MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by derbOac | 2025-04-04 14:48:38+00:00
I agree completely but the thing I also find puzzling sometimes is how the public discourse seems to have forgotten about the rampant misinformation that's been going on for the last several years. Basically huge numbers of people have been lied to for a long time.

It's almost as if the scope of the corruption and incompetence is so extensive that there isn't enough time to reflect on the misinformation process that everyone was so focused on for so long.

Obviously not everyone succumbed to it but even today the coverage in major outlets is completely distorted. Media just accept what the administration is saying as if it still has some kind of verdicality by virtue of power, a historically unprecedented example of the fallacy of appeal to authority. People constantly arguing that the Trump administration won't actually do this or that, that it's all a bluff, and so forth, are similarly misleading.

The discussions about mandates is bizarre to me for this reason, not just because of the tiny magnitude and minority nature of the electoral win, but because Trump and his administration vehemently denied doing exactly what they are currently doing. They dismissed it as insane paranoid ramblings of a deficient left. It's not just that they are failing to keep an electoral promise, they are doing the exact things they denied that they would do, and criticized their opponents for claiming they would do.

I guess I bring this up because it seems to me a lot of people have basically been lied to. Being a victim has its own shame and reluctance but it seems like a more tractable — and accurate in many cases — way to engage with some people than them being wrong.
by dcow | 2025-04-04 14:48:42+00:00
Well technically it wouldn’t be piracy once copyright banished. It’d be remixing, appropriation, derivative, etc., all legal.

So make copyright like patents. That’s what a lot of the copyleft movement has been arguing for forever. Make a copyright holder demonstrate their idea is unique, manifests into a tangible output, and if so protect the creator for a limited time. Everyone is free to use the work in their own provided they pay royalties at a reasonable rate for the duration of the patent.

But the status quo now with basically perpetual copyright controlled by large media conglomerates 100% stifles culture and is a net negative on society. It’s not the right to copy that needs defending, it’s the first right of a briefly protected enterprise, a reward to the creator, that needs to be protected. Copyright is like trying to cure a cough by sewing someone’s mouth shut.
by throwaway2037 | 2025-04-04 14:48:51+00:00
I love this response, and I agree 100% with your suggestion, but, isn't it obvious? They didn't want to pay for high quality information. Instead, they needed to wade through rubbish "unpaid"/"free" search results. Or in their own words: "Spent an hour battling shitty seoed crap sites in google search".
by cmrdporcupine | 2025-04-04 14:49:34+00:00
Classical liberal and conservative ideologies have danced around between two poles for hundreds of years: force is right (might makes right) and one's ability to assert dominance in market/politics determines whether one is good/right/just... or.... principles determine justice, and the limits to power are key and important, constitutions, institutions, etc are there to enforce that.

Guess which pole is winning. Again. Predictably.

If you listen to his strongest supporters and those in his administration, they speak openly of it: the President is Right because the president is a Winner. Losers don't get to define what is Right. The President "won" not just the election, but "as a businessman" and an entertainer. So he is Right. Elon is Right because Elon is richest. America is Right because America is Most Powerful. Everyone else is a leech, a cuck, a sub, a beta, whatever. You either get on side, or you're a loser. And wrong.

It's pointless to argue with these people on abstract principles. American liberals are so caught off guard by this because they've been assured their whole life that constitutions and courts are the foundation of stability and that those guard rails protect society.

They don't. They're pieces of paper.
by diggan | 2025-04-04 14:49:36+00:00
> At 1,000 hours of "debate", it is unlikely that anyone is considering

I mean, if you take that not as an exaggeration but at face value, it's 200 days of 5 hours of discussions per day. I'm fairly sure the specific number is an exaggeration, but if it isn't, I'd probably agree with you :)
by mapt | 2025-04-04 14:49:39+00:00
> I will say a huge number of problems in our society right now are caused by a prioritization of profit over social stability which is inherent to capitalism.

I totally agree. I would prefer harnessing capitalism for our means and regulating it heavily, but I understand if you don't think our democracy could survive the conflict (or if you think that it isn't surviving the conflict already). I'm just very aware of all of the ways solutions to this problem have gone wrong in the past.
by listless | 2025-04-04 14:49:56+00:00
I do think this is true. I'm 46 and I find myself wondering when things are going to "return to normal". But I can't really define what that is besides saying "2019". I'm not even sure what I'm referring to other than I hate short form video. I don't know how I feel about AI. It does seem like something that has a lot of promise though if we can figure out the context issues.
by throw4847285 | 2025-04-04 14:49:58+00:00
> Society is saved just as often as the circle of its rulers contracts, as a more exclusive interest is maintained against a wider one. Every demand of the simplest bourgeois financial reform, of the most ordinary liberalism, of the most formal republicanism, of the most shallow democracy, is simultaneously castigated as an “attempt on society” and stigmatized as “socialism.” And finally the high priests of “religion and order” themselves are driven with kicks from their Pythian tripods, hauled out of their beds in the darkness of night, put in prison vans, thrown into dungeons or sent into exile; their temple is razed to the ground, their mouths are sealed, their pens broken, their law torn to pieces in the name of religion, of property, of the family, of order. Bourgeois fanatics for order are shot down on their balconies by mobs of drunken soldiers, their domestic sanctuaries profaned, their houses bombarded for amusement – in the name of property, of the family, of religion, and of order.
by jjulius | 2025-04-04 14:50:11+00:00
>I expected a repeat of his first term. Which honestly was quite uneventful. This is not.

They were quite candid with their intent. Aside from him casually/flippantly brushing off Project 2025 during his campaign (when it was clear that his campaign was deeply connected to it), it was tremendously obvious to anybody paying attention that things would be much different during round two, and in a more aggressive manner.

You had your head in the sand. If you voted for him, this is your fault. Damn you.

Downvotes be damned.
by grayhatter | 2025-04-04 14:50:13+00:00
You're describing problems, in fact the exact same problems that you'd have with an entirely domestic source as well. I'm asking about how it would be stronger, or better than a purely domestic source. The EU absolutely should have it's own cloud infra. Couldn't agree more. How does an exclusively domestic IT infra benefit the EU, is the question. If they had their own, and were also able to source from the US, from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, [insert other allies] they'd be faster at adapting to a change in supply.

Russia is a bad example, they're doing stupid shit, the same as the US. Hurting itself in it's confusion. But I guess it's a fair point, if you're willing to cut off your own feet, you don't need to depend on importing shoes. And it might make sense to build exclusively domestic leg stub sock factories, given the rest of the globe doesn't want to cut off it's own feet.

I wouldn't actually suggest that as something the us should strive to emulate.
by eszed | 2025-04-04 14:50:49+00:00
Why do they want meritocracy? The companies I've seen up close want "certified Smart Kid", in which case nearly any degree will do; "pre-trained worker", in which case they require a degree in a particular field; or "someone well-connected", in which case they want someone from a limited set of schools.

(Companies do subsidize that limited set of schools, and pretty heavily, but it probably has more to do with social connections than economic merit.)

The system might break down to the point that what you're suggesting makes sense. On the other hand, "Indebted Worker" (from any of the three types above) allows companies a lot of power over their employees, so it might not.
by mandmandam | 2025-04-04 14:50:59+00:00
> People are literally being kidnapped and thrown into detention centers without due process and there are not massive protests.

For the record, there have been (and will be more) significant protests about this [0]. Corporate media does a fantastic job of ignoring and minimizing protests they're not in favor of (because they are actually effective...).

If you're old enough to remember, think back to how the world held some of the largest anti-war protests in history back in the early 00's. Turns out, corporate media with strong financial links to defense contractors aren't much interested in covering that. At the same time reporters who took too much of an anti-war stance were literally fired... And things have gotten progressively worse with every administration since.
by jfengel | 2025-04-04 14:51:08+00:00
Musk is a red herring here. He's the face of the operation, but the program he's implementing is just longstanding Republican policy. He may deny the use of the Project 2025 playbook, but if so, he's starting with the same assumptions and reaching the same conclusions.

If he does in fact leave, little will change. He'll be replaced by a less famous person, probably one who spends less time bragging on Twitter about it.

This may not be what Silicon Valley actually does, but it's what a large fraction of the country believes that Silicon Valley does. Trump was elected in part because voters wanted him to run the country the way they imagine trillion-dollar companies run.

So that's what we're gonna get. And I guess we'll find out if it's actually a good idea.
by derbOac | 2025-04-04 14:51:28+00:00
Not trying to be hostile but while everywhere has corruption, and the US definitely has a history of things to be shameful of, it's been nowhere near the scope of what we're seeing now, at least in recent history.

I see arguments about "this is the way it always has been" as essentially normalizing rampant authoritarian corruption. To me, it's taking projection and accepting it as fact without evidence.

Also, regardless, it seems two wrongs don't make a right, and the appropriate response is to reject it when it it exists.
by steviedotboston | 2025-04-04 14:51:40+00:00
The real cowardice was when student mobs took over campuses and harassed jewish students but the universities did nothing about. They hoped it would fizzle out and go away, and even though the worst of it did, it didn't go away entirely and the underlying tensions still simmered. Jewish students who were terrified to walk to class, lest they be harassed by some masked terrorist supporters, wanted to make sure the worst offenders of the protests were dealt with. Most universities still did nothing, and then Trump was elected. He has been consistently pro-Israel, and the organized Jewish community has been able to make inroads with his administration. So now he's dealing with it in the way that he deals with every issue.

What we are seeing now is entirely the fault of university administrators who failed to deal with the issue when it started.
by RankingMember | 2025-04-04 14:51:48+00:00
> -I fully plan on eventually moving to canada (or elsewhere) when the time comes - much easier to move than any other option

I completely understand this sentiment but hope you don't. Things are bad, but they're not going to get better if everyone who thinks they're bad leaves. The problem with a U.S. descent is that the negative impact will hit just about anywhere you try to parachute to.
by austin-cheney | 2025-04-04 14:51:49+00:00
Yes and no. A more extreme example of this is the US Army's Mission Command Philosophy.

The yes part:

Leaders like velocity and don't want rules to slow people down. Rules exist for a reason, because somebody in the past has fucked it up for the rest of us. Leadership still wants goal accomplishment in the shortest time frame and at the cheapest cost, though. The US Army baked this into the cornerstone of their leadership approach more than 20 years. The central concept is for a leader to tell their people at set of goals and then release their people into the wild and figure it out on their own. This provides flexibility with minimal constraints, which is especially important in a rapidly changing environment of fluid changes where the senior leader has outdated information.

Its also why corporate leadership doesn't discourage working on personal code projects if that value comes back to the organization.

The no part:

Leaders, at least the non-toxic ones, don't want to cannibalize their people. Even if rules are not important ethics certainly are. Good leaders don't want narcissistic assholes rotting the organization from the inside even if it does mean higher velocity. If your organization reaches a market milestone first but everybody has left the organization then its purely a Pyrrhic victory and the organization will still lose. This is why up to 25% of flag officers in the US military are continually under investigation at any time.

In the corporate world this is crystal clear when you look at your leadership and your peers. Are they primarily interested in releasing a product or reaching an organizational goal or are they primarily interested in their place within the organization or the appearance of relationships.
by yojo | 2025-04-04 14:51:52+00:00
Twenty years ago, I worked for Google AdWords as a customer service rep. This was still relatively early days, and all ads still had some level of manual human review.

The big advertisers had all furnished us a list of their trademarks and acceptable domains. Any advertiser trying to use one that wasn’t on the allow-list had their ad removed at review time.

I suspect this could be what happened to you. If the platform you were using has any kind of review process for new shops, you may have run afoul of pre-registered keywords.
by sorcerer-mar | 2025-04-04 14:51:56+00:00
The only leading indicators that really matter due to their self-fulfilling nature: people's confidence. The below is from before he started doing the thing "he's not stupid enough to do," these tariffs.

> A poll of more than 220 U.S. CEOs finds business confidence at lowest level since November 2012—and recession fears on the rise.

> Consumers’ expectations for the future at a 12-year low

https://chiefexecutive.net/ceo-optimism-plummets-in-march-am...

https://www.conference-board.org/topics/consumer-confidence
by Brybry | 2025-04-04 14:52:07+00:00
The libertarians in the Republican party, like Massie and Paul, still seem to vote [1] according to their ideology. I don't agree with their ideology but they do seem consistent. [2]

Collins, McConnell, and Murkowski have been voting against the administration for more traditional Republican policy, sometimes.[3]

Nine Republican Reps blocked H.Res 282[4] because it would have killed bipartisan H.Res 164[5] and that caused the House Republican leaders to cancel votes for the whole week.

It's not all lockstep boot licking. Just mostly.

[1] https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202550

[2] https://xcancel.com/RepThomasMassie/status/18995193281369747...

[3] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...

[4] https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202587

[5] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolutio...
by sofixa | 2025-04-04 14:52:09+00:00
> I'm pretty sure the election was manipulated, but the court only said so because it benefits the incumbents, which control the courts and would lose their power.

Why do you think that's the only reason the court said so? The election law was pretty blatantly violated (he declared campaign funding of 0, yet tons of ads were bought for him and influencers paid to advertise him).
by josefritzishere | 2025-04-04 14:53:09+00:00
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.
by HenryBemis | 2025-04-04 14:53:18+00:00
The number 1 (and super easy to debunk) BS narrative that the English (mainly) say on the topic of "we never stole from others" or "it was a trade-off for modernizing them", etc. is how about you give back _all_ the things you 'didn't steal'. All Gemstones from all crowns/staves/etc, everything in the "British" (cough-stolen-cough) Museum. And _then_ your argument will have half a leg to stand on.

So until you return what is stolen from every country around the planet, keep the BS to yourselves because it only angers the rest of us, you pathetic thieves. Totally deserving what is going on in the UK. And I fear it is too late to turn that ship around in the next couple of decades. Especially with the politicians that are running the show and the younger ones in the pipeline.

And it is a great pity because I have lived and worked in the UK and I loved the people and the place. But hold your tongues and stop biting your own tails (you snakes) and perhaps you will have a better life in 20-30 years. :)
by aaronbaugher | 2025-04-04 14:53:29+00:00
New wealth can be created, but it seems like at least since the 90s, we've been in a pattern where the people with most of the wealth would prefer a sort of stasis, because that way their chunk of the pie doesn't get smaller by comparison to the rest. They'd rather have slow, managed, inflation-swallowed "growth" than the ups and downs that accompany leaps forward but sometimes change who is on top.

So we've gone from "everyone will have flying cars" to "the rest of you will eat bugs." Castles and jets for the few; austerity for the rest of us. Which certainly isn't new, but it's not what was promised, or what seemed possible within living memory.
by mikepurvis | 2025-04-04 14:54:24+00:00
I'm a mostly-satisfied iPhone 13 mini user, but I'm considering moving back to Android for my next device. No one reason is the deal-breaker, but it's just a pile-up of stuff:

- My main compute platforms are now Linux and Windows, but even when I had a MacBook, I didn't really benefit much from whatever integration there was between the two.

- I tried and did not like Apple Watch, and I'm upset at Apple's treatment of other wearable makers like Fitbit and now Pebble.

- I'm frustrated that my iPhone 13 is still not USB-C when basically everything else I carry around is.

- I don't like how the Epic/Apple case went, and I wish Apple had been made to allow competing stores on their devices (the EU got this one right).

- With Apple having discontinued the "mini" models, physical size is no longer a differentiator— the Galaxy series phones are basically indistinguishable from modern iPhone models.
by fullshark | 2025-04-04 14:55:01+00:00
Yeah, Founders don't post here anymore, they are busy chatting on some secret message boards and group chats the riff-raff don't have access to. This site is now for bitter tech workers and wannabes and the comments reflect it. I'm guilty of being a member of that class I admit, and I'm not doing much to elevate things but the discourse has become incredibly uninteresting as a result.
by IAmBroom | 2025-04-04 14:55:28+00:00
And perhaps a broader point is: "Facts are simply opinions we generally agree upon."

At its best, "Science" doesn't claim the force between two objects is proportional to the product of their masses. It merely observes that this has been the case in all known, well-documented instances, and attempts to find exceptions have failed, so that this "law" is valid and reliable, and expected to remain so forever.

We use the term "fact" very casually, and eagerly. "The Dow is up 20% year-over-year, unemployment is under 4%, and the dollar is strong. The economy is strong. That's a fact!" Not only is that not a fact, it's not even a fact that unemployment is under 4%. That's (presumably...) just the U3 number as published by the Department of Labor.

My point is: the best "facts" still require a certain amount faith in the data sources around us. That's fine. I don't wish to visit every country on Earth to ensure that it exists, and observe the weighing of the Kilogram in Paris. (I mean, unless I can take time to sightsee a bit.)

There has been a genuine breakdown in that faith in authority in US culture. Maybe Ukraine attacked Russia first. Maybe poor people are inherently lazier than rich people. Maybe the Earth is flat.

I believe this breakdown has been intentionally orchestrated and groomed and fed by nefarious people like Rupert Murdoch, but that's just an opinion. Based on things I like to call "facts".
by diggan | 2025-04-04 14:55:35+00:00
How is this connected to the submission? Or is a random tangent because the article mentions "student activism" and "Trump" in the opening? The only part mentioning anyone Jewish is:

> You have prominent Jewish figures around the country who get comfortable with Trump, it seems to me, because they can say he’s fighting antisemitism: “He’s good for the Jews.” It’s pathetic. It’s a travesty of Jewish values, in my view.

But I'm not sure how that is connected to what you wrote.
Ask HN: Where is MongoDB source code?
by aleksi | 2025-04-04 14:55:54+00:00
There are no commits or tags for two months: https://github.com/mongodb/mongo/commits/master

In the meantime, 8.0.5 and 8.0.6 were released: https://www.mongodb.com/docs/manual/release-notes/8.0/

Those appear to be patch releases for major releases, not rapid releases, so the source should be available: https://www.mongodb.com/docs/manual/reference/versioning/

There is a forum post without an answer: https://www.mongodb.com/community/forums/t/source-code-in-github/316442

Is MongoDB no longer source-available?
by nobankai | 2025-04-04 14:56:10+00:00
> make this make sense.

Sure. Modern Chinese RoRo vessels fit more than 1 shirt on them. The average shipping manifest to America looks more like 125,000 shirts, 10,000 tons displacement of natural gas, 40,000 sex toys, 20,000 Macbooks and a few dozen merchant marines making the trip. The "great cost to the environment" was manufacturing these products. The carbon footprint for shipping linens around the world is negligible, and cheaper than buying American-made.

It doesn't take a genius to see that this isn't an environmental issue, China will fuel up their boats regardless and take their surplus elsewhere. This is about American businesses outright failing to compete in the free market in places that matter, like car manufacturing and $1 tee shirt factories.
by blitzar | 2025-04-04 14:56:10+00:00
It is still really bad - (again if it was the case) monitoring very simple things like "# of changed payment" instructions could detect this sort of fraud quickly, or at worst speedbumping the time to change payment instructions.

Pre self service on the internet call centers / mail in processors would have noticed if a large % of customers changed their payment details over a few days.