MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by sidkshatriya | 2026-03-11 17:09:36+00:00
Thanks for the detailed response. Gives me a list of some cool things to explore and learn about !

Every year in various conferences and every new major Linux cycle there are new innovations in the Linux network stack too. To do a true comparison it would be fair to see what innovations exist in the Linux networking stack that have not yet been implemented in FreeBSD. Yes, networking is FreeBSD's pride and joy but Google, Intel and others have done a lot of work on the Linux network stack too (which should not be underestimated).
by alephnerd | 2026-03-11 17:09:36+00:00
> It's a pity going public isn't worth it anymore.

Israeli VC is uninterested in IPOs in general - too much of an operational headache and it's difficult to exit a position.

In most cases an IPO isn't worth it for founders because an IPO means you lose operational control. It's basically the "Rich versus Kings" dichotomy [0].

Edit: can't reply

> you can control the share allocations going into an IPO to give you solid voting power

Investors do not like that - they want some degree of operational control in order to right the ship if needed.

In the early 2010s, IPOs like Tesla and Facebook were on terms that gave outside investors little control on operations (and that's why Musk and even Zuckerberg to a certain extent can choose to reorient to a new boondoggle with little-to-no investor pushback).

In 2026 if you want to IPO, it will be on the terms of JPMC, GS, etc who are underwriting the IPO.

In a private company, it's easier for an investor to offload or get bought out of their position if the founder wants to maintain operational control.

> If you’re acquired, you’re giving up ownership and you tend to lose operational control unless you have agreements in place that say otherwise

An acquisition happens when both the founders and investors want to exit.

[0] - https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=38550
by deepsquirrelnet | 2026-03-11 17:09:51+00:00
The title being misleading is important as well, because this has landed on the front page, and the only thing that would be the only notable part of this submission.

The "new" on huggingface banner has weights that were uploaded 11 months ago, and it's 2B params. Work on this in the repo is 2 years old.

The amount of publicity compared to the anemic delivery for BitNet is impressive.
by patchnull | 2026-03-11 17:10:08+00:00
The elephant in the room is that nobody has actually trained a competitive model at this scale with the BitLinear architecture. The framework is impressive engineering, but the original BitNet papers only validated up to around 10B parameters, and the quality gap between native 1.58-bit training and post-training quantization of a full-precision model narrows as quantization techniques improve. Meanwhile GGUF Q2 and Q3 quantizations on llama.cpp keep getting better and already run on commodity hardware without requiring a fundamentally different training pipeline. The real question is whether the theoretical compute advantage of ternary weights survives contact with the actual loss landscape at 100B scale, or if you hit quality cliffs that the smaller experiments did not reveal.
by lateforwork | 2026-03-11 17:10:22+00:00
Also relevant: The DOGE team set up a Starlink satellite at the White House [1].

DOGE staff installed the terminal on the Eisenhower Executive Office Building roof in February 2025 without notifying White House communications or cybersecurity teams, ignoring their prior warnings [2]. The resulting "Starlink Guest" Wi-Fi used only a password—no usernames or two-factor authentication—unlike standard networks requiring full VPN tunneling and device logging.

This allowed devices to evade monitoring, transmit untracked data outside secure channels, and potentially enable leaks or hacks, as noted by former officials and experts like ex-NSA hacker Jake Williams. A confrontation ensued with Secret Service when DOGE accessed the roof unannounced [3].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/17/us/politics/elon-musk-sta...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/06/07/starlin...

[3] https://www.wired.com/story/white-house-starlink-wifi/
by pizlonator | 2026-03-11 17:10:24+00:00
> This is such a bizarre take that I don't know whether it's just a trolling attempt or serious...

I'm being serious.

> Why should web-devs switch to WASM unless they have a specific problem to solve where WASM is the better alternative to JS?

They mostly shouldn't. There are very few problems where wasm is better.

If you want to understand why wasm is not better, see my other posts in this thread.
by nomel | 2026-03-11 17:10:40+00:00
yes you, a general intelligence, write a specific expert for a specific problem.

> If you want to argue that we don't need the concept of AGI, because something like specific experts could be enough to drastically change the economy, then sure! That would be true. But I think that's a slightly different, complimentary, conversation. Even then, say we have all these experts, then a system to intelligently dispatch problems to them...maybe that's a specific implementation of AGI that would work.

was to prevent this comment chain.

I think we'll have to give up at this point, with whatever smells you may be attempting to communicate with me. Cheers!
by bityard | 2026-03-11 17:10:56+00:00
"...in software" should have been appended to the title.

Back in the day, I was quite heavy into the x0xb0x. (https://www.ladyada.net/make/x0xb0x/) It's an open hardware 303 clone by Ladyada and was designed to use as many of the original 303 components as possible. According to those who own both, the sounds are essentially identical. (But the x0x is much easier to use.)

Somewhere in 2006, I was too late the to party to snag one of the original kits, but a little cottage industry formed on the x0xb0x forums to support the community of people who wanted to build and mod their own. Adafruit provided the PCBs, the common components came from DigiKey and Mouser, the rarer components from eBay or other forum members.

I ended up buying enough components to build six, but only ended up building three. The first one I kept, the other two I sold. I recouped my cost with those so I also ended up selling the rest of the components later as my interest in building them waned. I should have held onto those and built the rest with my kids when they got older, since even the replacement components are hard to come by these days and they are still a fun project to build.
by bluGill | 2026-03-11 17:11:12+00:00
touch screen phones are a useful compromise. If I'm going to write a lot I want a real keyboard and large monitor with all the features thereof. However often I just need a quick note and I'm not in the office. I would not carry a desktop computer to the airport (I'm old enough to remember the IBM XT luggable computer - built in CRT monitor, not battery: it was portable, but it was a real workout). A laptop is sometimes useful, and it isn't too bad to have one in a backpack, but it is still big and so won't be with you. A phone is the correct size of have in your pocket so you can "do something" while "the refs try to figure out which rule applies to this play".

Phones will always be miserable - but they are the least miserable option in a lot of situations and so I expect people to use them a lot just because the other tools are even worse.
by chaokunyang | 2026-03-11 17:11:13+00:00
If you already have .proto or .fbs schemas and you want shared/circular reference support, with the Fory compiler you can keep those schemas, add a small set of Fory options, then foryc generates idiomatic native models across Fory-supported languages

With fory first-class object graph serialziation support, you can serialize object graphs without manual *_id link reconstruction or rewriting your entire schema into Fory Schema.

1. GitHub: https://github.com/apache/fory

2. Compiler docs: https://fory.apache.org/docs/compiler
by mindslight | 2026-03-11 17:11:14+00:00
I read this when it was published (or perhaps partway and then it got lost in the tab forest). Thank you, because it was worth reading again for me, and lays out reasonable straightforward arguments for anyone just stumbling upon it for the first time.

But to be clear, what was I asking these interlocutors for was their definitions of fascism that back up the argument that trumpism is not fascism. So far I've only gotten "There is no definition of fascism that has meaning anymore" which is obviously nonsensical in the context of both Deveraux's and Doctorow's posts using the term productively.
by pizlonator | 2026-03-11 17:11:20+00:00
Figma is one site. There are also a handful of other sites that use wasm. But most of the web does not use wasm.

> Where it is currently fairly painful is in writing traditional websites, given all the glue code required to interact with the DOM - exactly what these folks are trying to solve.

I don't think they will succeed at solving the pain, for the reasons I have enumerated in this thread.
by baskvava | 2026-03-11 17:11:28+00:00
Hi HN,

I built react-zero-ai because I was tired of spinning up backend infrastructure and handling CORS just to do basic sentiment analysis or vector embeddings in my React apps. I also wanted a solution that guarantees absolute user privacy (no data leaves the browser).

Under the hood, it wraps Transformers.js models into standard React Hooks (useSentimentAnalysis, useEmbeddings, useImageClassifier) and automatically delegates the heavy ML workload to a pool of background Web Workers to keep the main UI thread silky smooth.

It's 100% offline, free (compute is offloaded to the user), and requires zero config (no WASM tooling required on your end).

I created a live demo here if you want to try it out right away: https://baskvava.github.io/react-zero-ai/

Would love to hear your feedback on the architecture or answer any questions about running WASM/Web Workers in React!
by wr639 | 2026-03-11 17:11:53+00:00
I am not very experienced but I was able to use Claude Code to build a test website, for my music, a test CRM, and me and my partner were planning to use it to make AI chatbots, when we were marketing these types of services last year. There were times when I found it frustrating due to my lack of experience. Someone mentioned token efficiency below and all the AI's seem to be designed to make you have to have it do things that you ask over and over again so it can use up as much tokens as it can before it gives you exactly what you need. Of course this may also be due to my lack of experience. I do have a friend with a great deal of experience who I go to for help and he even has issues with it at times.
by Tossrock | 2026-03-11 17:12:05+00:00
It certainly feels that way. Some tells:

"Precision, for LEGO, isn't an engineering choice, it's a brand promise." - The classic "It's not just x, it's y", just minus the "just".

"One philosophy optimizes for cost, the other for perfection." - Again we see the x/y structure; AI writing often features these forms, eg comparisons (x vs y), conversions (x into y), negated emphasis (not x, but y), etc.

"When you have multiple parts in an assembly, use statistical analysis for tolerance stack-up rather than worst-case math. Traceability matters. Track your defects so feedback turns precision into reliability." - More x/y followed by a short stinger ("Z matters"), and the closing sentence again follows the "x/y" pattern.

For funsies I tossed the whole thing into a purported AI detector and it said 90+% confidence of AI. I don't trust those types of things very much and suspect they have high false positive rates, but I have read that AI writing generally has measurably lower entropy, so maybe it's plausible, and in this case it aligns with my existing beliefs, so it obviously must be true.
by hungryhobbit | 2026-03-11 17:12:14+00:00
From the article:

const now = new Date();

The Temporal equivalent is:

const now = Temporal.Now.zonedDateTimeISO();

Dear god, that's so much uglier!

I mean, I guess it's two steps forward and one step back ... but couldn't they have come up with something that was just two steps forward, and none back ... instead of making us write this nightmare all over the place?

Why not?

const now = DateTime();
by perfmode | 2026-03-11 17:12:15+00:00
I think we're actually closer to agreement than it might seem.

You're right that the Wason task is partly about a mismatch between how "if" works in formal logic and how it works in everyday language. That's a fair point. But I think it actually supports what I'm saying rather than undermining it. If people default to interpreting "if x then y" as "if and only if" based on how language normally works in conversation, that is pattern-matching from familiar context. It's a totally understandable thing to do, and I'm not calling it a cognitive defect. I'm saying it's evidence that our default mode is contextual pattern-matching, not rule application. We agree on the mechanism, we're just drawing different conclusions from it.

Your own experience is interesting too. You got the right answer because you have some background in formal logic. That's exactly what I'd expect. Someone who's practiced in a domain recognizes the pattern quickly. But that's the claim: most reasoning happens within well-practiced domains. Your success on the task doesn't counter the pattern-matching thesis, it's a clean example of it working well.

On the broader point about LLMs having a "tenuous grasp on reality," I hear that, and I don't want to flatten the differences. There probably is something meaningfully different going on with how humans stay grounded. I just think the "humans reason, LLMs pattern-match" framing undersells how much human cognition is also pattern-matching, and that being honest about that is more productive than treating it as a reductionist insult.
Show HN: Fast-Axolotl – Rust extensions that make Axolotl fine-tuning 77x faster
by ticktockten | 2026-03-11 17:13:41+00:00
I built Rust extensions for Axolotl that dramatically speed up data loading and preprocessing for LLM fine-tuning.

The problem: Python data pipelines become the bottleneck when fine-tuning large models. Your GPUs sit idle waiting for data.

The solution: Drop-in Rust acceleration. One import line, zero config changes.

Results on 50k rows:
- Streaming data loading: 0.009s vs 0.724s (77x faster)
- Parallel SHA256 hashing: 0.027s vs 0.052s (1.9x faster)

Works with Parquet, Arrow, JSON, JSONL, CSV. Supports compression. Cross-platform.

Usage:

import fast_axolotl
import axolotl # now accelerated
pip install fast-axolotl

Built with PyO3 and maturin. MIT licensed. Happy to answer questions about the Rust/Python interop or benchmark methodology.
by jeffrallen | 2026-03-11 17:13:43+00:00
You think that one is cool, go check out "~?" in IPMI "sol activate". From there you can deliver a serial break to the kernel, which then gets you to a third rarely seen menu from the kernel's console, which allows you to do kernel debugging of various sorts.

I use it when I need to crash a kernel on purpose to test kdump over the network.

You can also send commands to the simulated console of a VM under libvirt with "virsh connect". But I don't think you can send a break to the kernel with that.
by alephnerd | 2026-03-11 17:14:04+00:00
Everyone in Israel who is entrepreneurial tries to self-select into 8200 - it's the equivalent of American high schoolers who want to enter VC and tech entrepreneurship targeting CS@Stanford.

In Israel, the university you attended matters less than the unit you served. For example, if you want to become a senior politician, you join Sayeret Matkal and if you want to become an academic you end up in Talpiot.

8200s success is largely due to a couple early exits by 8200 alums (Gili Raanan, Nir Zuk, Shlomo Kramer) who were biased in recruiting from their unit. 8200 alums aren't better or worse than other Israelis - they just have a better network.

And Israel has multiple SIGINT and offensive/defensive cybersecurity units, all of whom created similar networks as well.
by numpad0 | 2026-03-11 17:14:16+00:00
> They pay a lot less than it costs to buy Robux

I don't understand why that isn't regulated to hell by all sorts of securities and banking laws, with reporting requirements and background checks and eKYC and mandatory reserves and all that. If the poker chips can be transferred and then cashed, I don't think that's allowed in most gambling laws. That's way past gambling.
by perfmode | 2026-03-11 17:14:28+00:00
This is a real pain point and I run into the same tension in systems where data crosses serialization boundaries constantly. The prototype-stripping problem you're describing with JSON.parse/stringify is a specific case of a more general issue: rich domain objects don't survive wire transfer without a reconstitution step.

That said, I think the Temporal team made the right call here. Date-time logic is one of those domains where the "bag of data plus free functions" approach leads to subtle bugs because callers forget to pass the right context (calendar system, timezone) to the right function. Binding the operations to the object means the type system can enforce that a PlainDate never accidentally gets treated as a ZonedDateTime. date-fns is great but it can't give you that.

The serialization issue is solvable at the boundary. If you're using tRPC or similar, a thin transform layer that calls Temporal.Whatever.from() on the way in and .toString() on the way out is pretty minimal overhead. Same pattern people use with Decimal types or any value object that doesn't roundtrip through JSON natively. Annoying, sure, but the alternative is giving up the type safety that makes the API worth having in the first place.
by skydhash | 2026-03-11 17:14:33+00:00
You’re maybe trolling. But what exactly is slow? Or are you a superhuman typing 400 words a minute? Emacs have never crashed on me (I use it daily) and there are things you just can’t speed up. Multithreading just sidesteps the problem while introducing its own can of worms. The current async facilities are fine by me (I don’t use any auto* things, so YMMV).
by eternityforest | 2026-03-11 17:14:46+00:00
A web based inventory management app. I've wanted to try something like this for a long time, but it always seemed completely impractical to spend a few weeks on before AI, without knowing if the entire idea is actually practical.

So far, I think it is in fact worth it, but only in specific use cases, like very rarely accessed items with no obvious place, and making sure your AV gear you bring to events comes back with you.

* Every item is a container, unlimited nesting

* Everything stored in the browser with YJS, very clunky peer.js or manual file sync available

* Select an object, click add items, scan QR codes to add those items

* There's also NFC support on Chrome mobile

* Generate random printable QR sheets(Still need to fix sticker alignment issues)

* Tracks where an item was last scanned with GPS

* Save container contents as a loadout, check contents against loadout

* Can mark a container as needing re-inventory, contents that haven't been re-added after that show a warning

https://eternityforest.github.io/Stuffer/
by decidu0us9034 | 2026-03-11 17:14:56+00:00
Analysis of what? What does that mean? What's something you conceivably would need a consulting firm to "analyze?" I don't understand why management consulting firms would hire software people in the first place, and then punish them for not being on a client-facing project. That seems a bit contradictory to me, but this is all way out of my wheelhouse
by tracker1 | 2026-03-11 17:15:07+00:00
I'm practicing around 5/6, I've found that adding "skills" and mcp can sometimes negatively impact the process as much as help, so I've been somewhat constrained on overdoing it. As for 6, mostly just setup guardrails on repeat testing instructions and how to run/test/retest certain things... also to not just update tests when broken, but confirm the designed behavior.

Moving past that, I'm not sure that I really trust it... I feel that manual review of product behavior and code matters a lot. AI agents often make similar mistakes to real people in leaking abstractions or subtle mistakes with security... So I do review almost everything, at least at the level where a feature PR makes sense. Though an AI pass at that can help too.
by JumpCrisscross | 2026-03-11 17:15:17+00:00
> feels like inflation negates that hedge

A true hedge isn’t ever free. Paying some inflation today to score cheap assets tomorrow is fine. (Also, “cash” means cash and cash equivalents. You can lend your money to the USG for one month well above most inflation [1].)

[1] https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/...
by salawat | 2026-03-11 17:15:22+00:00
A system is what it does. If a Market crash causes the poor to have to sell everything at fire sale prices to the only people left with buying power... The Article writer isn't wrong. If the Market going up causes buying power of the poor cash holders to go down because of inflation, cementing buying power in the case of the next downturn into the asset holding few... The Article writer isn't wrong.

You scoff at their representation of the problem probably because you think they are blaming everyone else but themselves, but objectively speaking, they are making an observation that would hold if one were, in fact, observing a fundamentally rigged system architecture. If you break down the principles around how the system works, it's an inevitable conclusion buying power centralizes, the people it centralizes in gain influence over the optimization function, they optimize it toward greater value centralization, and away from other actor's capacity to exercise agency and survive. Stable feedback loop established, checkmate in 5 (whatever units it takes five of to hit your personal definition of an unacceptable degree of centralization.

Important thing to also note, is that even if your sympathies are vested with the people the power is centralizing in, you're threatened by the increased level of conspicuousness and undeniability to everyone else. If the odds of someone coming after you significantly increases after your first 1-10 million dollars say; getting you 1 possible attempt on your safety to foil every 5 years, but every billion gets you an attempt every couple weeks; is it really still worth it? There's a lot of "Them" and "They" only have to succeed once. It behooves one to acknowledge that those dollars are perhaps better distributed to the point of raising everyone else up so as not to make yourself such a conspicuous target.

Food for thought.
by 9wzYQbTYsAIc | 2026-03-11 17:15:34+00:00
Thanks!

I'm just now at the point of having done a manual human-in-the-loop test once, still working through core bugs, etc., so haven't had a chance to notice bottlenecking, but i'm using github issues for the moment as the escalation channel - ideally, it won't be an issue, over time, as the system accumulates lessons and decisions, etc. that guide it away from mistakes that require human escalation.
by mothballed | 2026-03-11 17:16:05+00:00
It took 100+ years of horribly repressive policies to start that war, including far worse tax schemes including things like straight up requiring burning half your tobacco or only selling it through monopolized channels that required paying tariffs to England before it could be re-exported anywhere else. Policies that resulted in mass starvation and death, sometimes resulting in failed rebellions (like Bacon's). So there's history of Americans being willing to spend decades starving to death to pay high taxes or economically destructive policies before they will successfully rebel against it.
by RiverCrochet | 2026-03-11 17:16:37+00:00
WELL, THE CAPITAL LETTER FORMS WERE THE ORIGINAL ONES, THEN LOWERCASE ONES WERE CREATED BECAUSE THEY WERE FASTER FOR THE MONKS TO WRITE WHO WERE COPYING BOOKS. SOURCE: ROMAN RUINS. WE'RE NOT MONKS SO DEF COMPLETELY OBSOLETE. SO IF YOU WANT TO THROW OUT THE CAPITALIZATION RULES ENTIRELY, DO IT RIGHT AND USE ALL CAPS. THIS WOULD DEFINITELY MAKE IDEAS EASIER TO TRANSMIT AND RECEIVE.