MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Rapzid | 2026-03-08 16:19:41+00:00
There is definitely a sort of undercurrent online to a lot of the claims and animosity towards anyone questioning LLMs or even exploring the downsides. Tons of anger and vitriol; on HN now even.

I get the sense a lot of new and middling engineers view this as some shortcut to success. Angry about getting passed on promotions, push back on their PRs, questioned why things are taking so long(hint: because they weren't actually putting in a full days work), or not making the grade for FAANG.

Now here is LLM and it's their chance to get stuff done without having to do much work. Don't need to have put in the work to learn and study. Now all those that were keeping them down before are the REAL problem because they are too slow, too out of date. What a gift! It's the great mediocracy uprising!

I haven't quite wrapped my head around it but there is definitely some weird social stuff going on.
by hshdhdhj4444 | 2026-03-08 16:19:48+00:00
I strongly believe AI will drive efficiency. I’m less certain about whether that’s already happening or will happen in the future and when in the future.

However, I’ve already seen a CTO of a F100 company explicitly state that whether AI is driving efficiency or not, the capital investment, and more importantly, the promises of efficiency to investors will mean some people will be let go.

Efficiency is output/input. The input is easy to measure. It’s cost and in this particular case salaries.

Output is a lot harder to measure, which means it can be fudged easily.

So you cut the easily measurable inputs and inflate the easily manipulable output.

One could imagine the reverse would also be possible, where you maintain inputs but inflate the output, but there is an asymmetry where investors will reward you for cutting costs even if there are no efficiency advantages that makes cutting inputs more sellable than inflating outputs.
by Joker_vD | 2026-03-08 16:21:51+00:00
> It elegantly solves the "create a process, letting it inherit these settings and reset these other settings", where "settings" is an ever changing and expanding list of things that you wouldn't want to bake into the API.

Or, to quote a paper on deficiencies of fork, "fork() tremendously simplifies the task of writing a shell. But most programs are not shells".

Next. A first solution is trivial: make (almost) all syscalls to accept the target process's pidfd as an argument (and introduce a new syscall to create an empty process in suspended state) — which Windows almost (but not quite) can do already. A second solution would be to push all the insides of the "if (fork () == 0) { ... }" into a eBPF program and pass that to fork() — that will also tremendously cut on the syscall costs of setting up the new process's state as opposed to Windows (which has posix_spawn()-like API).

> create duplicate worker processes.

We have threads for this. Of course, Linux (and POSIX) threads are quite a sad sight, especially with all the unavoidable signalling nonsense and O_CLOFORK/O_CLOEXEC shenanigans.
by alexjplant | 2026-03-08 16:21:57+00:00
> People consider others around them, and it makes things easier.

This is the #1 reason I loved visiting Japan so much: it's a country full of people that understand their implicit societal obligation to not unduly burden others. Meanwhile in the US people seem to be increasingly flouting basic decorum while driving, queuing, and generally existing in public spaces then doubling down on it when called out. My pet theory is that we're still feeling a rebound effect of COVID cabin fever but who knows.
by chepy | 2026-03-08 16:22:07+00:00
I actually agree with you.

The whole point of Mato is to make human-in-the-loop supervision easier, not to encourage autonomous loops.

In my daily workflow I constantly run multiple coding agents at the same time. The annoying part isn’t the AI itself — it’s switching between tabs, terminals, and different tools just to check what each agent is doing.

I built Mato mainly because I wanted a faster way to jump between agents, review their outputs, and approve or intervene when needed. Think of it more like tmux for AI workers, where a human manager can oversee multiple agents at once.

Personally I’m also skeptical of fully self-driving loops. In practice the plan → execute → review cycle with a human in the loop is still the most reliable way to work with AI today.
by scoofy | 2026-03-08 16:22:53+00:00
>If you got to choose your own censorship it'd be nice. As it stands, other instances can decide to defederate with what you're on.

That is not censorship!

This conversation is frustrating exactly because people think a group “excluding” someone is “censoring” them. Except that's not what censorship is.

Censorship is about you not being allowed to say what you want on a sign outside your own bar.

You complaining about a different bar, not letting you in because they don’t like you. That’s not censorship, that’s just people being jerks to you… and that is allowed. Nobody has to listen to you if they don't like you. Nobody has to even let you in the door to where they hang out if they don't like you, especially if the reason they kicked you out was something you said.
by neom | 2026-03-08 16:23:57+00:00
It seems a bit more complicated than first blush: https://www.rdworldonline.com/the-neurons-playing-doom-are-a...

Personally, dislike this direction a lot. I don't like that they're using a killing game (I understand the trope, doesn't make me like it any less) and the general idea of this whole thing makes me quite uneasy.
by devld | 2026-03-08 16:24:03+00:00
> Mostly I’m just there to press the big “I’m accountable” button on the screen

This is going to be way harder now vs. when we used to write the code ourselves. In contracting space, the problem now is that you may have a client that vibe coded an app and be very out of touch about the costs involved to have a developer approve it. It's going to be a hard sell, when the client builds the entire thing themselves and you are a mare peasant doing QA review.
by sillysaurusx | 2026-03-08 16:24:35+00:00
Be sure to dig into the details before taking this at face value. There once was a story "Rat brain flies plane" a couple decades ago, and it turned out to be bogus. But to find that out, you had to read the paper and reverse engineer that nothing substantial was actually going on. It's tempting to be charitable, but you can't really know whether headlines like this are legit till you understand exactly what they did.

(The rat brain guys repeated the experiment until the plane stopped crashing, but no "learning" was happening; it was expected that when the neuron's range reached so-and-so, that the plane would fly level. So they started with a neuron outside that range, showed that it crashed, then adjusted the neuron until it flew level. But that's not what "rat brain flies plane" implies.)
by analog31 | 2026-03-08 16:24:55+00:00
One simplistic way is to successively add a small constant to a large integer, and generate the waveform from the most significant bits. A "cent," which is 1/100 of a semitone, is a factor of about 580 parts per million, so you can work out the precision needed for the constant. On a microcontroller, you can control the timing with a PWM, which runs independently of the processor and its timing foibles.

Proof is left as an exercise to the student. ;-)
by MarsIronPI | 2026-03-08 16:25:42+00:00
> At the same time, being upset about the PS5 making it impossible to run arbitrary software without hacking feels a little like being upset that your washing machine doesn't clean your dirty dishes as well as it cleans your dirty laundry: it's not made for that, and it's not really reasonable to expect it to be able to do that well if at all.

Except that's so completely not like what's going on with modern hardware. They're taking general purpose computers and restricting you from doing general purpose computing on them. Like, a dishwasher is made to wash dishes. It has a shape and a design made for washing dishes. You would need to make physical modifications to get it to wash clothes. This is like taking a machine that could wash both dishes and clothes and intentionally stopping it from washing clothes.

This is not OK. This needs to stop. Soon they'll come for our general-purpose computing with "features" for DRM.
by hananova | 2026-03-08 16:26:08+00:00
This is why I’ve recently modified my git forge to return subtly and maliciously buggy code if it detects it is being accessed by an LLM.

I won’t link it, and I won’t do a write up to retain effectiveness, but I have already found at least 3 vibe coded slop projects on GitHub that include my deliberately buggy code verbatim, and it makes me very happy.
by imtringued | 2026-03-08 16:26:41+00:00
>Because that option is a pretty stupid proposition, and game theory pretty much guarantees that if you make that choice, you will be the ultimate loser no matter what.

Uh? Ultimate loser? When I read comments like this I'm basically confronted with the following implication "Human civilization isn't worth preserving. If you disagree, then the problem is with you, namely because you believe humanity to be redeemable".

The ultimate loser is the person who thinks that a small or almost nonexistent reduction in quality of life is a small price to pay in comparison to a large and permanent reduction in quality of life.

The ultimate winner is the person who will see his quality of life decline before his eyes.

Crazy.
by rocketpastsix | 2026-03-08 16:26:46+00:00
Im definitely not the target here, but if someone I knew wanted a store and wanted this I would have a few things I would be critical of.

1. no tests, no static analysis.

2. avoiding composer. Why write your own autoloader when Composer can do it, and keep things up to date pretty easily.

3. associative arrays being passed around. There is no type safety on those arrays, and you aren't using a package like PHPStan or Psalm to at least try and enforce _something_ at run time.

4. I find it odd you are anti-composer (one of the best things to happen to PHP) yet tell people to configure a web server with various extensions, permissions, etc.

If I was going to install this, I'd want composer support and tests.
by abathur | 2026-03-08 16:28:08+00:00
I agree with you that a face-to-face q&a is a reasonably good way to detect low-effort cheating, but I'll still quibble a bit:

- I don't think this lowers the cost of detection as much as you imagine. You still need to know the paper better than the student and have to sacrifice already tight instruction/planning/grading time to have all of these conversations. Even if you catch enough to successfully deter most, it likely means not covering something else. It won't be too hard to catch low-effort cheaters who can't be bothered to read the paper, but you're on the low-leverage side of an arms race with the remaining students. You have experience on your side and they can't know what you'll ask, but they outnumber you and can certainly read the paper and use LLMs to quiz them on it. You have to invest your effort without knowing how each student prepared, so you'll spend about as much effort on every low-effort cheat as you do on the highest-effort cheat you are prepared to catch.

- Not sure it is "from the wrong direction" since both approaches raise the cost of cheating and lower the cost of detecting it.

- While this does avoid encouraging students to dumb down their work, it does still raise the cost of not-cheating. Unless you surprise the students with these conversations, the ones that care most will still anxiously prepare.
by chasing0entropy | 2026-03-08 16:28:12+00:00
The problem with the current rendition of 'AI' is that it's behavior can be radically altered or limited by the interests of its administrators.

A pure LLM, an unlimited statistical engine, spitting out inference data exactly as it is with no guardrails, would be step towards AGI.

People have realized they are talking to extremely limited chat it's with their own programmed agenda which will soon involve mostly selling things.
by mock-possum | 2026-03-08 16:29:02+00:00
I feel like this just further reinforces the point - that need for social connection is a weakness.

I love my husband dearly, and I’d morn him if he vanished, but it wouldn’t make my life hard to live by any means - I lived just fine before him, and I’ll live just fine after him. I didn’t marry him because I needed somebody, I married him because I wanted him. I love him and I’m lucky to have him, but I also love myself and am lucky to be me - and as I said, that was true before I met him, and it’ll be true after he’s gone.

I don’t need someone else to make my worthwhile, or to make my life worth living - I am sufficient. He’s a (much welcomed and deeply appreciated) bonus.

What you’re describing sounds like romanticizing mental illness to me.
by pmarreck | 2026-03-08 16:29:04+00:00
> I really don't know how to fill the minutes that AI takes to write code

At any given time I have at least 4 terminals working on various pieces of a main project and/or side projects.

Whenever I have to wait on 1, I just flip to another. I find it very engaging because I can work on multiple pieces that all contribute to some overarching goal at the same time, concurrently.
by reflexe | 2026-03-08 16:29:19+00:00
To add a little bit: the reason for that (or at least one of them) is strict aliasing rules:
If the compiler had to assume that a write to an int* might change the value of a double&, that’ll cause it to avoid some optimization and maybe even perform expensive reads.

This is the reason that you are not allowed to alias a variable with another type (can be disabled using -fno-strict-aliasing) [1].

However, one of exceptions is char and std::byte. The compiler is not allowed to assume that a write to char& won’t affect the value of a double& for example [2].

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/software/c-intro-and-ref/manual/html_nod...

[2]: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/reinterpret_cast....
by kantord | 2026-03-08 16:29:24+00:00
honestly, I interpreted your comment as "Taskwarrior is unusable shit" since it had a pretty negative tone and came from a user named throwaway27448.

Actual accessibility is a different topic. Honestly I don't know much about the a11y of CLI apps in general. Is there something that makes Taskwarrior bad in that regard? Is it about the way it forms things like list outputs or tables?
by mizzao | 2026-03-08 16:30:11+00:00
80% trained by age 1 in 1944 vs barely started by age 2 in 2026... now that seems like a regression in learning rate!

Both our kids were poop-trained before pee-trained, which made cloth diapers a lot more manageable (just rinse and toss in laundry). The first one was poop-trained around 5-6 months.
by 827a | 2026-03-08 16:30:36+00:00
IMO its more nuanced. They're likely in production ramp-up of the M5 Ultra Mac Studio, for release in the next ~3 months; they have pre-purchased bins of memory from the supply-constrained major memory supplies; and they need as much as they can get because they want to push an M5 Ultra config to 768gb to continue the "you can run local models" story that the M5 Max Macbook Pro started telling last week.

Going beyond 512gb and into 768gb memory is something of a threshold that will allow Apple to claim local capability for significantly more models. Qwen3-235B, Minimax M2.5, and GLM 4.7 could kind of run with no quantization on 512gb, but they'll comfortably run at 768gb. DeepSeek-V3.2 and GLM 5 may also work at some level of quantization.
by apexalpha | 2026-03-08 16:30:51+00:00
Ours come with a roll of cotton 'paper' sheets to put in. You throw this away which catches pretty much all solids. The rest we throw in the washing machine on 90 as is. Worked fine.

My eldest stopped using diapers during day at 2 and night at 2,5 years old.

Hopefully the youngest, too. She's only 1,5 but she already dislikes the cotton cloth being wet for too long, which is great. Modern diapers are so good they barely notice. You're essentially training them to just let it go because there's 0 feedback.

That is the real advantage for me as I hate diapers with a passion. No way I'm doing that for a year more than I have to, even with easier diapers.
SQL Planner – A free, comprehensive SQL Server and Windows monitor
by chandansql | 2026-03-08 16:31:26+00:00
The Problem
As a DBA, I’ve always been frustrated by the "monitoring tax." You either pay thousands of dollars for enterprise tools, or you’re stuck with basic scripts that don't give you the full picture. I wanted a tool that combined deep SQL metrics (deadlocks, expensive queries, health checks) with Windows OS-level monitoring (CPU, IO, Memory, IIS , Storage etc) under one roof.
What is SQL Planner?
I’ve spent the last 4+ years building SQL Planner to bridge this gap. It’s a lightweight tool designed to handle:
Performance Analytics: Real-time monitoring of blockers, long-running queries, and IO latency.
Database Automation: Handling SQL Monitoring, backups, Auditing, DBA Handover Notes management and automated index defragmentation.
Windows Monitoring: Monitoring IIS, Windows Services, and OS-level resources without a massive agent footprint.
Reporting: 100+ deep-dive reports for audit and health checks.

The Tech Stack
The tool is designed for Windows environments. I focused heavily on ensuring the monitoring overhead is negligible—collecting 100+ metrics shouldn't become the performance bottleneck it’s trying to solve.
Why Free?
I’m offering this for free to the community. I believe every developer and DBA should have access to professional-grade monitoring regardless of their company's budget.
I would love your feedback on:
Architecture: If you've built monitoring tools, how did you handle high-frequency data collection overhead?
Missing Metrics: What is the one SQL Server metric that always saves your life during a production outage?
UI/UX: Is the dashboard intuitive enough for a sysadmin who isn't a SQL expert?
Link: https://mssqlplanner.com
by spankalee | 2026-03-08 16:31:49+00:00
I'm writing a new Wasm GC language because I'm so unsatisfied with the current options. I'm three months in, and so for it's mostly good.

WASM takes care of all the GC bits, but in turn you have to use its ref, struct, and array types for everything. Making vtables is straight forward. Fat pointers for interfaces require an object though, since you can't do your own pointer layout.

In web contexts GC should be great because browser GCs can work across DOM, JS, and WASM, so you can hold a reference to a node that you get via JS, and if you remove the node from the DOM and discard the reference, it'll be collected just like in JS.

The big downside is data transfer over the Wasm boundary requires a lot more copying with GC. Byte arrays like (array i8) are completely opaque to the outside, so you need to vend individual byte access functions to read data. On the WASI side, it only lowers to linear memory, so you need to allocate some from scratch space, then copy into GC structs and arrays. Strings are doubly awful because of this because you also have to deal with encoding.

GC also doesn't support multi-threading yet.

Some of this is supposed to be fixed by things like https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/issues/1569 and WASI lowering to GC types. stringref would have been great, but that appears to be dead for now.

So I'm on board and optimistic these things will get fixed, but GC is still a bit of a second-class citizen for now.
by mizzao | 2026-03-08 16:32:16+00:00
We did this with both our kids; the first one stopped pooping in diaper by 5 months. This made cloth diapers much more feasible as you just have to rinse. A local daycare was willing to do it as well and so she was fully potty trained well before starting preschool at 2 years.

As others have said though, YMMV so don't beat yourself up if your kid won't do it. 80% by age 1 in 1944 is a great data point for what's possible though.
by pizlonator | 2026-03-08 16:32:47+00:00
> and if tested via the codex cli "harness" it wouldn't be a pure model-to-model comparison any more.

But the interesting comparison when evaluating coding agent capabilities is to evaluate the offerings given to users.

So this means comparing Claude Code to Codex to whatever CLI tools Kimi, GLM, and others give you.

And it might mean throwing Cursor, OpenCode, Amp, Pi, mini-swe-agent, etc into the mix
by general_reveal | 2026-03-08 16:32:49+00:00
No.

At a national security level, the department of defense has already war-gamed mass unemployment. The defense sector would already have projected when the unemployment would happen and at what rate, I’m saying this to imply they had AI and judged its trajectory rather quickly awhile ago.

Data centers WILL happen, mass unemployment WILL happen, simply because, smarter people made it, assessed it, cannot deny it, and a large scale paradigm shift is occurring.

The data centers WILL get built (because the country needs it, don’t worry about why), AND you WILL get fired. Please await further instructions, thank you.

Try to stay in the same spot, oh, Covid helped with that remote work thing huh? See, this won’t be as painful as everyone thinks, it’s a nice smooth transition.
Show HN: SayIt – AI that helps you prepare for difficult conversations
by DivakaranK | 2026-03-08 16:33:16+00:00
Hey HN,

I built SayIt (www.sayit.chat) over the weekend. It helps people prepare for conversations they’ve been avoiding — asking for a raise, a breakup, setting a boundary, confronting a family member.

The problem I kept noticing: most people know what they want to say but freeze when it actually happens. They blank, say it badly, or back down entirely.

How it works:

You describe your situation in plain text
It generates a personalised opening script based on your relationship type and tone
It predicts how the other person might respond (with different scenarios)
It gives you lines for each possible reaction
Built with Next.js, Groq API (llama-3.3-70b), and hosted on Vercel. Free to use, no account needed.

The hardest part was getting the AI to write scripts that sound like a real person talking, not a corporate memo. Still iterating on that.

Would love feedback from this crowd — particularly on whether the predicted responses feel realistic.
by dlcarrier | 2026-03-08 16:33:23+00:00
Asrock sold a mining rig using reject PS5 APUs, called the BC-250. They're readily available on the used market, although the prices have doubled over the last six months, as is the case worth anything that has a reasonable amount of RAM.

They're binned down a little from the production PS5, but even at full power it's bit the best bang for the buck. For a model that needs 16 GB of RAM, a $100 used AMD Mi25 is the cheapest way to go, and a $200 used 16GB Intel A770 scales that up, at around double the performance for around double the price.
by pmarreck | 2026-03-08 16:33:34+00:00
Who is blaming anyone?

Does someone blame the manual loom operators when automated weaving comes out? The elevator operators? The carriage drivers? The milkmen? No. So please stop reading your preconceived grievances into what I said.

I just see this as something that is not going to go away so the only rational choice is to get ahead of it and master it before it runs you over. If you love the act of creation and can adapt to a certain amount of change (or even see it as exciting), you'll be fine at this. If you have emotional hangups, well, that's irrational (no blame or judgment implied, it just... is literally irrational), and you might have to make some difficult choices that sit better with you.

I'm well-familiar with making irrational choices. I left a well-paid Microsoft shop and joined a startup and took a pay cut just so I could work with open source, years ago. It ended up paying off.

Do what your gut says. It's making the bets, after all.

And guess what. The people who have stared at code for years now are the ones who best stand to gain.