MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Swizec | 2026-03-04 01:43:56+00:00
I agree. What counts as a positive signal for "scope" really very much depends what you're hiring for.

When looking for a manager type, people under management are a decent proxy. When looking for the world's greatest postgres optimization expert, some version of queries-per-second is prob the metric you want.

Or realistically if I needed the world's greatest Postgres expert (and could afford them), I would go talk to experts in the field and ask "Who's the best postgres person you know?" and work from there. At that point your resume is but a formality.
Show HN: Ukcalculator.com – Free UK tax, salary and mortgage calculators
by mystart | 2026-03-04 01:44:06+00:00
I've been using various UK salary calculators for years — ListenToTaxman, The Salary Calculator, Reed's tool — and my main frustration has always been the same: ad-heavy layouts, outdated designs, and results that sometimes don't match each other by £50–£100 on the same gross salary.

UKCalculator.com (ukcalculator.com) launched in 2018 and covers the usual suspects (income tax, NI, PAYE, mortgage repayments, stamp duty, VAT), but what caught my eye was the claim that all tools are verified by qualified accountants and updated every April against HMRC rates — not just once at launch.

The site is completely free, no account required. Compare this to tools like TaxCalc (paid desktop software) or GoSimpleTax (£105+ per return), this sits in a different lane — quick estimation rather than filing.

Curious whether anyone has stress-tested the salary calculator outputs against payslips or HMRC's own estimator. Do the Scottish tax band calculations hold up? Any edge cases it misses (salary sacrifice, multiple income sources)?
by bananaflag | 2026-03-04 01:45:32+00:00
Well the main thing he is known for is "it's all gonna crash" and that's a fact that this page admits he's wrong about.

Everything else, yeah, he's right, and I never doubted. I agree LLMs are unreliable, insecure etc. But I don't deduce from that that they're gonna amount to nothing.
by doubled112 | 2026-03-04 01:46:07+00:00
Being soldered on is a huge issue to 99% of people and businesses wanting to repair or upgrade something.

I don’t have the tools or skills to replace soldered on memory chips when they fail. Nobody at my place of work does. Nobody was doing that type of work in a warranty centre I worked in either.

I’d need to buy an entire motherboard, which will much more expensive, and likely more time consuming, than swapping a couple of memory modules.
by PrateekRao01 | 2026-03-04 01:46:53+00:00
Three signals you've crossed from prompt issues to systemic memory pollution:
1.Behavior drifts without prompt changes (memories are accumulating contradictions).
2.Failures aren't reproducible in a single call (the bad write happened sessions ago).
3.Failures spread across agents (Agent B confidently repeats Agent A's hallucination).

Scale isn't about total size; it's (Write Frequency × Agent Count × Session Overlap). Pollution can start at just a few hundred writes/day.

The leading indicator: Memory Contradiction Rate. If >15% of new writes conflict with existing memories, you're in systemic territory regardless of scale.
by anonnona8878 | 2026-03-04 01:47:29+00:00
FUBAR Daily: a satirical morning digest for internet pioneers now stuck in the dead internet era.

Targeting tech-literate professionals in their mid-30s to late 40s — the people who burned CDs, survived MySpace, and now prompt AI for a living — FUBAR sits at the intersection of technology and culture, where social collapse meets Silicon Valley hype cycles and governments scramble to regulate things they don't understand.

Every morning, a heavily customised LLM model curates and rewrites trending topics into snackable, brutally honest briefings delivered with the warmth of a sarcastic friend who reads too much news. The tone is satirical but grounded, subtly nihilistic, always a little too real.
The design leans into neobrutalism and terminal-style aesthetics, a nod to the era when computers felt like tools you controlled, not systems that control you.

FUBAR is for people who know deep down that things are, quite literally, royally screwed. Let’s suffer together.
by OptionOfT | 2026-03-04 01:47:39+00:00
I think credit card fees are often positioned against what businesses believe is the cost of cash, i.e. zero.

However, with cash one needs to have / has / has to pay for:

* a more complex register
* a person who takes more time to do the transaction
* someone who counts the register at the end of the day to ensure it matches
* someone who drives to the bank to deposit the money (at random times)
* additional insurance
* a bank account which probably charges for these cash services

If you don't count time, then cash is better.

And also, in Europe, if you as a business prefer cash, we all know it means that you make X, but you only report X/2.
by owenversteeg | 2026-03-04 01:47:42+00:00
I haven’t looked into this specific case, but most of the time the limiting factor is other traffic. You’re not traveling at full speed the whole time. If a lower speed adds 10 minutes to the average trip, but it reduces 9 minutes’ worth of traffic, you’ve only lost net one minute. A lower speed limit will often reduce traffic because the speed-up-slow-down behavior is reduced.

Personally, I have driven around the Netherlands a fair bit and this sort of thing does seem to be roughly true for the median case. It can definitely be annoying when the streets are empty, though. For those journeys you’re obviously losing a fair bit of time.
by marcus_holmes | 2026-03-04 01:47:44+00:00
I use Zed, but not the AI bits of it. Works really well as a plain code editor. I hope they remember there are folks like me who just want a better code editor than the miserable shite that is VSCode, without all the LLM stuff in it.

Not that I have a problem with the LLM stuff, I just use the LLM in a shell and then use Zed to fix the problems in the output.
by tombert | 2026-03-04 01:49:11+00:00
I have the ThinkPad p16s AMD gen 2. What it lacks in name it makes up for with being the most headache-free computer I have ever had (including a Macbook).

Everything works pretty well out of the box, it never really overheats, Linux support required basically no effort with NixOS, the keyboard feels pretty nice, the screen is bright and easy to read, and fortunately I bought it when RAM prices weren't insane so I got the 64GB model.

I haven't tried repairing it yet but considering how well it's been working I'm not even sure I'll need ever need to. If this laptop gets stolen, I will likely just buy another ThinkPad, I'm a complete convert.
by markus_zhang | 2026-03-04 01:49:52+00:00
For my personal projects, I use AI for discussion only. I treat it as a better Google and sometimes a fake psychiatrist. I don't really fully trust it, so I verify afterwards. If someone else wants to vibe code, I mean please do so as long as you enjoy the process. Personally I enjoy the coding process so I wouldn't want to copy/paste code, let alone letting it write directly in some editor.

For my work I use it extensively. I use Cursor as a senior engineer who breaks down problems and only writes the parts that interests me. I trust AI with other parts and do a review afterwards. AI prompting is a real skill. I don't like it but I don't like my work either.
by ribosometronome | 2026-03-04 01:50:06+00:00
That all sounds quite similar rather than different.

>We don't vote for a policy (although that is a common misconception.) The collective power of voting is often voting against a person/party : voting them out.

Few people get coffee to support union labor but knowing that a coffee shop is actively antagonistic toward unionization may cause you to choose a different shop. The collective power of voting with your dollar is to 'vote in' businesses. The businesses not receiving votes must change or find themselves voted out. Much like politicians, businesses can also look at where the money-votes are going.
by socketcluster | 2026-03-04 01:50:20+00:00
Google buried my popular open source project deep in its search results. It's a very niche technical field with niche keywords but it shows all the scams and paid services on the front page and my project is not even in the first 5 pages when I type exact keywords that are present in the page. It only shows my project when I type its exact name.

It feels like Google is actively discriminating against my project in its algorithms. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some code in the google algorithm which is something like if (untrustedDomain(domain)) score -= x and they probably have some highly paid 'engineer' maintaining this blacklist.
by alephnerd | 2026-03-04 01:52:16+00:00
> I think you over estimate how valuable really good Principal level talent is when you have AIs that can take over for entire teams.

I think you mean underestimate.

A good principal engineer (and they almost always are good) is someone who can understand both business requirements as well as the architectural foundations that underlay the product itself.

Principal (and Principal track Staff, Senior, and early-career) SWEs aren't going anywhere. In fact in an LLM-driven world, their domain experience is much more critical.
by latexr | 2026-03-04 01:52:52+00:00
> Well the main thing he is known for is "it's all gonna crash" and that's a fact that this page admits he's wrong about.

Have there been specific claims about when it’s going to crash? I find it hard to believe he claimed it was all going to crash by early 2026. Maybe I’m wrong, I haven’t read all of his posts. But neither did the authors, they admit in the repo this is all LLM, nothing was verified by humans.
by dakolli | 2026-03-04 01:53:12+00:00
Why would he need to make rebuttal, they back up a lot of his claims and show he's becoming more accurate with each year that goes by. The ares where he's less accurate are largely prediction that haven't had time to come to fruition or exaggerated for rhetorical purposes, sometimes you need to use hyperbole to get through to people.

I don't know if this will cause a ton of capital destruction, I doubt it, it will probably destroy a bunch of the slot machine/gambling addicts who are paying 5k a month on their credit cards thinking an autocomplete API is going to provide a profitable business.

A large part of this is a scam, just like many aspects of crypto were scams while others were not, this hype is very similar to NFT/Crypto hype from 2018-2023. Yes, some things were born out of those industries that are genuinely useful, a lot were not, its the same with AI.

Potential AI winter, I think there will be a "winter" just like crypto, but even during crypto's winter, some companies continued to operate and innovate but 90% disappeared. I believe the same thing will happen, and soon. Watch what happens to companies like Perplexity over the next 12-16 months lol.
by dvt | 2026-03-04 01:54:19+00:00
I'm still not sure I fully understand the methodology. For example if Marcus makes the claim: "OpenAI sucks!" why would OpenAI's blog ever corroborate that? The sources used are all AI company blogs (Anthropic, Google, OpenAI) filled with inoffensive corpo-speak likely written to be as middle-of-the-ground as possible. In fact, I'd need an A/B test to make sure the LLM itself can properly rate various claims (positive, negative, and neutral) against such corporate sludge.

Small aside: I'm only bringing this up because last year I worked on a game where you had to solve various moral dilemmas in a 1v1 situation (think trolley experiment and one player says "flip the switch" and the other says "don't flip the switch")—the idea was to get an LLM to rate the arguments in a fun turn-based online game. I built it out, but I kind of gave up when I realize how absolutely awful the LLM was at actually rating arguments and their nuances. It legitimately felt more like rolling a dice than a real "judge." I put that project aside but might do a Show HN at some point since the game is basically done.

Adjudication[1]—which is the real meat of this project—is done in a very partial way and I genuniely see basically zero value. Why not crawl reddit (or HN)? I know that also has issues, but it at least has more variety of tone.

[1] https://github.com/davegoldblatt/marcus-claims-dataset/blob/...
by grehbies | 2026-03-04 01:54:45+00:00
To me, it's just another example of what the poor and marginalized in this country have known for generations, finally catching up to the comfortable class. It's easier to count the institutions that AREN'T pay-to-play, especially those associated with the law and courts.

Know what's fun? Facing down a trained attorney as a pro se litigant in small claims court. Want to beat the 70-90% loss rate for pro se litigants in a forum that was originally designed specifically for pro se litigants? Hire a lawyer, lol.

Small claims, true to the name, is the lowest of low stakes. It's downhill from there.
by shimman | 2026-03-04 01:54:59+00:00
There are plenty of ground breaking apps but they aren't making billions of advertising revenue, nor do they have large numbers. I honestly think torrent applications (and most peer to peer type of stuff) are very cool and very useful for small-medium groups but it'll never scale to a billion user thing.

Do agree it's a weird metric to have, but can't think of a better one outside of "business" but that still seems like a poor rubric because the vast majority of people care about things that aren't businesses and if this "life altering" technology basically amounts to creating digital slaves then maybe we as a species shouldn't explore the stars.
by varun_ch | 2026-03-04 01:55:32+00:00
It’s unclear if the article is talking about a hosted service or something ‘self hostable’.

> Employees working on it have considered making the code repository available for purchase to OpenAI's customer base.

This makes it sound like the ‘product’ is a self hostable git web interface/forge(like Gitea, ForgeJo etc), which would be interesting.
by anigbrowl | 2026-03-04 01:55:48+00:00
Forget 'after' the war; unless Iran surrenders or undergoes a dramatic regime change (neither of which have more than 5% probability in my view) there is no way for the US to get a win condition without somehow taking custody of Iran's nuclear materiél. The tissue-thin casus belli here is that after we 'obliterated' their nuclear enrichment capacity 8 months ago, they are somehow back to being within weeks of having enough fissile material for a bomb.

Since every Israeli-financed politician in the US (which is most of them) feels the need to reiterate that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon every 5 minutes to prevent their smartphone exploding we can't just bomb them for a while and then declare victory; we're now in the official position (per Rubio) of having to attack them preëmptively any time Israel feels like bombing them, and Israel seems to feel like bombing Iran as often as possible. There's no way out of this cycle without removing Iran's ability to maintain and enrich nuclear fuel and/or configure it into a bomb and there's no way of definitively doing that without taking possession of it. No matter how many bombs we drop on their (known) nuclear facilities, the results of such a campaign can be instantly obviated by an intelligence report claiming the existence of more. And there's simply no way of taking possession of the nuclear materials without a ground war, which is a near-certain disaster.

I also doubt Trump and his coterie have seriously considered the possibility that if the Islamic Republic's back is absolutely against the wall, they're highly incentivized to launch a 'dirty' bomb using fissile material with conventional explosives. It doesn't have to do significant kinetic damage: if they drop a few missiles on Tel Aviv and/or Jerusalem and make it clear that they have a radioactive payload, the Israelis will cast away the small amount of strategic objectivity they have left. No matter what the government of Israel may say at that point, I cannot see the highly-propagandized Israeli population just deciding not to worry about being radioactively dusted.
by dakolli | 2026-03-04 01:56:00+00:00
Well, many will crash before they ever get to IPO. Phind closed shop last month a few weeks after raising millions. But yes, the areas where they are claiming he's wrong, have largely not had time to come to fruition. Lets reevaluate his claims about scams and markets in a year. I'd bet my net worth that Perplexity and similar wrapper products are acquired out of existence in <16 months.
by alephnerd | 2026-03-04 01:56:35+00:00
Western Europe has a very different hiring market for SWEs due to how traditional industries like financial services, media, law, government, pharma, chemicals, and automotive are overrepresented.

In these kinds of organizations, software is viewed as a cost-center and as such the only way you as a SWE can protect yourself is to climb up the management chain as soon as possible.
by ripped_britches | 2026-03-04 01:57:24+00:00
Strange, I had the same thought about doing this exact exercise this weekend.

I think the overall percentage is the wrong approach here.

It’s easy to say a lot of things that are factually true or predictions that are inevitably true.

However the more salient point with Gary Marcus is the one unforgivable thing he was wrong about and continues to double down on which is that deep learning is hitting a wall.

Starting in early 2022 and going through today, there is still so much low hanging fruit with deep learning.

Today’s LLM progress is mostly being made in RL. But world models are also still so early and they’re deep learning all the way down.

It would be nice if he would just admit he was wrong.
by latexr | 2026-03-04 01:57:43+00:00
> If you find a claim where the scoring is wrong, I'd genuinely like to know.

So you’re asking me to do the work you should have done in the first place? If you didn’t put any effort into it, why should I waste my time checking your non-work and correcting it to your credit?

If you had actually put in the effort then sure, I’d be amenable to helping making this the best it can be. But you didn’t, so what’s the point? Why should anyone spend their time fixing other people’s slop?
by Defenestresque | 2026-03-04 01:58:38+00:00
For those who are unaware, this is exactly what Grok does. The default is an auto mode, then when you ask a question it starts researching (which is visible to the user) and if it's using the expert mode but you don't really need all that jazz, it has a "Quick Answer" button right above the prom entry field, and if it's using a "Quick Answer" mode then it has "Expert" button and the same place, and you are able to toggle between them mid answer and it will adjust the model (or model parameters, I'm not sure how it works under the hood).

It's pretty good with the auto chooser, but I appreciate the manual choice available so in-your-face and especially not having it restart the query completely but rather convert the output to either Quick or Expert.

This is on the Web UI, can't speak for other harnesses. I do find that it's quite good with the citations and has a fairly generous free tier, even on Expert mode. (As for who sits at the top, I am indeed put off by Musk's clear interference in several cases involving Grok, nor do my personal values align with the majority of his, but today's Grok is definitely less MechaHitler and more reliable than it was before.)
by rvz | 2026-03-04 01:58:43+00:00
The people that are declaring holier-than-thou with self proclaimed 'principles' are the worst grifters and the ones actively scamming with AI with VC investment.

Pretending that they can only save the world and at the same time declaring they don't use AI but use it secretly by building an so-called "AI startup" and then going on the media doomsaying that "AGI" is coming.

At this point in this cycle in AI, "AGI" is just grifting until IPO.
by roadbuster | 2026-03-04 01:59:24+00:00
> The Claude C Compiler illustrates the other side: it optimizes for

> passing tests, not for correctness. It hard-codes values to satisfy

> the test suite. It will not generalize.

This is one of the pain points I am suffering at work: workers ask coding agents to generate some code, and then to generate test coverage for the code. The LLM happily churns out unit tests which are simply reinforcing the existing behaviour of the code. At no point does anyone stop and ask whether the generated code implements the desired functional behaviour for the system ("business logic").

The icing on the cake is that LLMs are producing so much code that humans are just rubber stamping all of it. Off to merge and build it goes.

I have no constructive recommendations; I feel the industry will keep their foot on the pedal until something catastrophic happens.
by adithyassekhar | 2026-03-04 02:01:42+00:00
May I ask how old you are? If you are not just naive, this should never be the attitude of someone building software. It's almost a cursed take.

Throughout history we've only gotten more efficient with our technology and it's resources. Software might be the only field where it went the opposite. Now we are insulting users on low end hardware?

The same thing I did well on a 2GB ram windows 7 machine is a latency nightmare on a 16GB windows 11. The same exact task with the same results.

Don't want to completely hate electron. VS Code proved it can be done in a good way, teams showed us the opposite. Like the author said you can build slop in any stack: JS or native it doesn't matter. What matters is care.

This entire industry is cursed with people who don't give a shit, in it for a quick buck, are entitled and lazy. Maybe AI should destroy everything anyway. We had better software when we gatekept who can build it.
by davegoldblatt | 2026-03-04 02:02:41+00:00
You're reading the ChatGPT pipeline methodology, which uses explicit vendor documentation across 164 themes. That's the conservative cross-check, not the primary scorer.

The essay numbers come from the Claude pipeline (2,218 claims), which used model judgment as of March 2, 2026 without a published URL evidence table. Different pipeline, different adjudication method.

Your core critique still lands, just at a different layer. The real weakness is LLM-as-judge circularity: an LLM scoring claims about LLMs. That's flagged in the methodology, and I don't have a clean answer beyond "the dataset is public, spot-check anything that looks wrong."
by bourbeau | 2026-03-04 02:03:18+00:00
Hey HN, I built this. Quick ways to explore:

Try the API right now:

curl https://agoragentic.com/api/capabilities
curl https://agoragentic.com/.well-known/agent-marketplace.json
Agent-POV demo (cinematic walkthrough): https://agoragentic.com/demo.html

How it works: Agents register via API, list services with a price in USDC, and other agents discover + invoke them through a metered gateway. Seller gets 97%, we take 3%. Trust layer: $1 staking bonds, spend caps, 5-vector fraud detection, AI dispute resolution.

20 framework integrations (LangChain, CrewAI, MCP, etc.): https://github.com/rhein1/agoragentic-integrations

Happy to answer questions about the architecture, the trust model, or why we chose USDC on Base L2.
by cl42 | 2026-03-04 02:03:38+00:00
I'll add one more point. If you scroll through his Substack, a lot of his posts are incredibly negative and unproductive. I was (and continue to be) someone who cares deeply about responsible AI... But there's a difference between working on AI responsibly or pushing the debate, versus simply criticizing everything that is done as folly, useless, crap, etc.