack of normal UX.

UX for google APIs looks like excel spreadsheet.
by cess11 | 2026-03-05 13:55:30+00:00
"XML is fundamentally incompatible with commonly used programming data structures, namely lists/arrays and structs/maps. That fundamental mismatch caused a lot of friction when people use XML for data exchange between programs. JSON is clear winner here."

I'm not so sure about this. When you have a schema it becomes possible to generate your object code, and then your only immediate interface with the XML file is a rather simple instruction to unmarshal it, the rest of the time you're dabbling within your programming language of choice.