MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by diacritical | 2026-03-05 15:57:23+00:00
Beers on Friday after 4pm is rarely done because management really cares about the employees. It's a type of team building, improves employee morale and humanizes management. All lead to improved productivity in the long term.

I my boss gives me a stimulant to be more productive, especially a relatively harmless one like nicotine, I would gladly take it, as I like stimulants and am an adult capable of making decisions for myself. If I didn't, I would just refuse, just how I might refuse the free coffee by boss offers me.

I doubt anyone is forcing the employees to take the stimulants. That would be bad, indeed.
by Karawebnetwork | 2026-03-05 15:57:26+00:00
The high school my friend's kids attend installed CO2 sensors during the pandemic as an indirect way to measure airflow.

It turned out the building had been sealed extremely tightly to keep out the winter cold and because it is old, it does not have a proper HVAC system.

They discovered that CO2 levels stayed around 1200 ppm throughout the entire winter, sometimes even higher. This had likely been the case for decades.

It is a school in a small, low‑income town. I cannot help wondering how many kids were labeled as underperforming when they were actually struggling with the effects of chronically elevated CO2 levels.
by Supermancho | 2026-03-05 15:57:27+00:00
To clarify, POTUS being short for the group POTUS in-crowd of the actual POTUS and cabinet, who act in sync.

I'm saying the public tide shifted and the legal reality set in that they weren't going to get sympathetic rulings...which they don't care about anyway since it's not their money and the tariff threats already had any desired effects sought.

POTUS was floated the idea that they could enrich themselves, so the decision was made, communicated to the Secretary of Commerce and to the SCOTUS judges.

> And corporations were willing to risk a hundred of billions in tariffs fees on the odds it might get refunded just because some finance company might get a small cut of refunds?

Nothing to do with them. Narcissists don't worry about the future of others, except as a narrative to sell their personal ambitions.
by softwaredoug | 2026-03-05 15:57:35+00:00
Has anyone else noticed this? In our area, it seems in 2025 a lot of local businesses (ie local toy stores, etc) have closed. Presumably tariff pressures hurt (among other affordability issues).

The big players can restructure supply chains. Small businesses can't. The mom and pops seem to suffer.

I'm hoping there can be an infusion of $ into those companies and maybe stimulate a little growth, or at least survival through the Trump years.
by aw1621107 | 2026-03-05 15:57:50+00:00
> As sibling says, the Court very definitely did not order them to refund anything.

> You may see other judges rule that the refunds don't have to be paid, for any of several reasons.

I think the government might have a bit of an uphill battle given arguments they have previously made to courts. For example, consider this decision from the US Court of International Trade from 2025-12 [0]:

> However, as the Government notes in its response to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction here, it “[has] made very clear—both in this case and in related cases—that [it] will not object to the [c]ourt ordering reliquidation of plaintiffs’ entries subject to the challenged IEEPA duties if such duties are found to be unlawful.”

> <snip>

> Judicial estoppel would prevent the Government from taking an inconsistent approach after a final result in V.O.S. [] The Government has emphasized this point itself, citing to Sumecht NA, Inc. v. United States, which holds that “the Government would be judicially estopped from taking a contrary position” regarding a prior representation involving the availability of relief in the form of reliquidation. [] Having convinced this court to accept that importers who paid IEEPA tariffs will be able to receive refunds after reliquidation, and having benefited from the court’s subsequent conclusion that importers will not experience irreparable harm as a consequence of liquidation, the Government cannot later “assume a contrary position” to argue that refunds are not available after liquidation.

> <snip>

> Additionally, the panel in In re Section 301 Cases unanimously agreed—as we do
now—that the USCIT has “the explicit power to order reliquidation and refunds where the government has unlawfully exacted duties.” [] The Government acknowledges that “a decision [to the contrary] would be inconsistent with years of [the court’s] precedent.”

Obviously all this doesn't prevent the government from appealing anyways, but they'll need to get creative to get around their previous representations.

[0]: https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-154.pdf
by PunchyHamster | 2026-03-05 15:58:16+00:00
Many problems with it:

* power generation is not local in most of the cases. You'd be still fucking energy market to anyone outside it

* power is also used by companies people actually want. Even if household power cost wont chance thanks to that approach, the price for power for every single business around will increase.

* similarly any other manufacturing business will cost more. In essence, the AI boom will reduce profit margin of every single business that has electric power as significant cost in the production. Which is a lot of industries.

"Making AI pay more for its useless power draw" is nice idea but it is pretty hard to realise. Unless we start outright denying connection to power grid but that's pretty dangerous political precedent to set.
by jdup7 | 2026-03-05 15:58:54+00:00
Probably could have been a bit more descriptive around the dataset. Our tooling pulls in a lot more than 250 URLs but since we are manually confirming them that means a smaller dataset. In other words, out of the urls we pulled in these 250 were confirmed (by a human) as phishing. We did not do any selection beyond that. As for the article LLMs were used to help with the graphs and grammatical checks but that's it. This was our first month of going through this exercise and we definitely want to have larger datasets going forward as we expand capacity for review.

As for Safe Browsing catching more than 16% it depends on the timeline at the time these attacks are launched it's likely Safe Browsing catches closer to 0% but as the time goes on that number definitely climbs.
by ttul | 2026-03-05 15:59:10+00:00
Next time you’re using your favorite LLM as a therapist, try editing your previous input and getting it to regenerate its response. It’s a humbling experience to see your trusted “therapist” shift from one perspective or piece of advice to another just by modifying your input slightly. These tools are uncannily human-sounding, but as humans we are very poorly suited to the task of appreciating how biased they are by what we say to them.
by john_strinlai | 2026-03-05 15:59:10+00:00
indeed... it seems like it just says everything is phishing... which they go on to say is desirable?

"The tradeoff is that it flagged all 9 of the legitimate sites in our dataset as suspicious, which is worth it when you're actively investigating a link you don't trust."

so, you dont really need the scanning product at all. if you just assume every website is a phishing website, you will have the same performance as the scanner!
by youknownothing | 2026-03-05 15:59:32+00:00
That still doesn't necessarily mean that prices won't be impacted indirectly. Let's say Amazon (or any other AI behemoth) builds a mini-nuclear plant to feed the electricity of their data center (as has been touted). Let's say every one follows suit. That implies an increase in the demand of uranium, which means an increase in price, which means an increase in the costs of the other nuclear plants, which is translated to higher electricity costs.

One could say "use renewables", but even that has externalities: that means an increase in demand for solar panels, or wind turbines, or the labour to maintain them, which again leads to an increase in prices.
Show HN: Reduce LLM token use by ~30% with this MCP/CLI tool(Claude benchmarked)
by jahala | 2026-03-05 15:59:32+00:00
Smart code reading for humans and AI agents. Tilth is what happens when you give ripgrep, tree-sitter, and cat a shared brain.
--

v0.4.4: Added adaptive 2nd-hop impact analysis to callers search — when a function has ≤10 unique callers, tilth automatically traces callers-of-callers in a single scan. First full 26-task Opus baseline (previously 5 hard tasks only). Haiku adoption improved from 42% to 78%, flipping Haiku from a cost regression to -38% $/correct.

v0.4.5: Bumped TOKEN_THRESHOLD from 3500 to 6000 estimated tokens (~24KB), so mid-sized files return full content instead of an outline that agents then read back via 5–7 sequential --section calls. Fixed two major regressions: gin_radix_tree (+35% → ~tie) and rg_search_dispatch (+90% → -26% win). Sonnet hit 100% accuracy (52/52) and -34% $/correct overall.

--

https://github.com/jahala/tilth/

Full results: https://github.com/jahala/tilth/blob/main/benchmark/README.m...

-- PS: I dont have the budget to run the benchmark a lot (especially with Opus), so if any token whales has capacity to run some benchmarks, please feel free to PR results.
by 7777777phil | 2026-03-05 16:00:04+00:00
Nvidia sells chips to whoever wins, so investing in a specific lab creates downside with no real upside. The more interesting read is whether Huang sees model providers compressing toward commodity pricing. I wrote about why that layer is structurally squeezed: https://philippdubach.com/posts/is-ai-really-eating-the-worl...
by leodido | 2026-03-05 16:00:05+00:00
User `walterbell` is right. Padding changes the hash, so the modified binary wouldn't match the denylist. It also wouldn't match anything the system has seen before since it's now an unknown binary... The veto denylist approach is for catching known-bad binaries by identity. If you need to block unknown/modified binaries, you flip the model: allowlist known-good hashes and deny everything else. It's a different threat model, so it requires a different mode.
by wffurr | 2026-03-05 16:00:14+00:00
That's an M1 Pro chip. Looking at the base MacBook Pro / Air models with the base M1 chip, the multi-core score is about the same, and those laptops are also still going strong:

device | cpu | single core | multi core |
|:------------------------------|:----------------------------------|------------:|-----------:|
MacBook Pro (13-inch Late 2020)| Apple M1 @ 3.2 GHz (8 cores) | 2323 | 8186
by jMyles | 2026-03-05 16:00:22+00:00
> That means it belongs to the American people, not individuals for their private gain.

This is a strong case that there ought not to be any such thing as a secret opinion or confidential advice from the White House OLC - and I agree with that opinion if that's what you're saying.

But it doesn't transform the information contained therein to nonpublic.

I'm not saying this whole thing wasn't a total scumbag move - it was - but it's not quite the same crime as insider trading.
by sph | 2026-03-05 16:00:31+00:00
Utter nonsense. I have replaced my ADHD prescription with nicotine patches, and in my experience I have had worse withdrawals, and greater desire to consume caffeine than either dermal nicotine or dexamfetamine. And I’m only a cup a day kinda guy.

If we’re talking about smoking or vaping, or nicotine pouches, sure, but mode of administration and how quickly it peaks in your bloodstream cannot be hand-waved away like that.
by SilverElfin | 2026-03-05 16:00:37+00:00
This isn’t the first time a member of the Trump administration has granted contracts to companies that have recently formed, with no website or contact info, with no track record, with no competitive bidding under fake emergency declarations. These frauds are much larger than things like Somalian daycare fraud but aren’t receiving the same attention. I wonder if they’ll ever face justice or just get pardoned. Maybe a retroactive undoing of pardons is needed.
by potsandpans | 2026-03-05 16:00:43+00:00
I have been experimenting with hands off keyboard agent-driven implementations of non trivial tasks, and I'm finding that the same pattern you're outlining proves to be very useful:

Explore, summarize, plan, handoff. That info distillation loop seems to be quite effective at keeping agents on task. I've been considering adding memories between agents, but haven't thought of a good data model yet.

The problem with something like memories is I've observed that when context gets polluted agents get confused. Especially these distilled models like minimax and kimi. So the challenge is ensuring that only "relevant" memories are pulled into context for a given task.
by epistasis | 2026-03-05 16:00:56+00:00
More specifically, free for the person parking.

All the rest of society pays massive amounts in construction costs:

> adding tens of thousands of dollars per housing unit and, in some cases, increasing total construction costs by more than 50%.

This is from a recent update to Donald Shoup's estimates from the classic "The high cost of free parking": https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9f88x32n
by aakresearch | 2026-03-05 16:01:01+00:00
I think you are mistaken. I remember landing upon that website some time before 2023 and being greatly impressed by that very 3D parallax effect. To my knowledge there were no AI tools available in 2022 capable of producing effects like that. There are barely now.
To my understanding it was made possible by another project of the same author [0] - check the date. Also check this [1] - dated 2003.

Is it so hard to accept that humans are more capable of doing intricate and impressive work than any LLM will ever be?

- [0] https://github.com/unconed/CSS3D.js

- [1] https://acko.net/blog/avs/
by jensbontinck | 2026-03-05 16:01:03+00:00
This is exactly right. We went down this path and the practical implementation ends up looking like capability tokens. short-lived, cryptographically signed credentials that encode what the agent is authorized to do for this specific task.

The key insight: the token isn't just authorization, it's evidence.
When you issue an ES256-signed token that says "this agent was scanned for PII, classified as INTERNAL, and is authorized to call [search,read_file] for the next 60 seconds" , that token becomes the audit artifact. The auditor doesn't need to the agent or the operator; they verify the token chain.

On "contain the blast radius instead of preventing the confusion"
agreed, but you need both. Containment (scoped permissions, delegation
chains) handles authorization. But you still need a detection layer
for data protection: PII flowing to an external model is a GDPR or EU AI Act (def. in europe) violation regardless of whether the agent was "authorized" to make that call. We found deterministic scanning (regex + normalization, not LLM judges) at the proxy layer catches this at ~250ms without the reliability problems of using another model to judge the first one.

The ergonomics point tucnak raised is real too. We use OPA/Rego for the policy layer with presets so operators don't have to write Rego from scratch, pick a security posture and tune from there. The governance tax has to be near-zero or teams just bypass it.
by graemep | 2026-03-05 16:01:07+00:00
Its a hypothocated tax.

Its not required to "look at a screen". its required to watch broadcast TV and use the BBc's online TV services. You can watch as much as you like on Youtube or Netflix or whatever without paying it.

it was very good value for money when half of all TV output (and the better hal) was from the BBC and ad free.
Show HN: Make beats, produce music from the command line
by lmohseni | 2026-03-05 16:01:15+00:00
So, I've never written a line of Rust in my life. I wouldn't know an `&mut this` from a mutandis. But I saw a tweet about a month ago that said, in this new era of AI, you'd be able to just take a library that you love, throw a TUI around it, and call it an app. So here's what I came up with:

Imbolc is a DAW that runs entirely in your terminal. It talks to scsynth over OSC and ships 58 instruments and 39 effects. VSTs are a work in progress, also GarageBand loops if you want to recreate "Umbrella".

I used Opus and Codex mainly, but sometimes I had them drive Gemini when I was low on tokens. Some prompts that worked well: "Looking at this codebase, what looks like an obvious retrofit?" "Where can we lean on the compiler?" "Where is it frustrating to work on this codebase". After an agent completed a task, I'd interview it — where did you have trouble, what felt like a hack, what would you do differently. v1 was clojure, v2 was java, v3 is rust. v4 will be stones and sticks.

So nowadays out here in the deep future, I think programming will become a matter of taste. Here's what I think demonstrates my sensibilities:

- Accessibility: This is what I'm most proud of. TUIs are usually terrible for screen readers. In Imbolc, every action in the UI is available as a typed command (after I started typing this up I thought, is that true? turns out it wasn't, so now the compiler enforces this.).

- LAN collaboration: Multiple people can connect to a shared session over the local network and share midi clock, tuning, effects buses, etc. Audio is never sent over the network.

- Weird musical choices: With the "Global" just intonation setting, your absolute tuning can drift over time. I was thinking about how an accordion looks kind of like a qwerty keyboard, so I added a quasi Stradella layout. A432 by default, and so on.

- Command palette, themes, keybindings, Diataxis docs.

It requires SuperCollider installed (scsynth on PATH). macOS and Linux 1st class, BSDs are next on the roadmap, no Windows.

It's still alpha, there are plenty of rough edges. But it is genuinely fun to dink around on, I'd love to know what you all think.

https://github.com/mohsenil85/imbolc
https://imbolc.studio
Show HN: I built a simple meditation app because I was tired of subscriptions
by PureMeditate | 2026-03-05 16:01:17+00:00
The Backstory:
I'm a software engineer with anxiety, and I meditate regularly to manage it. I’ve been using Calm, but their price keeps going up. And they also require accounts and collect usage data, which I’m not a fan of as a privacy-focused developer.

The Why:
I wanted something simple, private, subscription-free with a nice looking interface but couldn’t find one that matched exactly what I wanted. So as a side project, I built one for myself and my wife called Pure Meditate.

She ended up showing it to a few friends, and the ones who tried it via TestFlight really liked it. Especially the no subscription part. I figured there were probably others who would too. So, today I'm showing it off for the first time.

I'm curious to hear feedback from the HN community. Please don't be too brutal :)
by ambuj_tripathi | 2026-03-05 16:01:35+00:00
First off, building a local LangGraph RAG at 18 is a massive achievement. Great work!

I recently challenged myself to architect a multi-agent LangGraph pipeline on an extremely constrained 512MB RAM free-tier server, so I totally understand your VRAM/RAM pain. Here is some architecture feedback based on your questions:

1. Small-VRAM Architecture (Parent-Child Chunking):
If you are running out of memory, don't keep large text chunks in your Vector DB. Implement strict Parent-Child chunking. I only embed tiny 'child' chunks into Qdrant or vectordbs and store the large 'parent' text payloads in a lightweight DB like SQLite/Supabase. Search small, retrieve large.

2. Routing & Skipping Heavy Rerankers:
I completely agree with using a single LLM call for routing to save compute. In my setup, I deliberately skipped heavy cross-encoder rerankers because they absolutely destroy free-tier/low-VRAM constraints (Use when you are not on resource constraints).

3. LangGraph Memory Management:
Leverage LangGraph's state machine to avoid OOM crashes. Don't try to hold Evaluator and Generator contexts in memory simultaneously. Sequence your nodes with conditional edges (Generator -> Evaluator -> Route back if failed). By doing this sequentially, you never overload your VRAM at any single tick.

Keep building, you have a very solid foundation here!
by simiones | 2026-03-05 16:01:36+00:00
I think this is a bit too broad. There are actually three possible cases.

When there is similar code, the only defense possible to prove that you have not copied the original is to show that your process is a clean room re-implementation.

If the code is completely different, then clean room or not is indeed irrelevant. The only way the author can claim that you violated their copyright despite no apparent similarity is for them to have proof you followed some kind of mechanical process for generating the new code based on the old one, such as using an LLM with the old code as input prompt (TBD, completely unsettled: what if the old code is part of the training set, but was not part of the input?) - the burden of proof is on them to show that the dissimilarity is only apparent.

In realistic cases, you will have a mix of similar and dissimilar portions, and portions where the similarity is questionable. Each of these will need to be analyzed separately - and it's very likely that all the similar portions will need to be re-written again if you can't prove that they were not copied directly or from memory from the original, even if they represent a very small part of the work overall. Even if you wrote a 10k page book, if you copied one whole page verbatim from another book, you will be liable for that page, and the author may force you to take it out.
by drooby | 2026-03-05 16:01:42+00:00
A tax takes a percentage of value that someone else created. A royalty collects payment for access to something you already own. When Alaska collects from oil companies, it's not taxing their profits. It's charging them for extracting a resource that belongs to the people of Alaska. The oil was never theirs.

It being a royalty and not a tax is the reason Alaska's dividend is politically untouchable while tax-funded programs get gutted every budget cycle. Ownership is a fundamentally stronger claim than redistribution.