MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by parineum | 2026-03-06 16:42:57+00:00
You're making the "It's snowing there can't be global warming" argument in reverse.

One local drought can't be attributed to or be proof of global warming.

It's like smoking causing lung cancer; (the following numbers are made up) 5 in 100 non-smokers might get lung cancer but 20 in 100 smokers do. 5 of those smokers would have gotten lung cancer anyway and 15 wouldn't have but there's no way to know which individuals are in which cohort.
by gcp | 2026-03-06 16:43:03+00:00
Deduplicating and identifying the source of a crash point is surprisingly hard, to the point that “it’s the only crash of its kind” could be a bug in your logic for linking issues.

This is a bit vague to really reply to very specifically, but yes, this is hard. Which is why quite some people work in this area. It's rather valuable to do so at Firefox-scale.

Even if the majority of time it generates the “same” failure mode, it can still sporadically generate a rare execution trace.

This doesn't matter that much because the "same" failure mode already allows you to see the bug and fix it.
by plqbfbv | 2026-03-06 16:43:03+00:00
> You/we are all susceptible to this sort of thing, and I call BS on anyone who says they check every little thing their agent does with the same level of scrutiny as they would if they were doing it manually.

Why? I do that. I give it broad permissions but I also give it very specific instructions, especially when it's about deleting resources. I work in small chunks and review before committing, and I push before starting another iteration (so that if something goes wrong, I have a good state I can easily restore).

I'm the one with the brain. The LLM can regurgitate a ton of plumbing and save days of sifting through libraries, but it'll still get something wrong because at the core it's still a probabilistic output generator. No matter how good it becomes, it still cannot judge whether it's doing something a human will immediately spot as "stupid".

Interacting with and fixing API calls automatically is something that normally works for me, but allowing the agent to run a terraform destroy is something I'd have never let it execute, I'd have been very specific about that.
by jmanhype | 2026-03-06 16:43:07+00:00
I'm not an ML engineer. I used Claude Code (Opus 4.6) to get LoRA fine-tuning gradients running on Apple's Neural Engine — the dedicated ML chip in every Apple Silicon Mac that has no public training API.

192 gradient dispatches, zero GPU fallbacks, converging loss, all at ~2.8W.

Three discoveries found through iteration on real hardware: (1) ANE's matmul op compiles but never executes — everything must be rewritten as 1x1 convolutions, (2) spatial dimensions must be multiples of 16, (3) the ANE compiler leaks handles and silently fails after ~119 compiles.

Built on maderix's ANE reverse engineering work. The repo includes the full MIL kernel generator, subprocess isolation for the compile limit, and integration with MLX for hybrid GPU+ANE training.
by drewda | 2026-03-06 16:43:24+00:00
No. A newspaper is in the business of selling you content (or advertising alongside content)

grith.ai appears to be in the business of guiding you click a "request early access" button so they can eventually sell you software (or so they can pitch seed investors on the length of their list of prospects)

Again, I'm not criticizing. Just pointing out a pattern that's becoming pretty common on HN, especially for stories about vulnerabilities written up by companies selling cybersecurity solutions or services.
by ycombinete | 2026-03-06 16:43:26+00:00
Isn’t that this from the (Anthropic) article:

“Our first step was to use Claude to find previously identified CVEs in older versions of the Firefox codebase. We were surprised that Opus 4.6 could reproduce a high percentage of these historical CVEs”

https://www.anthropic.com/news/mozilla-firefox-security
by corimaith | 2026-03-06 16:43:37+00:00
A 5080 is 1.5K, A 5090 is even more. 1600 to 2000 is not really a large difference at the price band where you are spending that much money, especially since you would heavily comprising in other components if you want to keep that budget, in which that case you don't need 32gb RAM.

That is to say, if you want a system that keeps up with 32 GB Ram, you'd be already willing to spend alot what with options for noctua fans, water cooling, higher end MOBOs, premium cases, OLEDs etc. If you can't afford that then you won't be buying expensive DDRD5 RAM either.
by Frank_WolfPeake | 2026-03-06 16:43:41+00:00
One thing I’m noticing in organizations is that AI tends to amplify judgment rather than replace it.

I think experienced people move faster because they can evaluate the output and redirect it, less experienced people often struggle because they don’t yet know what “good” looks like.

The interesting long-term question is how companies rebuild the environments where that judgment gets developed in the first place.
by mlyle | 2026-03-06 16:43:47+00:00
The models don't consider these because there's considerable uncertainty as to the size of these effects and potential countervailing forces of similar magnitudes.

The fact is, for all of these other secondary effects etc... we just don't know. It's too complicated of a system.

So as a result, we've got a prediction of something between "somewhat bad" and "catastrophically-is-an-understatement bad" with a maximum likelihood estimate of "really really bad."
by YZF | 2026-03-06 16:43:49+00:00
We did not travel to the US during Trump's first presidency either.

That said, I do think some people are doing things for the wrong reasons and there is some manipulation of the masses at play here. One example is I expect most people don't really understand the tariff situation between Canada and the US and that most goods are still exempt from taxes and the agreements hold. I think some people want to punish the US for tariffs that don't exist.

As a Canadian we should push back strongly against attacks on our sovereignty. We should also be somewhat concerned about the direction our neighbor is going in general. But it's also a reality that the US is very very close to us both geographically, culturally, and economically. That's not going to change. It's not an "enemy country" despite their very questionable choice of leaders. I think the correct long term direction is open borders and open trade, somewhat like the EU, and we shouldn't lose sight of that because a bad leader is in place today.

It's very weird to me to see all the focus on US policies in the Canadian discourse while not enough focus on Canada. That feels like political distraction.
by yunnpp | 2026-03-06 16:44:17+00:00
I came here to ask the same question; did somebody just reinvent monads?

Also note that much of Haskell now uses MonadIO, so you are no longer constrained to IO or having to manually lift IO into your monad, so long as your monad instances MonadIO. This makes code reuse across libraries trivial. I say this because their div() example says that it can only be called from an Exception effect context, which is like old-school IO-everywhere Haskell. It seems to me like they're going to run into the function colour problem.
by Steve16384 | 2026-03-06 16:44:29+00:00
Since AI is taking a lot of the jobs and businesses are presumably generating just as much if not more profit due to lower wage costs, I think the world has to align to a new paradigm: a lot of people will be unemployed because the jobs just aren't there any more, but a higher tax on the rich companies can be used to pay for benefits for all the unemployed.

This is the new utopia.
by akersten | 2026-03-06 16:44:41+00:00
I don't know how you can say this:

> And quite an elegant one at that. Without involving any government identifiers or anything else.

and this:

> There is a law, and there will be others to help improve it.

> Combined with the widespread implementation of TPM, this will become even more feasible.

Without coming to the obvious conclusion that the next step will be even further down the road of tying your every action back to a real, verified, trackable identity.
by wing-_-nuts | 2026-03-06 16:44:56+00:00
Relying on DAC is putting our fate in the hands of a technology we've never deployed beyond some pitifully small pilot projects, and expecting that we're going to be able to deploy that at a larger scale than we've deployed any technology since electricity itself.

We're going to have to resort to geoengineering alright, but it's gonna likely be stratospheric sulfate injection given how cheaply that can be done. Is it ideal? Nope. Better than global warming itself? Time will tell.
by jcfrei | 2026-03-06 16:45:33+00:00
Not sharing your take of the electorate's powerlessness at all. It's not an overwhelming majority (only 57% of voters in the US: https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54124-nearly-half-american...) which thinks they need to do more about climate change. I think most politicians are in tune with their voters - you need to change the people's minds if you want stricter policies. Refine the question a bit more and ask people if they still want to do more against climate change if some basic necessities in their life will get more expensive and you will likely even drop below 50%.
by jmull | 2026-03-06 16:45:45+00:00
Don't kid yourself. You're missing the part where the heads of departments who deliver bad or embarrassing news get publicly vilified and/or fired.

That's direct pressure now to fudge/push the numbers before they come out. At the department level, there is usually a long culture of objective process to overcome, so it will probably start off subtle/small, but once they clear the old guard away they will report anything they want.

> the administration is very sensitive to market motion

Not exactly. The administration (Trump) is sensitive to embarrassment and criticism from his own side. Tanking markets are such an embarrassment, and while he might back down when markets tank, he might also do the the other thing he does to deflect embarrassment and criticism, which is to perpetrate some new outrage so that everyone complains about the new thing instead of the old thing.

And, of course, the markets will adjust. Iffy government numbers will get priced in.

You might like to believe there's a rational actor there, but there isn't. It's a guy moving from one gut reaction to the next, where his gut reaction is often to push everyone's buttons.
by fnordpiglet | 2026-03-06 16:45:47+00:00
The problem is humans are really bad at perceiving externalities at this scale, cause / effect between small actions and large effects, and effects that play out over the span of their lifetime rather than the span of their day. The denialist rationale shifted over the years from doubting the very basis of the science, to claiming its just a short term blip, to its natural long term cycles, to … everything that involves not looking up.

I think the truth is we won’t really take this seriously globally until the changes are so severe that it’ll take generations to undo if ever.
by pinkmuffinere | 2026-03-06 16:45:54+00:00
Truthfully, because they dodged the question I am now a bit suspicious of everything they say. It just seems a bit deceitful. I explicitly called out the dodging not because I wanted to hear from them after they'd dodged it, but because I want to make it clear to GP that their answer is not sufficient, and highlight to others that they maybe shouldn't trust GP.

If they had answered my first question in the affirmative (something like "I am a researcher at X institute on this topic"), ya, I think I would have trusted them.
by sulam | 2026-03-06 16:45:57+00:00
I answered elsewhere. I’ve been doing research on this topic for about 10 years, but I am not a climate modeler. I have spoken to people who are climate modelers and, at the time, these non-anthropogenic factors were not controlled for. They acknowledged that this was a blind spot that needed more research. At the time Arctic warming was only just beginning to be recognized as happening more quickly than the rest of the planet and the implications of that were concerning but unclear. There is still some acknowledged lack of understanding for just why the polar regions are warming so much faster (it’s not all melting / albedo feedback, because it’s happening in Antarctica too). What is less debated at this point is that permafrost comprises a truly mammoth proportion of CO2/CH4 reserves that are on an accelerated melting path (~1000Gt was the last estimate I saw, although it’s not all likely to go up at once of course).
by tgsovlerkhgsel | 2026-03-06 16:46:17+00:00
Prices are a great incentive.

In Germany, 1 kWh of electricity costs roughly 3x as much as 1 kWh of gas. That doesn't make heat pumps very attractive. Historically the differences were even worse.

Relying on people individually making choices that are better for the environment at a disadvantage for themselves is not going to work.
by jedberg | 2026-03-06 16:46:22+00:00
Unfortunately most political systems around the world reward short term results, not long term thinking.

Just look here in the USA -- the Democrats tried to do some forward thinking things like subsidizing solar and wind, and they were rewarded by losing at the ballot box (of course that isn't the only reason, but it's one of many).

There are no rewards for long term thinking, so it's hard to get anyone to do it.
by cheschire | 2026-03-06 16:46:31+00:00
well, maybe wearables that provide some sort of internal visual scans. But with CT scans delivering 70 times the radiation of a typical x-ray, I think I'd prefer not wearing a portable chernobyl.

Maybe a wearable ultrasound instead?

edit: after a little informal side-searching after posting this, I've learned that people working at Chernobyl, not in the reactor directly, but elsewhere in the sprawling site received anywhere from 1 to 100 CT scans worth of radiation. The firefighters that were on the roof received anywhere from 100 to 1,600 CT scans worth of radiation.
by shevy-java | 2026-03-06 16:46:38+00:00
I think it is already pretty clear to everyone, save a few scientistis who keep on preaching "we can prevent this!!!" that global warming will continue. I am all for being more energy efficient and what not, but the reality of the situation is that there are factors that are orthogonal to this - as well as a few states that sabotage everyone else. The USA in particular; the US government is by far the biggest troublemaker here. China and India are also troublemakers because they are so huge, although to be fair, China also invested a lot into green energy.

We need to adjust strategies here. The "zero emission" strategy failed; it is not practical. Politicians love them because they are in the media, but everyone sees that this strategy is not working. Same with carbon tax - it drove prices up but didn't really help much at all otherwise. We need to stop pursuing strategies that do not work here.
by rootusrootus | 2026-03-06 16:47:05+00:00
It's a culture thing, nobody on the right would ever be convinced by science, they will shop around until they find what they need to hear. My sister in law sent me a video and told me that she thought it was a really good explainer and had a lot of good facts and figures to support it. To humor her, I took a brief glance at it, and saw that it was produced by Dr. Shiva. I was thinking "no way, it can't be that Shiva, could it, email guy?" Yes, yes it was.

We are doomed.
by toxik | 2026-03-06 16:47:08+00:00
If all glaciers and ice sheets on Earth melted, sea levels would rise roughly 65–70 meters (about 210–230 feet). It’s worth noting that a full melt of Antarctica alone would take many thousands of years even under extreme warming scenarios, so this is more of a thought experiment than a near-term risk. Current projections for this century focus on partial contributions, with estimates ranging from roughly 0.3 to over 1 meter of rise by 2100 depending on emissions pathways.
by nick49488171 | 2026-03-06 16:47:23+00:00
"Space travel is bad for your health and here's what we know about it" is actually a fine article. It's his concluding statement that is contemptible.

"Space may be fascinating, wonderful, and exciting, but most of all, it is incredibly dangerous. As far as human space travel goes, it’s probably best that it stays in the realm of science fiction, at least for the foreseeable future."

How about letting explorers, informed adults, and risk takers make their own decisions.
by nostrebored | 2026-03-06 16:47:30+00:00
Surely the children churning out papers in a memey field, with no real special insight into computational modeling, are the real ones to trust! Their papers are in Nature!

Ridiculous take, and you’d know that the OP was correct if you cared enough to know what researchers were actually saying.

Climate arguments devolve into appeals to impact claimed by authorities rather than any examination of what they’ve said.
by dontwearitout | 2026-03-06 16:47:32+00:00
Chapter 1 of "The Ministry of the Future" describes a fictional wet bulb event. It's grisly and horrific and I highly recommend you read this chapter, it changed my view on climate change.

https://books.rockslide.ca/read/780/epub#epubcfi(/6/14!/4/2/...
Show HN: Traces: A new way to share and discover agent traces
by nwpwr | 2026-03-06 16:47:46+00:00
Traces is a new way to share and discover agent traces. You can setup a personal or team account, and share publicly or privately (in a team).

We use Traces internally to capture and share our agent conversations. Every PR has a Traces link attached to it. We even have skills that can automate that for you (run 'traces setup' after install).

You might ask:

1) Why would I share traces? Well, we have found ourselves wanting to learn from each other on how to prompt different models and agents. We built Traces as a tool for teams to learn that together, and for us to learn that as an open community.

2) What about Privacy? You can share publicly, privately, or via direct link. We strip data at source to make sure anything that looks sensitive never leaves your machines. Orgs have more privacy settings as well. But honestly, me saying this is one thing, earning your continued trust is the goal of every release.

If you're interested, just get started at traces.com. You can hop into our Discord, find us on X at x.com/tarunsachdeva / x.com/tracesdotcom.

Thank you!
by Frank_WolfPeake | 2026-03-06 16:47:49+00:00
A lot of software problems seem to come from the assumption that more features automatically create more value. In practice, the opposite often happens, the moment a product stops being predictable, users start carrying cognitive load just to use it. The best tools I’ve used over the years feel almost boring in comparison, they solve the core problem, stop there, and stay out of the way.
by dkarl | 2026-03-06 16:48:02+00:00
Bullshit is so dangerous because it could mean something. That VP could mean, it's time to look beyond the set of mature technologies we've been considering and look at newer technologies that we would normally ignore because they come with risks and rough edges and higher cost of ownership.

So it might be a substantive decision that affects how everybody in the room will do their jobs going forward. Or it could be a random stream of words chosen because they sound impressive, which everyone will nod respectfully at and then ignore. And like an LLM, he might have made it into his current position without needing to know the difference.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2026-03-06 16:48:05+00:00
> Emoji are also more 'casual' in a way that can be helpful. You can tap the 'heart' emoji on a message to a colleague or friend to express your gratitude or thanks for something without having to prevaricate over exactly what language to use to avoid seeming insincere or overly affectionate.

I think this might be one of the few points that this emoji use which you mention feels almost universal to me across all ages for the most part.

It just saves time if you can heart a message without saying I agree with you.

Additionally if the emoji itself is a reaction (say how Github/Discord heart emoji can work) then this is even better at times and how most of us sometimes use it because that way the conversation doesn't steer itself because they have nothing to respond to but they still see that you appreciated them. Win Win situation.

> Most words don't have especially precise meanings, context is everything

If someone wants words to have precise meanings, English isn't the best language for it. Sanskrit/Polish is. I was taught sanskrit during school and I think that a language having too precise meaning can actually take too much time to think and this just makes conversation take too long. It can also be that Sanskrit is almost extinct in verbal form aside from religious scriptures and rituals now so its just way too hard to learn the language even though we know fluent hindi. (FWIW It had 7 tenses IIRC and single/duo/plural for a single root verb)

I am not sure about polish tho but I am speaking this because I have only heard polish be also described as a language with more precise meaning and there was a HN post about it sometime ago in the context of AI.
Show HN: NERDs – Entity-centered long-term memory for LLM agents
by tdaltonc | 2026-03-06 16:48:14+00:00
Long-running agents struggle to attend to relevant information as context grows, and eventually hit the wall when the context window fills up.

NERDs (Networked Entity Representation Documents) are Wikipedia-style entity pages that LLM agents build for themselves by reading a large corpus chunk-by-chunk. Instead of reprocessing the full text at query time, a downstream agent searches and reasons over these entity documents.

The idea comes from a pattern that keeps showing up: brains, human cognition, knowledge bases, and transformer internals all organize complex information around entities and their relationships. NERDs apply that principle as a preprocessing step for long-context understanding.

We tested on NovelQA (86 novels, avg 200K+ tokens). On entity-tracking questions (characters, relationships, plot, settings) NERDs match full-context performance while using ~90% fewer tokens per question, and token usage stays flat regardless of document length. To highlight the methods limitation, we also tested it on counting tasks and locating specific passages (which aren't entity-centered) where it did not preform as well.

nerdviewer.com lets you browse all the entity docs we generated across the 86 novels. Click through them like a fan-wiki. It's a good way to build intuition for what the agent produces.

Paper: https://www.techrxiv.org/users/1021468/articles/1381483-thin...
by rurban | 2026-03-06 16:48:15+00:00
I needed one step only, and certainly no tax advisor. Most costly is the health insurance, but you can skip the Gewerbe Anmeldung and taxes and insurances with doing systems SW.

You only need a GmbH if you invest money, don't do that. You only need a notary for that. I didn't even need a second bank account.
by zackmorris | 2026-03-06 16:48:35+00:00
The endgame will be workers competing with networks of AIs that can solve business problems at all levels.

I'm curious how the system will maneuver itself to deprive workers of pay so that they can stay competitive with the ever-decreasing cost of AI.

Conversely, I'm curious how disruptors will find ways to provide workers with pay (perhaps through mutual aid networks, grants and alternative socioeconomic systems) so that they can use AI to produce the resources they need outside of the contracting labor market.
by pcl | 2026-03-06 16:48:49+00:00
Of course, the relevant thing for us as a species is whether or not the forecast temperatures are sustainable for us.

The planet as a whole will do just fine. We're not going to break the planet. The reason that people bring up the huge anthropogenic spike in temperature is because us anthropoids evolved in the context of a narrow band, and it would seem as though we're moving the global climate out of that band.