MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by johnnyanmac | 2026-03-02 01:53:44+00:00
>some of this is a consequence of a growing sense that we live in a low trust society.

Exactly. YMMV but that is 100% true in many urban areas. Too many people leads to less meaningful connections. I imagine much of this community lies in those urban hotspots.

>I hope more and more people do not continue to believe that

it's going to continue. Low trust societies are a structural issue, and I see little initiative to fix it. People constantly need to move around due to rising costs of living, there's no commmunity hubs, third places, frequently meeting clubs, etc. to build such community. Work hours are creeping up while compensation and stability is going down. Where would you find the time to meet up?

It's all an economic issue at the end of the day. There's a part of the equation where we don't "need" to work with as many people anymore to get by. But for he most part, it's very similar to the walk-ability issue in the US. There won't be some mass change all at once, but people take cues and change heir habits around heir environment.

For my environment, I'm a night owl and everything in my town is closed by 8pm or so. I don't like the loud environments of bars. So there's nowhere for me to really go.
by Veedrac | 2026-03-02 01:53:59+00:00
Maybe I am just out of my depth, but I don't understand what problem quantum Darwinism is solving. The Schrödinger equation already explains why observers seem to agree: the ones that don't are separated from each other.

This article is making some pilot-wave-like claim on top of quantum Darwinism that while the Schrödinger equation is real, all the 'real realness' exists in some pointer to a specific location inside it. Why does it do this? Where does this claim come from? At least collapse theories allow that the thing the Schrödinger equation is modelling is actually real up until the part God gets out his frustum culler.
by toss1 | 2026-03-02 01:54:04+00:00
Ah, good, we generally agree

For sure, Anthropic should NOT have been forced to decide the ethics of deploying their tech

Nevertheless, they should always be considering the ethics of their own creations and actions, and it seems they are — as soon as they got bullied by a failing regime, they had the right answer: 'no, that is not ethical and we won't allow it with our products'.

The problem is that the law only very roughly captures what is right and just, so there are many things that are legal that are unethical, at the same time there are many things that are ethical but illegal. So, we can't entirely outsource our personal or corporate ethics to the law.
by amatecha | 2026-03-02 01:54:59+00:00
yeah! I've done some geocaching (or even just walking around exploring) while on my travels, and have very often encountered these "leave one, take one" type of free libraries along the way. It's really interesting to find different types of books depending on the area - the small town on an island of course has all these books on marine travel, sailing, that sort of stuff, for example. Nice way to get a little extra idea of the area and its culture, sometimes.
by fuzzfactor | 2026-03-02 01:55:09+00:00
>keep SOPs in sync with actual workflows?

Don't make me laugh :)

Your approach may help though, seems like it might be an advantage to use high-touch sales efforts.

I'm very procedurally oriented, but not in a software company. Very familiar with SOPs from when the only way to disseminate them was on paper. There are some common denominators between software workflows and physical tasks though.

A perfect SOP that says it all, and is all you need has become more of a formality the more it is required rather than enthusiastically built, embraced, and maintained by every operator.

But nobody's perfect and most of the time there is no enthusiasm whatsoever, so the first thing you end up with is a formality that just barely passes the requirements, and nobody ever wants to look at again.

Consider how it is in an orchestra.

Everybody has their sheet music in front of them at all times, but if that's all you have to go on it's not as accomplished as it could be. The best performers have it well-rehearsed and mostly memorized to begin with and put more into their performance than what can be gotten down on paper anyway. New members can often gain more by learning the particular ins and outs from their associates or conductor, especially when the paperwork is the same old type of table-stakes stuff they have seen before.

I think it would be difficult to cater to orgs where the enthusiasm is top-to-bottom, in the same way as others where it's an afterthought because a checkbox needs filling.
Show HN: Foundations Chat, macOS AI chat built on Apple's local models
by coevcan | 2026-03-02 01:55:51+00:00
Private macOS AI Chat - Powered by Apple's On-Device Models

Offline, no model downloads, 100% local. Natural voice chat, generate images via Image Playground, search your calendar, and run code — all on-device.

Freeware experiment testing Apple's foundation model capabilities for chat (performance varies; not production-ready).

Github: https://github.com/codeeverywhereca/FoundationsLLMChat
by marcus_holmes | 2026-03-02 01:56:47+00:00
I hear that, and yeah, it's a possible future but I'm not sure it's the certain one.

The maintenance costs are kinda overrated: you fire up the LLM, point it at the code base and say "this needs fixing". I'd say that the maintenance costs of dealing with endless patches and fixes from a SaaS for features that you don't use is probably more onerous.

And generally we're talking about the situation where the SaaS customer is a domain expert in their area of expertise, but that isn't software development. They can use a system incredibly well, they just can't develop it. They have in-house IT folks to maintain their computers, networks, etc, and they're really just adding a couple of people to develop and maintain some applications via LLM to that team.

We're already seeing some of this, so it'll be interesting to see how far it goes.
by diacritical | 2026-03-02 01:57:47+00:00
Randomness doesn't imply free will. What if you/I are NPCs that just roll the dice before doing something? It's not you that chose the outcome, it's the dice, i.e. the laws of physics.

I don't know how free will could actually work with any kind of universe governed by a set of laws, whether they include randomness or not. So I don't believe in it, but of course in my day to day life I act as if it exists.

Yet I don't know how qualia or subjective experiences could actually work with any kind of universe governed by a set of laws, whether they include randomness or not. But I believe I have this subjective view of the world that doesn't seem to be explainable with a set of equations.

So it's weird. At least philosophy and science agree that.
by theultdev | 2026-03-02 01:59:04+00:00
The "food" was a catch-all. Pretty sure that was clear.

Beer and cat litter alone are the heavy items, and don't fit stable in a bike, especially in bad weather.

Plus 2 weeks of groceries, depending on what you need can really add up.

On a bike? Fah-get-a-bout-it. Guess I'd be biking my ass to the store every day.

Or I could live in the present and drive an actual car.
by getsun | 2026-03-02 01:59:06+00:00
Curious: How do AI bots actually interact with humans?
Builder: Chat.

Curious: That’s the old way. How do they interact naturally in a group—like a meeting—without a chat box?

Builder: Voice.

Curious: But most real-time models are built for one-on-one. In a meeting you need to handle interruptions, follow-ups, multiple speakers… and the hardest part: knowing when to speak vs stay quiet.

Builder: Exactly. Otherwise it’s awkward or annoying.

Curious: That’s why SUN is different. It’s a real-time collaborative voice model built for group conversations—tracks context, handles those nuances, and speaks only when it adds value.

Builder: So it’s not a chatbot with a mic. It’s a teammate in the room.

Curious: That’s the future of natural human–agent collaboration. That’s SUN.

Sun powers voice agents that join meetings and calls as active collaborators: listening, speaking when needed, synthesizing discussion, managing context across multiple participants, and generating clear summaries and action items. It is designed to sit alongside how teams already work (calls, screenshares, browser workflows) and make collaboration more productive without forcing new behavior.

Video demo:https://youtu.be/rkF-R_1skoo
Live demo:https://demo.getsun.io/
by bhekanik | 2026-03-02 01:59:49+00:00
The skill-based approach has been a game changer for me. Instead of wrestling with MCP server configs, I just write a small markdown file describing the CLI tool and its common use cases. The agent loads it on demand when it detects the tool is relevant. Much simpler than maintaining a running process, and the documentation lives right next to my code rather than in some separate server config. The composability argument is what really sold me - piping through jq, chaining commands, redirecting to files... that's stuff I do daily and never have to think about.
by kinnth | 2026-03-02 02:00:17+00:00
That was one of the most helpful walkthroughs i've read. Thanks for explaining so well with all of the steps.

I wasn't a coder but with AI I am actually writing code. The more i familiarise myself with everything the easier it becomes to learn. I find AI fascinating. By making it so simple and clear it helps when i think what i need to feed it.
by davidguetta | 2026-03-02 02:00:24+00:00
You have no idea of what you are talking about.

Universal healthcare is the norm in all of west / central europe, it's good quality, accessible for EVERYBODY (including the poors), and doctors still have great quality of life and are rich.

You guys are just getting f** by a mafia in the US and defending it for no factual reasons. Both by the military industrial complex AND the medical field btw.
by dwattttt | 2026-03-02 02:00:27+00:00
> Not sure why knife dealers would be assumed to be more moral than firearms dealers

What I mean is that you _did_ judge them by a standard used for weapons manufacturers. How you react to their actions _is_ your judgement.

But perhaps that is the standard we should use. Weapons manufacturing is a well regulated industry after all. Export controls, dual-use technology restrictions, if it has applications for warfare it should be appropriately restricted.
by Qwertious | 2026-03-02 02:01:33+00:00
"hinging the decision on whether your legs or your wrist is turning is illogical"

No it's not, it's recognizing the psychology between "big push with foot makes go fast" and "pressing button makes go fast".

Besides, if the only thing that matters is speed, then logically you'd have to require normal pushbikes to register as well, once cyclists are able to pedal sufficiently fast.
by eqvinox | 2026-03-02 02:02:00+00:00
Exactly this. Burning in a shared secret works; alternatively you could do something with private keys burned into each device, signed with some PKI scheme whose public keys are known to the other entity.

Notably both of these turn it into a 'microscope' problem, alternatively if the key leaks somewhere…

At the end of the day, if the system is to process the data, it needs to access it. (Homomorphic encryption nonwithstanding.)
by nvllsvm | 2026-03-02 02:02:04+00:00
I've been running Claude Code in a Docker compose environment with two containers - one without Claude that has all the credentials setup and a Claude container which transparently executes commands via ssh. The auth container then has wrappers which explicitly allow certain subcommands (eg. `gh api` isn't allowed). The `gh` command in the Claude container is just a wrapper script which bassically `ssh auth-container gh-wrapper`.

Lots of manual, opinionated stuff in here, but it prevents Claude from even accessing the credentials and limits what it can do with them.
by forrestpitz | 2026-03-02 02:02:45+00:00
> Why turn a junior into a senior yourself if you can get the competition to pay for it instead.

Reminds me a bit of the quote

The manager says "what if I train them and they leave?" And the response is "what if you don't and they stay". Leaving unskilled and underdeveloped people in you organization is a recipe for disaster.
by goku12 | 2026-03-02 02:03:03+00:00
> ... because the discoverability is lower than GUIs.

The UI paradigm created by the emacs transient package [1] can improve the discoverability of CLI commands significantly. It's one of the components of magit, the famous git frontend, so awesome. It's discoverability is very close to that of GUIs and somehow even more pleasing to use than GUIs. I wonder if someone is trying this on terminals.

[1] https://github.com/magit/transient
by porridgeraisin | 2026-03-02 02:04:08+00:00
This is the key. Personally I think you just have to something similar to an auditor or whatever. Demand that if a self driving taxi operates in your city, they assign one legally responsible person per $major-division-of-city. All accidents in that region are due to that guy.

Naturally, this will incentivise them to improve the system that deals with edge cases in their ML model, and better yet you'll have the legally responsible guy shit himself and directly manage remote drivers for his location himself. Adds another layer of accountability.
by sbuttgereit | 2026-03-02 02:04:38+00:00
This was a good discussion on the topics involved as well; between Jacob Barandes & Tim Maudlin. Though I don't recommend watching this without first getting some familiarity with Barandes's ideas... while there's some explanatory dialog in this video I'm posting, mostly is a discussion. It's nice to see the ideas (politely) challenged and answered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xPvxAdmhKM
by ardanur | 2026-03-02 02:06:13+00:00
Polymarket is effectively an assassination auction list, you just need to find out which low likelihood resolutions can be swayed by someone's death. But you would need to have money to start which is something aspiring assassins aren't likely to have. And you would also need the skills to launder cryptocurrencies effectively.

This is also true with traditional stock markets, except that laundering real money is much harder to do alone. In the real world an assassin can't really involve more people as those people would realize they are loose ends since they have a get-out-of-jail card in turning on you.

The markets could get ahead of this by stipulating that a resolution via murder will always lead to resolution at prices at a time prior to the death. This would technically incentivize a potential assassin to commit a deniable murder, but if they succeed it won't be the market's [PR] problem.
by Tostino | 2026-03-02 02:07:22+00:00
You know who generally stops at a stop sign or stoplight? People on an e-bike, compared to people riding for sport or commuting on road bikes. It's not a big deal to stop and get started again when you have a motor. It's a pain in the ass when you're trying to make it to work on time with your legs.

Why is having a license plate even relevant here? Most traffic enforcement is done when an officer sees something happen.
by SOLAR_FIELDS | 2026-03-02 02:07:44+00:00
I deal with a ton of different atlassian instances and the most infuriating thing to me about the mcp configuration is that atlassian really thinks you should only have one atlassian instance to auth against. Their mcp auth window takes you to a webpage where you can’t see which thing you are authoring against forcing you to paste the login page url into an incognito window. Pretty half baked implementation.

I noticed that it’s better for some things than others. It’s pretty bad at working with confluence it just eats tokens but if you outlay a roadmap you want created or updated in Jira it’s pretty good at that
by cyberax | 2026-03-02 02:07:47+00:00
"Stealing videos"?!? Are we back in 2005 again?

All the videos are _already_ available anyway, several minutes after they're available on Netflix. And on Youtube they are _literally_ free, with ads. People sign up for Netflix subscriptions to not bother with torrents and pirate forums, and for Youtube Premium to avoid ads.

That's why it makes no freaking sense to _not_ make your content available for paid subscribers using APIs.
by anand_pattern | 2026-03-02 02:07:56+00:00
Curious: How do AI bots actually interact with humans?

Builder: Chat.

Curious: That’s the old way. How do they interact naturally in a group—like a meeting—without a chat box?

Builder: Voice.

Curious: But most real-time models are built for one-on-one. In a meeting you need to handle interruptions, follow-ups, multiple speakers… and the hardest part: knowing when to speak vs stay quiet.

Builder: Exactly. Otherwise it’s awkward or annoying.

Curious: That’s why SUN is different. It’s a real-time collaborative voice model built for group conversations—tracks context, handles those nuances, and speaks only when it adds value.

Builder: So it’s not a chatbot with a mic. It’s a teammate in the room.

Curious: That’s the future of natural human–agent collaboration. That’s SUN.
by fc417fc802 | 2026-03-02 02:08:28+00:00
Perhaps. It's also possible that the approach simply precludes the use of the best tool for the job. Backprop is quite powerful and it just doesn't work in the face of heavy quantization.

Whereas if you're already using evolution strategies or a genetic algorithm or similar then I don't expect changing the bit width (or pretty much anything else) to make any difference to the overall training efficiency (which is presumably already abysmal outside of a few specific domains such as RL applied to a sufficiently ambiguous continuous control problem).
by __MatrixMan__ | 2026-03-02 02:09:13+00:00
Oh there will be something up there that they call a datacenter. It doesn't have to actually work for them to point at it and say "the data is up there and therefore is not subject to whatever regional regulation you're hassling me about."

It's a bit like how one guy bought alpaca socks on the silk road and thousands pointed to those socks and said "see, it's not for crime."
by caditinpiscinam | 2026-03-02 02:10:40+00:00
I agree that it's a sad state of affairs, and a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe I can explain my perspective in a little more detail.

In my typical day at work (teacher), I spend hours talking with dozens of people. A large part of why I chose this work was to escape the isolation that I felt previously when I was doing remote software work. I attend weekly religious services and make an effort to stay for the social hour afterwards. When I go to parties, I don't feel like I have an unusually hard time talking with people. I'm not always as engaged with the world as I'd like, but I don't feel that I'm avoiding it either.

But this article isn't broadly about having conversations with new people: it's about approaching strangers in public settings one-on-one (the article mentions a bus stop, the street, and a mostly empty train carriage), where there's no expectation of social interaction. This is a different situation with its own set of pitfalls. Nobody is going to assume that I'm trying to rob them when I introduce myself at Quaker meeting. No one is going to think I'm a creep for asking a student about their hobbies while I'm at school. We don't see articles about people getting shot for starting up a conversation at a party.

But all of that goes out the window in the settings that the author describes. It's funny, the author mentions feeling like it was "rude and unsafe" to start a chat during the pandemic. I felt like talking to strangers in public got much easier during the pandemic, when people were desperate for any sort of in-person conversation. It's the normal times when this sort of interaction feels rude and unsafe.

Maybe I'm too pessimistic, maybe it would be fine for me to let my guard down a little. I think that loneliness is a huge issue these days and I'm grateful for the efforts people are making (including the author of the article) to address it. But approaching strangers in public in the way the author describes is a special case that is *much* more fraught than other types of social interaction, and is a lot harder for certain people to do successfully. I wish it weren't that way, and maybe it's worth pushing back against, but that doesn't change the current reality. Some people might not feel this way, but they're probably the people for whom it's not true.
by Qwertious | 2026-03-02 02:11:06+00:00
Is $$$ not an advantage? Motorbikes are at least triple the price AIUI, not to mention more regulated. The main advantage of an ebike is that it's basically a pushbike (in terms of cost) but it lets you be lazy and unfit while still using it successfully as if you were fit.

Yes, there's a few extra hundred bucks in cost, and there's an electricity bill for charging it, but frankly that's nothing. You can buy an ebike for 3 digits, and you could include the power bill in that figure and not notice.
by kace91 | 2026-03-02 02:12:00+00:00
Yup. I’m super social and extroverted, in the sense that I love meeting new people and if I’m introduced to anyone I make connections easily. But I can’t in a million years be the one breaking the ice.

This is in big part due to being born and raised in a large European capital. There’s unwritten barriers you respect as a social rule, and if someone breaks the rule you assume they’re trying to sell something or scam you. To me talking to a stranger unprompted feels as out of place as pulling my pants down in public.

It’s natural for these barriers to exist to make dense spaces liveable, but they do constrain you.
by thesz | 2026-03-02 02:12:01+00:00
> but I think it's unfair to say that LLMs _cannot_ recognize or generate CFGs.

They recognize and/or generate finite (<800 chars) grammars in that paper.

Usually, sizes of files on a typical Unix workstation follow two-mode log-normal distribution (sum of two log-normal distributions), with heavy tails due to log-normality [1]. Authors of the paper did not attempt to model that distribution.

[1] This was true for my home directories for several years.
by lovelearning | 2026-03-02 02:13:29+00:00
I'm not an extrovert. Introversion itself was probably more of a euphemism that I used to rationalize something closer to social anxiety.

But I feel I'm better off now for doing what the article suggested, over the last 5-6 years. Doing so improved my knowledge, my empathy, grew my revenue, built larger professional networks, introduced me to hobby networks, and helped with better financial planning.

I even changed to the extent of actually looking forward to outreach activities that involve a lot of conversations. I find them very satisfying because they help me understand social realities and people better than social media and books and help me develop empathy.

I wouldn't say I'm now an extrovert. My personality still prefers a lot of alone time. There are times when I still don't feel like talking to anyone. But they're now for positive reasons like books to finish rather than negative reasons like social anxiety.

I now tend to see things like introversion and social anxiety as obstacles. One can rationalize them in many ways but they'll remain objective obstacles IMO.
by lunar-whitey | 2026-03-02 02:13:36+00:00
The existence of yet worse systems does not make the American system fair. It is not difficult to picture societies where it is not required to build wealth for 4 generations to achieve moderate economic security. Further, specific measures to reduce systemic poverty in America are feasible without any kind of radical societal collapse.

Many wealthy people remain so despite (rarely, even because of) problems with impulse control or irrational perseverance. Exacerbation of these behaviors by stress is well understood. Why are they considered fatal moral defects only in people of low socioeconomic status?