External source reference · Prototype data
Around Hara records narrow public references from X, Reddit, Hacker News, Substack, GitHub, RSS, and other feeds. Related items may be grouped when the evidence supports it, but the original platform continues to own the post, identity, discussion measures, and canonical URL.
Screen 01 · Signal radar
Raw likes, upvotes, points, comments, and stars remain source facts. Percentiles, velocity, freshness, and Hara relevance make the combined view legible.
Around Hara
Exact Hara links and known repositories are strongest. Ambiguous keyword matches enter review.
Moving now
The merged LiveSession contract is being discussed as a reusable lifecycle boundary: revision fencing, ordered events, capabilities, cancellation, and transactional restart.
Revision fencing, monotonic events, explicit capabilities, and one lifecycle for interpreted or compiled execution.
Exact hara-lang.org link LiveSession · hara-wasm-coreDiscussion is moving from the demo toward cancellation, backend parity, and unsupported-operation semantics.
Canonical repository URL PR #767 · browser runtimeA thread compares replayable work, checkpointed boundaries, providers, and a deliberately narrow public ABI.
Known namespace and repository work.* · IWorkExecutorAn essay connects inspectable schemas, generated interfaces, and runtime validation without hidden metadata.
Exact namespace and Hara links std.typed · SchemaUnlike metrics are preserved, then compared through source percentiles and velocity.
Every card says external signal and keeps original actions separate from World actions.
The word Hara alone is weak evidence; exact entities drive confidence.
Screen 02 · Story cluster
The canonical Hara update anchors the cluster. External reactions remain distinct records while one World thread discusses the resolved story.
Story cluster · LiveSession
One lifecycle contract now fences stale requests, preserves event order, exposes backend capabilities, and gives interpreter and HBC sessions the same browser-facing envelope.
Coverage map
The merged Hara change anchors every external reaction.
Fastest-moving external framing; exact canonical link present.
Readers focus on lifecycle parity and cancellation semantics.
Long-form interpretation links the contract to embedded tools.
A narrower reuse discussion appears in a browser-audio community.
Hara World discussion
External comments stay on their original platforms. This thread discusses the resolved Hara story.
The useful part is that unsupported operations remain explicit capabilities instead of silent fallback.
PR #767 is the canonical implementation. Both browser hosts use the same packed-pointer transport.
The official release leads whenever one exists.
World discussion attaches to the story, not a copied comment tree.
URLs, repositories, entities, and editorial decisions explain every merge.
Screen 03 · External signal
The original preview, author state, platform metrics, match evidence, related Hara entities, availability, and local discussion are visible before clipping.
Signal detail
Hara’s LiveSession boundary reads like a protocol: stale-command fencing, monotonic events, explicit capabilities, and one lifecycle for interpreted or compiled execution.
Why this appeared
Hara World discussion
The revision fence gives embedded tools a reusable way to reject stale UI intent.
Ranking and matching evidence sit beside the original preview.
An external handle is not automatically a Hara profile.
Deletion and protection are visible states.
Screen 04 · Clip composer
A clip records the canonical URL, source metadata, the user’s note, related Hara entities, tags, and visibility.
Clip to World
Hara’s LiveSession boundary is interesting because it reads like a protocol rather than a browser REPL…Open canonical source ↗
Preview
Useful framing: the session boundary is reusable because stale intent, capabilities, restart, and event ordering are explicit.
The user authors the note and selection.
One external URL can support distinct community notes.
A public clip is not consent to outbound reposting.
Screen 05 · Submit source
Register an RSS feed, Substack publication, X account, subreddit, Hacker News domain, or GitHub repository, then preview what would match.
Step 01 of 04
Start with the source itself. Matching and ownership remain separate.
Recent-entry preview
Programming languages as inspectable worldsExact hara-lang.org link · 1.00
The smallest useful durable-work interfaceKnown work.* namespace · 0.91
Revision fences in browser runtimeshara-wasm-core · 1.00
Notes on workflow toolsNo Hara entity · 0.12
World records where discovery comes from.
Over-broad rules become visible early.
Claiming control remains separately verified.
Screen 06 · Source profile
The source page exposes who submitted it, claim state, matching contract, refresh health, discoveries, and change history.
Long-form writing about programming languages, runtimes, durable work, and inspectable systems.
systems-small.example/feedRecent discoveries
Programming languages as inspectable worldsExact hara-lang.org link
clusteredThe smallest useful durable-work interfaceKnown work.* namespace
clippedRevision fences in browser runtimeshara-wasm-core link
hotMatching contract
Exact domainhara-lang.org and github.com/hara-lang
Known namespacestd.typed, work.*, LiveSession
Context thresholdKeyword-only matches require ≥ 0.82
Review fenceAmbiguous items enter moderation
Source history
Feed refreshed3 inspected · 1 match
Rule narrowedThreshold raised to 0.82
Source approvedRecommendation accepted
Readers can see exactly why this source contributes.
Verified owners maintain metadata, not ownership of linked content.
Rule changes and moderation outcomes remain history.
Screen 07 · Match moderation
Reviewers inspect decomposed evidence, resolve duplicates and identity claims, and record explicit dispositions and rule effects.
Potential matches
Exact Hara entities, contextual guesses, and keyword collisions remain distinguishable.
Hara for API workflows?Contextual match · 0.62
Hara meditation retreatKeyword collision · 0.18
Duplicate LiveSession linkLikely merge · 0.99
Selected candidate
Has anyone used Hara for coordinating API workflows? I want an algebraic model with durable boundaries rather than a queue-first framework.
Reviewers correct rules rather than merely hiding items.
Keep, reject, hold, and merge have different effects.
Versioned deterministic contracts still govern publication.
Screen 08 · Hara Relay
Relay watches top stories, repositories, clips, and releases, then generates channel-specific drafts behind rate limits and human approval.
Outbound automation
Selection is rule-driven. Publication remains channel-specific, attributable, rate-limited, and reviewable.
LiveSession discussionScore 92 · canonical record linked
std.typed releaseScore 87 · release velocity
Snippet of the dayScore 81 · curator pick
Generated draft
One lifecycle now governs Hara’s interpreted and compiled browser sessions: stale-command fencing, ordered events, explicit capabilities, and transactional restart.
Human approval requiredExternal-author content never auto-publishes.
Maximum two posts dailyChannel-specific rate limit.
Canonical link firstRepository or Hara story leads.
Attribution lockedOriginal platforms remain visible.
Discovery, scoring, clustering, and drafts can run continuously.
Each destination receives an appropriate structure.
Every outbound effect records why, who, policy, and result.
Around Hara record types
The original platform remains authoritative for the item. Hara World records resolved Hara entities, contributor notes, local discussion, moderation decisions, and reviewed outbound effects around it.