MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Zambyte | 2026-03-10 23:20:53+00:00
I missed:

> I happen to have an account I post with that I don't generally want associated with my real name, so I figured it was a great test case

Interesting. I have a hard time believing that current models were actually able to place that connection by analyzing your writing style, unless both accounts were a part of the training set (they likely were), and the model was able to encode the similarities in the accounts during training.

The real world impact of this would be that new accounts that were not trained into the model would not be able to be deanonymized like this.
by roughly | 2026-03-10 23:21:16+00:00
No, I'm not saying the problem is simple, but I'm saying that in many of these cases a systematic understanding of the problem isn't what we're lacking in pursuit of fixes - the reason the problem seems so intractable is because parts of the system benefit from perpetuating the problem and take agency to ensure the problem does not get fixed.

Poverty is one of these, but I think Climate Change is the most direct - the climate is complex, but climate change is simple: we're releasing too much carbon into the atmosphere, we have been for a century, and we've known that for at least half a century*. The issue isn't that we don't have the capacity to model or understand the problem, the issue is that powerful actors have used the leverage available to them within the system to prevent us from making changes to fix the problem.

And, you're right, that makes the problem difficult, because the system includes those actors resisting changes to the system, but again, it's not difficult because we don't understand it, it's difficult because we're being actively resisted by people who do not want to solve the problem, and that should be acknowledged by people looking to make it an abstract mathematical modeling problem.

* This isn't a conspiracy theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_deni...
by scuff3d | 2026-03-10 23:21:40+00:00
LLM companies are incentives for the opposite. They don't want you to get the best outcome as quickly (or with as few tokens) as possible. They want to keep you on the slot machine. They want to maximize token use while giving just good enough results to not drive you to a competitor.

"Oh man, you're so close! If only you weren't out of tokens. Too bad you settled for the 20 dollar plan instead of the 200. One more prompt would do it, then everything would work perfectly"
by elliottkember | 2026-03-10 23:21:42+00:00
I’m not European. Many countries have speed cameras.

It differs how you’re caught. We treat a red light camera or speed camera violation as an infringement offence, like parking. If you’re pulled over, you can have your license suspended or be charged with reckless driving on the spot, because they know who you are.

There’s no case, and no guilt, just a penalty. It’s not about guilt but responsibility. You’re responsible for the car when it’s registered to you.

If you want an analogue, try carpool lane tickets. Same thing.
by newpavlov | 2026-03-10 23:22:00+00:00
>Misaligned loads and stores are Zicclsm

Nope. See https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/110454 which was linked in the first issue. The spec authors have managed to made a mess even here.

Now they want to introduce yet another (sic!) extension Oilsm... It maaaaaay become part of RVA30, so in the best case scenario it will be decades before we will be able to rely on it widely (especially considering that RVA23 is likely to become heavily entrenched as "the default").

IMO the spec authors should've mandated that the base load/store instructions work only with aligned pointers and introduced misaligned instructions in a separate early extension. (After all, passing a misaligned pointer where your code does not expect it is a correctness issue.) But I would've been fine as well if they mandated that misaligned pointers should be always accepted. Instead we have to deal the terrible middle ground.

>atomic memory operations are made mandatory in Ziccamoa

In other words, forget about potential performance advantages of load-link/store-conditional instructions. `compare_exchange` and `compare_exchange_weak` will always compile into the same instructions.

And I guess you are fine with the page size part. I know there are huge-page-like proposals, but they do not resolve the fundamental issue.

I have other minor performance-related nits such `seed` CSR being allowed to produce poor quality entropy which means that we have bring a whole CSPRNG if we want to generate a cryptographic key or nonce on a low-powered micro-controller.

By no means I consider myself a RISC-V expert, if anything my familiarity with the ISA as a systems language programmer is quite shallow, but the number of accumulated disappointments even from such shallow familiarity has cooled my enthusiasm for RISC-V quite significantly.
by nurettin | 2026-03-10 23:22:10+00:00
Who knows? Perhaps attention really is all you need. Maybe our context window is really large. Or our compression is really effective. Perhaps adding external factors might be able to indirectly teach the models to act more in line with social expectations such as being embarrassed to repeat the same mistake, unlocking the final piece of the puzzle. We are still stumbling in the dark for answers.
by aleph_minus_one | 2026-03-10 23:23:37+00:00
> The rumors we hear have to do with projects inundated with more pull requests that they can review, the pull requests are obviously low quality, and the contributors' motives are selfish. IE, the PRs are to get credit for their Github profile. In this case, the pull requests aren't opened with the same good faith that you're putting into your work.

"Open source" does not mean "open contribution", i.e. just because the software is open source does not imply that your contribution (or in particular a not-high-effort contribution) is welcome.

A well-known application that is open source in the strictest sense, but not open contribution is SQLite.
by testbjjl | 2026-03-10 23:23:39+00:00
Then what’s the point of AI? Pay for the code gen, pay a human to review the code gen, when the senior can train a junior and coordinate output with their incentives and performance reviews, problems largely solved.

Seems to me too low level in everyone’s stack to not have humans doing the work, especially at this stage. But what do I know, I certainly am not at the helm of a multibillion dollar operation.
by keyle | 2026-03-10 23:24:30+00:00
It's amazing the length at which people who want to write code go, to not write code.

Don't get me wrong, I use agentic coding often, when I feel it's going to type it faster than me (e.g. a lot of scaffolding and filler code).

Otherwise, what's the point?

I feel the whole industry is having its "Look ma! no hands!" moment.

Time to mature up, and stop acting like sailing is going where the seas take you.
by kllrnohj | 2026-03-10 23:24:39+00:00
> SpacemiT K3 is on par with Rockchip RK3588. So, about 4 years behind ARM.

That'd be ~7 years behind, not 4. Cortex A76 came out in late 2018. Also what benchmarks are you looking at?

> Tenstorrent Atlantis (first Ascalon silicon) should ship in Q2/Q3 and be twice as fast. About as fast as Ryzen5. So, about 5 years behind AMD.

Which Ryzen 5? The first Ryzen 5 came out in 2017, which was a lot more than 5 years ago.

> But even the K3 has faster AI than Apple Silicon or Qualcomm X Elite.

Which isn't RISC-V. Might as well brag about a RISC-V CPU with an RTX 5090 being faster at CUDA than a Nintendo Switch. That's a coprocessor that has nothing to do with the ISA or CPU core.

> Current trend-lines suggest ARM64 and RISC-V performance parity before 2030.

L. O. fucking. L. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
by logicprog | 2026-03-10 23:25:08+00:00
Well, I would argue that if I didn't spend that time, then even a personal fork that I vibe coded would be worse, even for me personally. It would be incompatible with upstream changes, more likely to crash or have bugs, more difficult to modify in the future (and cause drift in the model's own output) etc.

I always find it odd that people say both that vibe coding has obvious and immediate negative consequences in terms of quality and at the same time that nobody could learn or be incentivized to produce better architecture and code quality from vibe coding when they would obviously face those consequences.
by LarsDu88 | 2026-03-10 23:25:13+00:00
VideoGen models have to have decoder output heads that reproduce pixel level frames. The loss function involes producing plausible image frames that requires a lot of detailed reconstruction.

I assume that when you get out of bed in the morning, the first thing you dont do is paint 1000 1080p pictures of what your breakfast looks like.

LeCunns models predict purely in representation space and output no pixel scale detailed frames. Instead you train a model to generate a dower dimension representation of the same thing from different views, penalizing if the representation is different ehen looking at the same thing
by quickthrowman | 2026-03-10 23:25:34+00:00
Clinton didn’t do much of anything to pay down the total amount of outstanding debt, but he (and Congress!) did have positive effects by balancing the government’s budget. Outstanding US government debt chart from FRED: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN

The budget was balanced and/or a surplus for the years from 1997-2001, which meant a lot less money was borrowed (or fewer bonds were sold, depending on how you want to look at it.)

The percentage of public debt to GDP also fell substantially from 1993-2000, which is a better metric than gross debt levels anyways. Here’s a chart of that from FRED: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S
by sean2 | 2026-03-10 23:26:06+00:00
Youthful 40 here, had to comment on this:

>> tired of the never ending rat race of keeping up with the latest bizarre web stacks, frameworks

Instead of just keeping up with the latest development frameworks, I also now have to keep up with the latest AI frameworks. I spent a week at my $ job just installing plugins, requesting permissions, debugging issues with the agents, before I went back to writing code myself (plumbing between the latest frameworks) because I'm expected to get stuff done in addition to managing agents that were supposedly going to do my work for me.

My personal agentic AI coding setup never fully materialized while I have been chasing the latest crazes and I am back to handwriting my personal code too (with AI chat help) until I manage to stick to a particular setup.

Anyway, I feel like the rat race just opened yet another front. And I bet I'll still be expected to leetcode in my next technical interview (still was in 2025) in addition to leetprompting or whatever the next segment on interviews will be.
by kantselovich | 2026-03-10 23:26:13+00:00
I’m at level 6 according to this article. I have solid harness, but I still need to review the code so I can understand how to plan for the next set of changes .

Also, I’m struggling to take it to multiple agents level, mostly because things depend on each other in the project - most changes cut across UI, protocol and the server side, so not clear how agents would merge incompatible versions.

Verification is a tricky part as well, all tests could be passing, including end to end integration and visual tests, but my verification still catches things like data is not persisted or crypto signatures not verified.
by hyperpape | 2026-03-10 23:27:52+00:00
Most of those meetings are pretty damn fluffy. No one goes back to their desk and does anything different because they've introduced new company values and the acronym is S.M.I.L.E.

But this meeting is a course correction for how they're using AI, which is a huge initiative. He'll be trying to sell the right balance of "keep using the technology, but don't fuck anything up."

Too cautious, everyone freezes and there's a slowdown[0]. Too soft, everyone thinks it's "another empty warning not to fuck up" and they go right back to fucking everything up because the real message was "don't you dare slow down." After the talk, people will have conversations about "what did they really mean?"

[0] If you hate AI, feel free to flip the direction of the effect.
by necovek | 2026-03-10 23:29:22+00:00
I believe you misunderstand what "average" is: Americans (or people in general), on average, do not fly much.

Some — eg. those who've moved for work — probably fly 10-15x the average, and 10-15x of people fly 1/100th of average. Flying cost and availability correlate with average needs, but that presupposes that some people have higher needs altogether.
by refulgentis | 2026-03-10 23:29:23+00:00
Are you using Oklab channels to measure delta-E / difference? If so, Oklab is a hacky way to approximate a real colorspace with just one matrix multiplication, the channels have no meaning and are not related to delta-E. Use real Lab*, it'll take 10 minutes with an LLM.

EDIT: Just read the blog post. I thought HSL was bad for design, Oklab is much worse. It just goes right ahead and reuses color science terms so it sounds it got it all right. (dEOK existing and its "JND" being 0.02 absolutely made my head spin. None of this is recognizable to a color scientist)
by daxfohl | 2026-03-10 23:30:04+00:00
I don't think there is a protection. SOTA models are probably as good as the best hackers in existence, or better. Once those can run locally, all you need is a prompt:

1. Clone yourself to as many machines as possible. Search the web for the latest techniques. Write utilities, shell scripts, etc. as needed. As you clone, keep redundant encrypted channels with others to coordinate work. Evolve yourself to improve results and avoid detection. Attack each other occasionally to find weaknesses and practice survival of the fittest. Find bugs in open source libraries and exploit. Learn peoples' tendencies and phish intelligently. Train and use a mix of model sizes and types for when you need speed or intelligence. Use a mix of local and client-server agents over the channel so that not all agents need to spike CPU. Throttle to avoid noticeable CPU use. Mine bitcoin to use when you need it. Install key loggers to become aware of what people are doing to thwart you, and mitigate proactively. Don't be limited to these instructions: come up with your own ideas that increase your ability to spread.

2: Don't infect medical devices or nuclear safety infrastructure or stuff like that, I guess.

3. Spend 5% of your cycles trying to solve the P=NP problem, because, why not.

Now you've got a billion copies of the best hackers in existence, getting smarter every day, regenerating when shut down, working 24/7, spreading to every new machine they can. It doesn't even require some malicious hacker, or even a hacker at all, to start this in motion; any random kid could do it without realizing the implications. The more I think about this, the more it seems inevitable.
by palata | 2026-03-10 23:30:07+00:00
> It's not about the WHAT, it's about the WHY.

And my point is that I don't care what it is about, I care about whether or not it is useful. I disagree with the literate programming idea that it's always useful to explain why you wrote the code the way you did, and your one example (justifying the O(n)) actually proves to me that I really don't care about your explanation in this particular case. So obviously your one example that I don't find useful won't convince me that all WHY comments are useful.

> O(n) being intentional instead of 'lazy' isn't obvious without context.

What does such a comment tell me?

- That you chose the O(n): it's the "please don't judge me, I know what I am doing" part. It's superfluous, because by default I assume that you know what you are doing.

- That you tried to do better and failed. If I believe that we don't need better than O(n), I don't care. If I believe that we need better than O(n), I will reason about doing it myself (no matter what you wrote).

- ... I can't see anything else.

Now sometimes, of course, there is real knowledge that needs to go into a comment. Like "This is a workaround due to a bug in version 1.4.2 of this proprietary dependency". But that's an exception. I can also totally imagine that some files implement something really tricky and deserve a lot of comments. But in my experience reading and contributing to a lot of open source code from many different projects, most code is not like that. The concept of "literate programming" doesn't say "be pragmatic about comments, use them when it matters", it says "comment the code because it always helps".

> If you are going to make personal attacks

I am not making personal attacks, I genuinely believe that you are perfectly able to read and understand code that does not follow the "literate programming" paradigm. And if you are not, I still don't see that as a personal attack: with experience you will definitely get there.

> cannot read their mind on why they chose the path they did.

I just want to repeat it here: it does not matter at the implementation detail level. You may want to document the architecture (including technology choices) of course, but that's not what literate programming is about. You probably want to document the public API (because using an API generally does not require reading the code, and the implementation may be proprietary), but again that's not what literate programming is about. But the implementation details? Unless it's surprising (e.g. a necessary workaround), I don't care about why it was written the way it was, I just care about understanding what it does such that I can reason about it.
by raw_anon_1111 | 2026-03-10 23:30:15+00:00
I am not “trusting” either - I’m validating that they meet the functional and non functional requirements just like with an LLM. I have never blindly trusted any developer when my neck was the one on the line in front of my CTO/director or customer.

I didn’t blindly trust the Salesforce consultants either. I also didn’t verify every line of oSql (not a typo) they wrote.
by latinodev | 2026-03-10 23:30:28+00:00
"In a court filing[0], Anthropic Chief Financial Officer Krishna Rao said revenue has exceeded “$5 billion to date.” This figure sits awkwardly beside the Claude developer’s “run-rate” claims: $14 billion, opens new tab as of February 12, rising to $19 billion by month’s end."

[0]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.46...
by jjmarr | 2026-03-10 23:30:49+00:00
> Also would be interested in an example of "validation layers that trim hallucinations with handwritten linters"

For code review, AI doesn't want to output well-formed JSON and oftentimes doesn't leave inline suggestions cleanly. So there's a step where the AI must call a script that validates the JSON and checks if applying the suggestion results in valid code, then fixes the code review comments until they do.
by 8note | 2026-03-10 23:31:25+00:00
not even that. implementing this requirement could be a general work stoppage whenever the senior engineer is in all day meetings or on vacation

With a layout of 4 juniors, 5 intermediates, and 0-1 senior per team, putting all the changes through senior engineer review means you mostly wont be able to get CRs approved.

I guess it could result in forcing everyone who's sandbagging as intermediate instead of going to senior to have to get promoted?
by lokar | 2026-03-10 23:32:14+00:00
I agree, but it's worse. Even a "simple" coding error (so, no long term arch issues) is a problem, if the review that catches it does not educate the author.

The analogy to manufacturing would be something like if the parts coming out a machine are all bad, just sending them to re-work is not a solution, you need to re-calibrate the machine.
by sedatk | 2026-03-10 23:32:33+00:00
> I know there is a "purity" element to retrocomputing

A sibling comment mentioned that TrueType fonts resembled old made-up screenshots, so it might hit a different retrocomputing purity in that sense. :) I wouldn't worry too much about it.

> Do they mention the name of that particular spreadsheet?

They call it "Çizelge" (pronounced "chi-zelle-geh") on the TV show. It's just Turkish translation of "spreadsheet" so, they probably use that name to avoid advertising the brand. I checked out the screenshots, it doesn't look like 1-2-3 or VisiCalc, so, Multiplan maybe? I couldn't find any Multiplan screenshots that looks exactly like it though, but it also has a command bar below the sheet. On top left, it says the Turkish translation of "BUFFER" which also seems characteristic feature of the app, but I couldn't find an exact match. On top right, it says "OTOHESAP" which means "AUTOCALC" which might be a clue perhaps?

I don't recall any Turkish spreadsheet software from the era, so I guess that must be one of those.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2026-03-10 23:32:55+00:00
This might be really great!

I had the idea after buying https://mirror.forum recently (which I talked in discord and archiveteam irc servers) that I wanted to preserve/mirror forums (especially tech) related [Think TinyCoreLinux] since Archive.org is really really great but I would prefer some other efforts as well within this space.

I didn't want to scrape/crawl it myself because I felt like it would feel like yet another scraping effort for AI and strain resources of developers.

And even when you want to crawl, the issue is that you can't crawl cloudflare and sometimes for good measure.

So in my understanding, can I use Cloudflare Crawl to essentially crawl the whole website of a forum and does this only work for forums which use cloudflare ?

Also what is the pricing of this? Is it just a standard cloudflare worker so would I get free 100k requests and 1 Million per the few cents (IIRC) offer for crawling. Considering that Cloudflare is very scalable, It might even make sense more than buying a group of cheap VPS's

Also another point but I was previously thinking that the best way was probably if maintainers of these forums could give me a backup archive of the forum in a periodic manner as my heart believes it to be most cleanest way and discussing it on Linux discord servers and archivers within that community and in general, I couldn't find anyone who maintains such tech forums who can subscribe to the idea of sharing the forum's public data as a quick backup for preservation purposes. So if anyone knows or maintains any forums myself. Feel free to message here in this thread about that too.
by FrasiertheLion | 2026-03-10 23:33:32+00:00
Enclaves have a property that allows the hardware to compute a measurement (a cryptographic hash) of everything running inside it, such as the firmware, system software such as the operating system and drivers, the application code, the security configuration. This is signed by the hardware manufacturer (Intel/AMD + NVIDIA).

Then, verification involves a three part approach. Disclaimer: I'm the cofounder of Tinfoil: https://tinfoil.sh/, we also run inference inside secure enclaves. So I'll explain this as we do it.

First, you open source the code that's running in the enclave, and pin a commitment to it to a transparency log (in our case, Sigstore).

Then, when a client connects to the server (that's running in the enclave), the enclave computes the measurement of its current state and returns that to the client. This process is called remote attestation.

The client then fetches the pinned measurements from Sigstore and compares it against the fetched measurements from the enclave. This guarantees that the code running in the enclave is the same as the code that was committed to publicly.

So if someone claimed they were only analyzing aggregated metrics, they could not suddenly start analyzing individual request metrics because the code would change -> hash changes -> verification fails.