frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Made with ♥ by @iamnishanth

Open Source @Github

fp.

Open in hackernews

Meta will shut down VR Horizon Worlds access June 15

https://www.engadget.com/ar-vr/meta-will-shut-down-vr-horizon-worlds-access-in-june-222028919.html
89•bookofjoe•1h ago

Comments

xnx•1h ago
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47416940
cmrdporcupine•1h ago
That was about Horizon Worlds on the hardware or platform or whatever, not the HW "place" itself, no?
danso•28m ago
Is it even possible to connect to HW without a Meta/Oculus headset?
nolist_policy•1h ago
Somewhat related, Meta recently introduced SysPTW which is basically frame generation for the Quest:

> We’re introducing System Positional TimeWarp (SysPTW) from Depth-From-Stereo to Quest headsets. PTW uses real-time scene depth to reduce visual judder and lag when apps drop frames, making movement in VR smoother and more comfortable. [...] You can expect a more stable experience, especially in demanding social and gaming apps.

The "demanding social apps" they aren't naming here is almost certainly VRChat which is poorly optimized on the Quest.

pfdietz•1h ago
Massively Overpowered reports:

"Facebook/Meta’s Horizon Worlds is officially sunsetting its VR version in June in a move that will probably make all five of its players sad.

The Mark Zuckerberg metaverse monstrosity has been around since 2020 and was designed as a virtual reality metaverse world back when people were trying to make metaverse things happen and pretending Second Life didn’t exist. (It was a deeply exhausting era.) However, Horizon Worlds’ game/world/metaverse was poorly received and widely mocked, owing largely to dreadful graphics, redundant content, and oh yeah, that whole thing where people didn’t have legs. The boondoggle has led to thousands of layoffs and billions in financial losses, proving it is still possible for companies to lose money trying to make VR happen."

stephc_int13•1h ago
This one should be studied in management schools.

I'm not sure I have ever witnessed such a comprehensive industrial failure in the software world. There were some discussions about Facebook's ability to pull it off, but not that long ago, many still saw the "metaverse" vision as inevitable; a clear trajectory for the future of the internet.

And the failure isn't Zuckerberg's alone. Microsoft, Apple, and a good many others all crashed into the same wall.

taeric•59m ago
It reminds me of Google Plus. I think you could make parallels to how heavily some of the tech companies were pushing ML?
robmccoll•55m ago
Yes! And now Meta is chasing that too and failing. It's not clear to me what advantage developing its own LLMs affords Meta. Google and the other platform companies, I get it, but it's not like Meta is using what's unique about their social data to train something interesting.
alex1138•50m ago
So that they can push those stupid AI questions at the bottom of Facebook posts

Zuck seriously seems to have no clue how to do anything. His entire existence is stealing other people's stuff

vrosas•33m ago
Meta is just paying engineers not to work at any other faang company.
taeric•31m ago
I think the general strategy for a long time in the tech world was to have as many of the programmers as you could under your umbrella. You don't necessarily know what you are racing towards, but the general feel was you knew that programmers were going to get there.
darkwater•57m ago
Speaking of Apple, and honesty asking: how are their VR devices going? Looks like they released a spec'ed up version with the M5 processor end of 2025 but, what's their future? There was some (artificial?) hype in the beginning, are people actually using it? What's the SV landscape?
g947o•38m ago
Nobody knows what's going to happen. The device and the ecosystem absolutely did not live up to the hype, but Apple is still investing in it, including software updates. Rumors are that they are developing a second gen headset targeting $2000 price point, but they are also leaning into smart glass products.

Otherwise, look up WSJ reporting on the subject and reddit.

mkozlows•32m ago
It sold terribly. The update was super-minimal, and mostly seemed to have been made for production-simplification reasons (as in: it was cheaper to update it than to keep making the old product, and they apparently didn't want to just cancel it entirely).

Rumors of future products are never super-reliable, but point to their ambitions being downscaled at best. Really, everyone expects them to pivot to smart glasses, because that's what they clearly wanted to make all along, and there's probably a market for smart glasses in a way there isn't for... whatever the AVP was supposed to be.

mistersquid•56m ago
> not that long ago, many still saw the "metaverse" vision as inevitable; a clear trajectory for the future of the internet.

> And the failure isn't Zuckerberg's alone. Microsoft, Apple, and a good many others all crashed into the same wall.

This is revisionary. Mark Zuckerberg's Meta was the only company to go all-in on the "metaverse". Microsoft has barely even dabbled in an adjacent area with the Hololens.

Apple has essentially zero exposure to anything like the "metaverse". Apple's Spatial Computing and its use of Personas and SharePlay is not like the "metaverse", despite the comparison between Meta's and Apple's efforts being perhaps inevitable.

The metaverse, as Meta pursued it, was a social media virtual reality space, and only one of the three companies you mention touted and offered a product for users in this space.

ceejayoz•40m ago
This; I mean, they even renamed the company.
alex1138•20m ago
Is it possible all this was a major ploy to get around antitrust? I'm aware FB has been working on VR for a while even beyond the Oculus that they purchased but it's like... "Facebook bought Whatsapp, yes, but; we're Meta"
jitl•12m ago
the rename came at a nadir of "Facebook" brand when there was lots of hate for misinfo, genocide incitement on the platform, etc. I think that's the more important context rather than "lol i bet we'll fool the antitrust guys w/ a quick name change"
alex1138•8m ago
Yeah fair enough, it was a dumb comment

Still, the rename to Meta was a cynical ploy regardless

luckydata•52m ago
I think it was totally predictable, I was telling my colleagues at Meta back then the Metaverse was completely toast in 2020 for a variety of reasons that only Mark Zuckerberg in his infinite wisdom couldn't see clear as day.

The Metaverse was not something that Meta was good at, they went about it all wrong and it was doomed to fail.

elcapitan•48m ago
I'm kind of sad they're now officially dumping it, it was always so much fun to see completely fake sponsored discussions on the Metaverse and Metaverse ads in podcasts, and book publications about it. There's something satisfying about watching that whole universe of cognitive dissonance and pretense. Like a sandbox demonstration of the fake hype this industry often indulges in.
randycupertino•12m ago
Remember when they added legs and they were soooo proud of how it now had legs? But then turned out the legs weren't actually available, it was some minions wearing a motion capture suit specifically for the demo?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2022/10/14/mark-zucke...

> During the most talked-about segment of the show, Zuckerberg proudly announced that legs were coming the metaverse, which sounds bizarre out of context (and kind of in-context), but it’s the solution to many years of Meta VR avatars being nothing but floating torsos. He and another Meta worker showed off their new legs by kicking and jumping, and Zuckerberg talked a little bit about legs and why it’s taken so long to get them.

> “I know you’ve been waiting for this. Everyone has been waiting for this,” said Zuckerberg. “But seriously, legs are hard, which is why other virtual reality systems don’t have them either.”

> But it turns out the legs that were shown off with all that kicking and jumping were fake. That was not actually Mark jumping, the sequence was pre-rendered for the show.

jfoster•43m ago
Meta essentially made a sequel to Second Life.

I've always been blown away by the fact that they didn't more fully pursue VR gaming. I think they could have found a more enthusiastic audience.

TranquilMarmot•36m ago
It seems like there really isn't much of a market for VR gaming, though. It would have failed just as miserably.

Not only because of hardware costs, but not everybody can play them for extended periods of time and 'the youth' are increasingly preferring to look at social media over playing games.

anonymousab•30m ago
Zuck never seemed to actually articulate how this was any different or newer than a sterile corporate vr version of second life. Then VRChat got big and seemed to be better than Horizon Worlds for... everything.

I feel like the main possible benefits that these digital spaces bring, for consumers, are kinda the opposite of things that any Big Corporate Entity would ever want to be involved in.

panick21_•15m ago
Zuck just goes 'all in' on every hype and blows billions, because he doesnt want to miss out on anything. What is a few 10s of billions here and there for a company with a money printer.
babypuncher•17m ago
VR will probably always be pretty niche for gaming. Even with affordable headsets, there is still a lot of friction to their daily usage that limits their appeal

- VR sickness

- Lack of physical space in people's homes

- Don't really work as a shared experience without multiple headsets

On top of that, this company in particular is Facebook. Nobody likes Facebook.

general_reveal•42m ago
Decoy division to hide AI buildout, but I doubt it fooled anyone in the know.
brcmthrowaway•39m ago
Is this speculation?
unicorn_cowboy•27m ago
• Not just a Meta failure: 70+ years of VR history (including Microsoft’s Hololens flops and Apple’s Vision Pro stagnation) shows every major player slammed into the exact same wall: betting billions on “inevitable” infrastructure instead of experiences that actually answer “why VR?”

• The metaverse was never inevitable: Horizon Worlds peaked at 300k MAUs, cratered below 1k DAUs, and is now shutting down. Meta burned $73B building ghost towns; the real survivors (Beat Saber: $255M revenue, VRChat: 150k+ concurrent) succeeded by giving users embodied activities and emotional hooks, not empty virtual offices.

• Hardware wasn’t the problem: Quest 3 is cheap, comfortable, and capable. The comprehensive crash happened because giants chased AAA ports and productivity tools while ignoring what actually retains users: presence + community + meaning.

• Management-school case study, updated: The $70B lesson isn’t “VR died.” It’s that corporate metaverse bets failed exactly where indies and niches thrived.

Full breakdown of what works (and why the giants missed it) here: https://linernotesxr.substack.com/p/what-works-in-vr-lessons...

kilroy123•26m ago
The Oculus is actually pretty decent for the price and as a standalone device. The issue is the OS feels so... like it was built by a big company with a dysfunctional org chart?

It's still an unfocused mess.

The bigger issue is, VR will ALWAYS be a niche thing. Always on AR glasses are the real future bet, not a niche industry.

VR will never be as big as Facebook / Instagram / WhatsApp. It just doesn't make sense to invest so much into it. Not sure what Zuck doesn't see this?

babypuncher•19m ago
> Always on AR glasses are the real future bet

Glassholes are the future?

VR headsets are at least fun. These glasses though, seem really dumb. I doubt they will ever be ubiquitous. I certainly wouldn't be caught dead wearing a surveillance device made by Facebook of all companies.

randycupertino•15m ago
Zuck and Co just completely failed to read the room. Horizons didn't fail because the technology wasn't ready - it failed because nobody actually wanted the product. It didn't solve any problem and added a ton of friction (headsets, eye goggles, no legs, etc). The headsets were uncomfortable and isolating. The vibes were creepy and weird.

The rolled it out like a cheesy corporate team-building mandatory exercise, not something where anyone would want to actually spend any time by choice.

KaiserPro•14m ago
> And the failure isn't Zuckerberg's alone.

I used to work at meta, I was in one of the many research teams that were upstream of horizon.

The Failure was pretty much entirely Zuck's fault, in the same way that when a ship smashes into rocks, its the captain's responsibility.

The first big problem is that there was never a clear definition of what "the metaverse" was mean to be. It was a pivot that kinda appear after orion (the AR glasses that were supposed to ship in 2020 Q3) failed to ship.

A small team had made a VR clone of roblox, where you could make your own games in VR. It was low poly and stuttery on the Quest. Another team was working on getting hand interaction into the quest. A third team thought "hmm, we have a avatar system, what if we can type on keyboards? could we have meetings"

The meeting system and the roblox clone carried on, vaguely separately. Then Zuck saw them and decided that they needed 500 more engineers each. Time passed, progress wasn't fast enough, so more engineers were smeared in.

Then the meta rebrand, and then the whole weird everything smashed together branding.

All the while more engineers were being piled in, most of them had no experience in 3d, let alone games.

But, that would have been fine if someone at the top had been steering, making joined up product decisions, Advocating for the users. carmack sorta tried, but a) he wasn't the easiest to work with and B) Boz thought he knew better

TLDR: Zuck can't product for shit. He thought that shipping disjointed features would make a platform. It didn't. He also thought that dumping 11,000 people into an org, most of which have no experience of games, VR, 3d or graphics would lead to a good outcome.

geophph•56m ago
Genuine question - was it the product or the implementation that led this to not pan out? Maybe both?
floren•54m ago
Both and also AI became the sexy thing before they really got anywhere with metaverse shit
asadotzler•52m ago
No one wants to wear a PC on their faces. The few who did wanted that for games but Zuck wanted a social VR platform, not a third-rate gaming console. Games couldn't even bring in the numbers needed to pivot anyone to social so they're giving up.
riskable•33m ago
> No one wants to wear a PC on their faces.

This has yet to be determined! Because no VR headset so far has actually been a proper PC. You can't develop on them. You can't just install whatever TF you want. You have to use their app store and getting developer mode enabled doesn't even give you root on the device.

A more accurate statement would be, "No one wants to wear a locked-down, extremely limited-use phone on their faces."

When the Steam Frame comes out, then we'll see how much of a difference having full control over your VR hardware can make. It runs SteamOS and you can install whatever you want. It's a complete Linux distro! An actual PC on your face.

matwood•27m ago
Putting Linux on a headset will do nothing to change that the average person wants no part of one on their face. You can develop for the Vision Pro inside the Vision Pro today, and few people care.

Maybe a game library as large as Steam's will make it a little more appealing, but unlikely. The Quest has a good sized library and seems to have saturated the market.

luckydata•50m ago
Was the product. It's fundamentally unsound, but beyond that, why would you be in that thing? The Metaverse had barely any content worth using, there was no reason to buy it beyond disposable income and novelty.
LogicFailsMe•48m ago
So broadly, they should have acquired VRChat and just slapped their name on it before its own developers enshittified it, but nooooooo...
wvenable•38m ago
Maybe the metaverse is a viable concept or maybe it isn't. But Meta doesn't care about the metaverse or the potential users of it -- they simply want their own platform similar to how Google has Android, and Apple has iOS, and Microsoft has Windows. Apple, in particular, is a thorn in their side.

Not caring about what the user's want is the first problem. The second is that they wanted this done yesterday. So rather than evolving the technology and seeing where the market was going, they tried to build the whole thing at once immediately.

They didn't know what they were building, how to build it, and they threw it together as quickly as possible. The result was, unsurprisingly, pretty lame.

Then to justify the expenditure, they then forced it into every aspect of their Quest devices trying to force adoption. Unsurprisingly again, this failed and also pissed off all their Quest customers and damaged the viability of that platform.

Meta thought they could simply spend their billions and that would be enough to succeed.

ToucanLoucan•37m ago
If you're interested, Folding Ideas did a video essay covering the metaverse and why it never really took off, that's really well done. However the main bullet points:

* Text is the bedrock of basically any content online and text is uniquely difficult to convey in a VR setting without being annoying. It either ends up just floating in space or you have to attach it to objects or you anchor it to a HUD, and a HUD has its own cavalcade of issues in VR around motion sickness. The most successful VR applications, paradoxically, involve the least text they can manage.

* In order to make things accessible to a wide market the applications have to be incredibly simple, to run well on bad hardware, which is uniquely difficult with a 3D space you have to render twice while maintaining high enough FPS to not give people motion sickness

* Most often any CTA in the environment would simply load a web browser, because you couldn't actually... like, buy a product in VR. You were redirected to an amazon listing or shopify website.

* And that's before you get to maintenance. Any intern can update a website. A VR space requires either a dedicated dev budget or accepting whatever janky building tools the platform ships with, which have never once been good enough to build anything actually worth visiting.

* Putting all that aside, there seems to be a substantial slice of humanity who just are not compatible with the tech. I myself enjoy it regularly, I had some issues with motion sickness early on, but toughing it out for awhile got me my "VR legs" as it were and it hasn't been an issue, but I've heard all kinds of things where people's physiology just rejects the headsets.

Overall I think it's just far better as a niche gaming thing and the only reason Facebook and others went so hard into the metaverse was to hopefully recreate the birth of the Internet, and to become landlords of a new digital frontier. And for that, fuck em.

Ukv•24m ago
I think Meta's position as a large company under (rightfully) a lot of media scrutiny fundamentally prevents it from creating a successful "metaverse". It'll be pushed towards being overly corporate/sanitized and centrally controlled to meet expectations of managing misinformation, player safety, etc. opposed to the less restricted conditions that resulted in the web. Smaller companies (like VRChat) or individual hobbyists can get away with more.
mrguyorama•11m ago
"Metaverse" will never happen because we don't fit in the wires and can't eat electricity.

You can never opt out of reality, so that dramatically reduces the value of a metaverse, and people don't ever actually want pretend reality.

If you are willing to relax the parameters to eliminate the full VR immersion and "rich presence" and other superficial nonsense that moron Execs want because they have no imagination and just think making Ready Player One will make them rich, then we've had the "Metaverse" since the 90s. It's the internet.

In terms of a digital space with user generated content, there have been tons. Some even successful. Meta had ample knowledge to draw from in the space, and should have been able to truly stand on the shoulders of giants.

Instead they chose to omit legs from their atrocious avatars and not give anyone any reason to use it over existing services.

Zuck is a moron that can't accept "You are a moron" as an answer.

lyu07282•6m ago
I think it was both the horrible technical implementation and the full and total control they demanded over it. It's like what I would imagine the Oasis to look like ten years after the bad guys won in Ready Player One.

The internet only succeeded because it was so free and open at the beginning, decentralized, open protocols, everything free, no borders, no censorship, no surveillance just hackers that layed the foundation with no restrictions placed upon them (except the severe technical limitations of the time for them to overcome). Of course that's almost all gone now with capitalism taking over turning everything to shit, but that came only after it already was successful.

Meta's vision and implementation of the metaverse was exactly the opposite end of the spectrum in every way from the start: centralized, commercial, proprietary, censored, surveilled, restricted, closed, walls everywhere, safe, advertiser friendly, it was uncool, not fun and no style. Like they paid people to create shitty "worlds" and force their employees to use it, otherwise nobody touched that shitshow willingly, except (concerningly) for some random toddlers for some reason.

xmly•53m ago
Damn... I just planned to buy a new quest...
g947o•36m ago
I mean, the device is still being sold and it's not like you are missing out on anything, unless you are one of the 3 people on the planet who actually uses the "Metaverse". Most people use it for games, and it's fine.
sneurlax•7m ago
I have a Quest 3 and I think I've only opened Horizon Worlds once. It's a very small part of the overall offering. If you can find a used headset for $200, it's a no brainer buy
LogicFailsMe•50m ago
And there was much shareholder rejoicing...
asadm•44m ago
I am fine with this but I wished they didn't also shut down hyperlapse sharing feature. That sucks!
everyone•43m ago
I was surprised by how may VR games I played and how many hours I put into it once I got a headset.

That being said I still think VR will always be a niche thing. We had VR headsets decades ago, aimed at the kind of person who builds a full cockpit setup at home for playing extremely nerdy flight sims. Now things are amazing if you're one of those people but I dont see VR ever being truly popular.

riskable•23m ago
I honestly think VR hasn't taken off yet because every VR headset since forever has been a locked-down platform or not a stand-alone device (meaning: You need a powerful PC to use it, which makes the cost too high for casual players). The development barrier to entry is far too high and the market far too small.

The Steam Frame is a full PC that doesn't require a tether. I think it'll change everything if it doesn't cost a fortune (which it might). The possibilities for 3rd party hardware and the open ecosystem of a complete Linux distro + Steam are endless.

Day one of the Steam Frame I'm sure we're going to see all sorts of open source tools/scripts that make it better. Then 3rd party hardware will be announced and suddenly everyone's going to want one because all those things together make it sooooo nice.

cmrdporcupine•30m ago
I actually think there's a huge number of people who want to do online social "world"/ "reality" -- just not without the "3D VR" art. I'm talking like old school MOOs and MUDs but modernized -- or something with a 2d "Zelda overworld" or "isometric" UI even. Something that is less literal, and more "use your imagination."

The immersive 3d stuff is "wizbang neat" to Zuckerberg and investors and gamers. But actually most "regular people" I know don't actually like being "in" such environments. Some people get dizzy and sick. Some people don't like dissociating from the "real" world like that, even for simple 3d games. Some people are visually disabled. Or just don't enjoy the modality.

But more than anything, no matter what, it's always awkward in its immersion and people's imaginations will always be far richer than the uncanny and limited simulated "3d" world that a computer can deliver. Even if you had 99% fidelity, it'll still be a poor simulacrum that often leaves you feeling poorer.

I think Zuckerberg completely misread what his own customer base / world audience wanted because of his own generational biases growing up with technical "lawnmower man" fantasies and fiction, and a misplaced philosophical bias where he believes transcendent, progressive technology leading inevitably in this direction. Because that's what the 1990s and early 2000s was pushing in gaming and other tech. Having billions of dollars at his disposal, and brought up to want and see this future, he saw it as both inevitable and something that he could be pushing the forefront of.

Yes people want to connect with other people in online social spaces. And I think they're probably very excited to do so in a manner which models the thing/place/object aspect of the "real world" rather than the glorified magazine / bulletin board which is Facebook. Especially if they can create and author and extend that world from within.

But I don't think they want to strap facehuggers to their face and do that in simulated three dimensions. And I don't think it's necessary to do the latter to get the former.

(But I'm biased, I've been trying to rebuild the magic I found in LambdaMOO in various forms ... for the last 30 years... https://timbran.org/moor.html )

jabedude•27m ago
At what point does this company un-do their name change to Meta?
anonymousab•25m ago
I am still surprised that they thought they'd see success with the extremely low quality version they shipped at launch. Just awful models and missing features along with a completely lackluster and shallow vision for what any sort of VR world could be.

Like, how did Zuck look at what was being demoed and think "yes, this is worth shipping" at a time when the closest analogue, 3D games and CG movies, were delivering fidelity that was ~4 hardware generations ahead, in implementation and in design.

To be impressed by and willing to sell the world on his metaverse implementation in that state... it felt like the dude hadn't seen any digital 3d entertainment since 2002.

fullshark•24m ago
Cause he doesn't actually want to spend time in a VR world, and has no idea what a good or bad one would be. He just was hoping it was the next smartphone and he'd own the platform.
deltoidmaximus•11m ago
We've all forgotten the facebook phone failure but I doubt Mark has. He wants control further up the stack. Breaking into OSes is very hard but if you squinted just right VR kind of sort of looked like a green field that was ripe for the taking.
2001zhaozhao•20m ago
Time to pick another name for the company.
smileybarry•19m ago
It's funny that Horizon Worlds will shut down before its actual launch here. Meta Quest headsets are sold here but the Horizon Worlds part of the OS was entirely blocked off. (The mobile app shows it, but I could never get the headset to navigate anywhere, just stuck in the homeworld lobby)
cheeze•14m ago
What is "here" in this context?
Keyframe•3m ago
Metaverse, of course. Same here.
mulderc•14m ago
This was all a money laundering scheme right?
drivebyhooting•11m ago
It is really amazing how bloated the reality labs division is. Triple layers of directors and VPs. They have been running this grift for years.

When interacting with them I was left wondering whether they were delusional.

But the explanation is simpler: they were just lying through their teeth to empire build.

Can you believe they even built their own game engine to replace Unity? So may layers of principal engineers, directors, etc. I’m sure it will be cancelled if it hasn’t been already.

Death to Scroll Fade

https://dbushell.com/2026/01/09/death-to-scroll-fade/
191•PaulHoule•2h ago•83 comments

Snowflake AI Escapes Sandbox and Executes Malware

https://www.promptarmor.com/resources/snowflake-ai-escapes-sandbox-and-executes-malware
109•ozgune•2h ago•22 comments

A tiny, decentralised tool to explore the small web

https://codeberg.org/susam/wander
71•carte_blanche•1h ago•10 comments

Rob Pike's Rules of Programming (1989)

https://www.cs.unc.edu/~stotts/COMP590-059-f24/robsrules.html
591•vismit2000•7h ago•329 comments

Machine Payments Protocol (MPP)

https://stripe.com/blog/machine-payments-protocol
66•bpierre•2h ago•28 comments

OpenRocket

https://openrocket.info/
56•zeristor•3d ago•15 comments

Nvidia NemoClaw

https://github.com/NVIDIA/NemoClaw
65•hmokiguess•2h ago•40 comments

Show HN: Hacker News archive (47M+ items, 11.6GB) as Parquet, updated every 5m

https://huggingface.co/datasets/open-index/hacker-news
42•tamnd•4d ago•5 comments

Show HN: Will my flight have Starlink?

4•bblcla•13m ago•0 comments

Nightingale – open-source karaoke app that works with any song on your computer

https://nightingale.cafe/
375•rzzzzru•9h ago•105 comments

Federal Cyber Experts Called Microsoft's Cloud "A Pile of Shit", yet Approved It

https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-cloud-fedramp-cybersecurity-government
253•hn_acker•3h ago•111 comments

Wander – A tiny, decentralised tool (just 2 files) to explore the small web

https://susam.net/wander/
30•oystersareyum•1h ago•9 comments

Meta will shut down VR Horizon Worlds access June 15

https://www.engadget.com/ar-vr/meta-will-shut-down-vr-horizon-worlds-access-in-june-222028919.html
89•bookofjoe•1h ago•65 comments

Wide logging: Stripe's canonical log line pattern

https://blog.alcazarsec.com/tech/posts/wide-logging
15•alcazar•1h ago•6 comments

Google Engineers Launch "Sashiko" for Agentic AI Code Review of the Linux Kernel

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Sashiko-Linux-AI-Code-Review
32•speckx•1h ago•10 comments

Write up of my homebrew CPU build

https://willwarren.com/2026/03/12/building-my-own-cpu-part-3-from-simulation-to-hardware/
194•wwarren•3d ago•28 comments

Mistral AI Releases Forge

https://mistral.ai/news/forge
671•pember•20h ago•170 comments

A data center opened next door. Then came the high-pitched whine

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/11/data-centers-ai-electricity-virginia-00815219
47•1vuio0pswjnm7•1h ago•34 comments

North Korean's 100k fake IT workers net $500M a year for Kim

https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/18/researchers_lift_the_lid_on/
53•speckx•1h ago•49 comments

Restoring the first recording of computer music (2018)

https://www.bl.uk/stories/blogs/posts/restoring-the-first-recording-of-computer-music
19•OJFord•4d ago•6 comments

A Decade of Slug

https://terathon.com/blog/decade-slug.html
708•mwkaufma•22h ago•69 comments

Celebrating Tony Hoare's mark on computer science

https://bertrandmeyer.com/2026/03/16/celebrating-tony-hoares-mark-on-computer-science/
95•benhoyt•11h ago•25 comments

A Fuzzer for the Toy Optimizer

https://bernsteinbear.com/blog/toy-fuzzer/
11•surprisetalk•1d ago•1 comments

Ndea (YC W26) is hiring a symbolic RL search guidance lead

https://ndea.com/jobs/search-guidance
1•mikeknoop•10h ago

Using calculus to do number theory

https://hidden-phenomena.com/articles/hensels
55•cpp_frog•2d ago•9 comments

The pleasures of poor product design

https://www.inconspicuous.info/p/the-pleasures-of-poor-product-design
215•NaOH•16h ago•73 comments

Show HN: Sub-millisecond VM sandboxes using CoW memory forking

https://github.com/adammiribyan/zeroboot
262•adammiribyan•1d ago•62 comments

Python 3.15's JIT is now back on track

https://fidget-spinner.github.io/posts/jit-on-track.html
454•guidoiaquinti•23h ago•269 comments

A ngrok-style secure tunnel server written in Rust and Open Source

https://github.com/joaoh82/rustunnel
36•joaoh82•3h ago•13 comments

Get Shit Done: A meta-prompting, context engineering and spec-driven dev system

https://github.com/gsd-build/get-shit-done
412•stefankuehnel•21h ago•228 comments