MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by DonHopkins | 2025-05-11 09:30:49+00:00
I let the domain "micropolisonline.com" expire, which I was using for the old OpenLaszlo/Flash Python/SWIG/C++ client/server based version of open source SimCity, and somebody took it over and replaced it with AI generated claptrap, stealing a lot of my own and other's images without any credit. It even promises the source code, but doesn't actually link to it, just has promises and placeholders.

It totally misrepresents what Micropolis is, which was based on the original SimCity classic, and confuses it with all the subsequent versions of SimCity and other made-up stuff. And it never mentions the GPL-3 license, EA's license and restrictions on the use of their SimCity trademark, or Micropolis's license to use their trademark. I have no idea what the point of it is.

https://micropolisonline.com/

https://micropolisonline.com/source-code/

>How to Access the Source Code: For those eager to explore the Micropolis Online Source Code, it is available on our dedicated GitHub repository. Visit [Link] to access the repository, where you can browse the code, contribute to ongoing projects, or initiate your own.

The source code is actually not at [Link] but at:

https://github.com/SimHacker/MicropolisCore

Not even so much as a link to the my demo!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8snnqQSI0GE

They could be in some legal jepordy since they didn't mention or link to the Micropolis GPL License or the Micropolis Public Name License, which they may be violating.

https://github.com/SimHacker/MicropolisCore/blob/main/Microp...

https://github.com/SimHacker/MicropolisCore/blob/main/Microp...

The have a "Meet the Team" page that mentions nobody, just hand waves about "we" and the community. They couldn't even bother to generate generic looking fake profiles of non-existent people. Suffice it to say I never heard back from anyone after using the "Contact Us" page.

They even have a cute little Terms and Conditions page with their very own license, which doesn't allow anyone to do to them what they did to me, and is not particularly GPL-v3 compatible:

https://micropolisonline.com/terms-conditions/

>License to Use Micropolis Online

>Unless otherwise stated, Micropolis Online and/or its licensors own the intellectual property rights for all material on Micropolis Online. All intellectual property rights are reserved. You may view and/or print pages from micropolisonline.com for your own personal use subject to restrictions set in these terms and conditions.

>You must not:

>Republish material from micropolisonline.com Sell, rent, or sub-license material from micropolisonline.com Reproduce, duplicate, or copy material from micropolisonline.com

They also claim all rights to all user created content:

>By displaying Your Content, you grant Micropolis Online a non-exclusive, worldwide irrevocable, sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, adapt, publish, translate, and distribute it in any and all media.

Kind of ironic for an LLM to go around stealing people's content, then telling them that not only can't anyone copy it back, but it owns the rights to everything anyone else may contribute in the future.
by userbinator | 2025-05-11 09:31:48+00:00
Yeah, no drivers required, merely the ability for userland code to smash hardware by hand.

Brightness control has always been in ring 0, or -1 when it was still exclusively SMM.

I don't know what you're on about. What "FUCKING SUCKED" about not having to worry about what the OS does, if it does anything at all? The OS can poke the EC if it wants to adjust the screen brightness, fan control, or whatever else. Otherwise the EC takes care of everything.

Windows handled all of these on CPU 0 so it worked by accident

...and if it was handled by SMM, Windows doesn't need to care at all!

Then again, I'm not surprised at your misdirection and half-truths given you've been essentially shilling Treacherous Computing and Restricted Boot among other hostilities.

Edit: and as if destiny itself wanted to show why needing an OS and accompanying mess of drivers to do something simple is a bad idea, especially for Asus products in particular, this shows up right on cue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43951588
by tsimionescu | 2025-05-11 09:32:30+00:00
You have to explain why and how you are rejecting it.

The point of the poster above is that you're ultimately paying for your free email with a Google tax on every carton of milk and every smartphone you buy. That is, if advertising were banned and you had to pay for Gmail, most of your other purchases would be just a little bit cheaper, because they wouldn't be paying for Google ads to support your free email.

And this is just basic finance: the advertising budget has to be paid for somehow, so it is priced into the goods themselves (either through higher prices or lower quality, of course).
by vlovich123 | 2025-05-11 09:33:31+00:00
> IMO, Intel (and AMD) did prove the impact of a legacy ISA was low enough to not be a competitive disadvantage. Not zero, but close enough for high-performance designs.

And Apple proved that in fact it was a significant problem once you factored into account performance per watt allowing them to completely spank AMD and Intel once those hit a thermal limit. There’s a benefit from being able to decode and dispatch multiple instructions in parallel vs having to emulate that through heuristically guessing at instruction boundaries and backtrack when you make a mistake (among other things).
by greatgib | 2025-05-11 09:34:11+00:00
Sadly, HN top becomes more and more occupied with general news instead of content relevant to the hacker mind.

I guess that people give like to mainstream news when they support the background topic instead of liking what is worth a read on topic or what is an unusual curious gem.

Here is probably the sad effect of not having a general news equivalent or that good news reader and aggregators have quite disappeared. Maybe also because Google news sucks more and more everyday relying on AI to "feed" us content.
by dannersy | 2025-05-11 09:35:12+00:00
Companies building entire workflows to replace existing ones on technology that is already expensive, is losing money on every use, failed to show it can reliably do the things it claims, has burned unknown billions in advancing marginally, and will almost certainly get exponentially more expensive as the AI providers realize they have no more investors as we precariously navigate possible global recession and trade/supply chain complications.

What could go wrong?
by sofixa | 2025-05-11 09:35:45+00:00
> absolutely has to do with your entirely unsupported claim that chatting with an uncensored LLM will cause people to commit violent acts https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/technology/characterai-la...

It's a complicated story, but let's not pretend that people can't develop parasocial relationships with AIs and act on them.
by jampekka | 2025-05-11 09:36:01+00:00
> You need to resolve what you mean by 'free'. If you have no option but to pay tax, ie your wealth is forcibly extracted, you are not free. You can't both be free and have wealth forcibly extracted.

In many places you're free to opt out of the economy and thus skip all this "forcible extraction of wealth". This of course comes with the downside of not having much ownership that the system forcibly enforces.

Property rights aren't some laws of nature. They are part of the "social contract" just like taxation.
by kragen | 2025-05-11 09:36:20+00:00
At some level it becomes expensive, but it's far from clear that five significant figures of mass is that level.

A US$2 quartz watch measures time to 5½ significant figures, US$10 multimeters routinely measure voltage to 4½, and US$5 GPS receivers can provide you with time measurements accurate to 40ns that inherit the drift of world metrology standards, a precision of 16 significant figures if you are measuring a long enough time interval (over 10 years).
by mcapodici | 2025-05-11 09:37:39+00:00
I am trying to understand the tea example.

When someone says "I am making tea", to me, they mean "I have a plan! The execution of that plan has begun. The goal is to make tea." and in the context, because that's the answer to the question, they are also saying "The reason the stove is on is because I am executing that very plan."

Is this just idiomatic English? If we went formal logic on every sentence it would be a verbose world. Maybe other languages are more explicit.
by disgruntledphd2 | 2025-05-11 09:37:55+00:00
So you're telling me that Israel have not been stopping aid from getting into Gaza for three weeks now?

That is definitely a war crime.

And basically Hamas are fighting a guerrilla war and engaging in acts of terror similar to what the Zionists engaged in pre 48. If that was ok, then surely what Hamas are doing is fine?

I'm really confused about your notion that the Israeli state is being attacked. It's more accurate to say that both sides are being attacked, and only one side is engaging in plans to displace one side.

The last election was in 2007, half the Gaza population wasn't even born then.

By your logic the carbrt bombing of Dresden and nuking Japan were fine, is that a fair summation of your position?
by Retric | 2025-05-11 09:38:00+00:00
Sure, nonsense meanwhile you seem to misunderstand one of the earliest philosophical debates.

Plato specifically argued for truth independent of physical reality where Aristotle believed in empiricism.

As to your edit> You seem to want to redefine "philosophy" to mean "philosophy that doesn't work", which admittedly is a widespread definition today among the common people. But if we stipulate that definition, it has the practical problem that we cannot tell whether what Chalmers is up to here is "philosophy" or not until we find out whether it was a productive line of inquiry or not, perhaps in two or three hundred years.

Hardly, I specifically mentioned that some philosophers are open to observation but they get there as a philosophical stance first. Meanwhile Thomas Aquinas and many others argued that truth flowed from religious text. It’s easy to dismiss such reasoning especially when it disagrees with observed reality but that doesn’t erase such people from history.

Edit2: I’m done responding to your edits.
by adrian_b | 2025-05-11 09:38:16+00:00
This might be a Firefox problem.

I have never seen it before, but today I have seen it in 3 or 4 sites linked from HN.

What has worked for me is to click "Accept all", then, after the pop-up reappears, click "Only necessary", which makes the pop-up disappear.

Clicking "Only necessary" without clicking before that "Accept all" has not worked. Likewise, clicking multiple times one of those options has not worked.
Show HN: I made a NYT inspired geography game
by aleda145 | 2025-05-11 09:39:07+00:00
I'm hooked on doing NYT's Connections daily. I wanted to do something similar, but with a geography/travel theme. Please try it out!

I'm making all the clues myself, which has been super fun! It's hard to balance the difficulty while making clues that I find amusing to write, hope it's not too hard/nonsensical!

Any thoughts/feedback/comments are appreciated!
by liendolucas | 2025-05-11 09:39:47+00:00
> This is understandable since ASUS is just a small startup.

A small startup with a marketcap of only 15 B. What is more than understandable is that you give a shit not only about your crappy products but the researcher that did a HUGE work for your customers.

I truly feel bad for researchers doing this kind of work only to get them dismissed/trashed like this. So unfair.

The only thing that is ought to be done is not to purchase ASUS products.
by jug | 2025-05-11 09:41:18+00:00
Ooh, it’s the ”softening the blow ahead of dramatic and expected to be highly controversial changes” writeup! I think many have seen the writing on the wall, and it’s too bad.

We love AI as SO replacers today, as they have an unprecedented way of customizing the solution to people’s situations, but AI is built on the shoulders of… Well, overly moderated Q&A communities among others… And I think we still need them as ”engines” on the web.
by speakspokespok | 2025-05-11 09:43:27+00:00
Lazarus and Open Pascal is fun!

And so it drives me crazy to see the state of their documentation. The wiki needs to be archived and replaced with a coherent documentation platform. It’s such a turn off. The whole website is a SWAG site frankly.

‘ SWAG sites

SWAG is an archive of tips and example programs for Turbo Pascal/Borland Pascal and early Delphi. Much of it is still applicable to today's Object Pascal - and much is obsolete...’

How can a language compete when a new user sees this?
by notepad0x90 | 2025-05-11 09:44:56+00:00
I understand all that, I was making the slippery-slope argument, it isn't a fallacy in this case. What groups are considered equal and worthy of protected dignity has gone from "just straight white property owning men" to the myriad of groups we have today. This is a constantly evolving definition. Whoever is in power gets to define that. In times of peace, it is easy to assume things will remain as they are. Look at us here in America, the majority were deceived (or just didn't show up to vote) and now those in power who can change such definitions are horrible evil people. The same can happen in Europe if you don't learn from us. It wasn't that long ago fascists almost took over all of europe and caused the greatest war in the history of our species! Free speech is the only real defense against that. It's either that or violence and war.
by snvzz | 2025-05-11 09:46:31+00:00
Most people operate on feelings, not reason. Thus it is most likely out of shame born from supplementing for lack of willpower by using drugs.

Eliminating sugar from diet, shifting from carbs to fats or intermittent fasting will all have a greater effect than these drugs. But they all require some willpower at the start; Discipline, which people seem to lack.

Alternatively, a more rational take is to consider "crabs in a bucket" mentality. Awareness leads to not publicizing your personal goals and how you're working towards them.
by ZoneZealot | 2025-05-11 09:48:16+00:00
Parent comment is making a point that it might have been possible for an attacker to avoid discovery via certificate transparency logs, because anyone 'with a wildcard' could pull off the attack, which is not correct.

I'm pointing out that a wildcard at the apex of your domain (which is what basically everyone means when saying 'a wildcard'), would not work for this attack. Instead if you were to perform the attack using a wildcard certificate, it would need to be issued for '*.asus.com.example.com.' - which would certainly be obvious in certificate transparency logs.
by klunger | 2025-05-11 09:48:29+00:00
Well, with this ERC fund, we are trying to attract high quality research scientists. While there are many of these who also have entrepreneurial ambitions, it is a venn diagram, not a circle.

However, your critique of the wealth tax on unrealized gains is a big problem more generally. I have some interaction with the startup ecosystem these days here. Anecdotally, I have seen several founders choose to incorporate elsewhere in Europe or the US because of it. Unfortunately, it's incredibly hard to quantify how many do not stay here because of it.

This aspect of the tax has had significant opposition for years, but nothing ever seems to come from it.

Opposition to tax on realized gains/assets is less vocal. Someone else here characterized that part as similar to property taxes in the US and I think that is fairly accurate.

Details on what is taxed how much, if you are interesed: https://www.skatteetaten.no/en/person/taxes/get-the-taxes-ri...

ETA: we are looking for evolutionary biologists. Not many entrepreneurial personalities here, more like a lot of bird watchers (I say this lovingly). Over in the groups with translation potential is a different story of course.
by jml78 | 2025-05-11 09:48:39+00:00
I have mild sleep apnea and my Apple Watch is the reason I figured it out. If you wear it every night, you will catch it. I have on average 1-2 events an hour. Even with that few, the Apple Watch would catch the O2 drop enough times over a month that it worried me to see my O2 drop under 90%
by c0l0 | 2025-05-11 09:49:10+00:00
Wow... reading this article in full really made me lose hope in OpenSSL, the project and the library.

I was well aware of the expected inconveniences any new major OpenSSL release would trigger (esp. older, less actively maintained applications having to adapt their API usage to keep working) going in, but what the linked github issue/PR comments hint at is just... mental.

As best illustrated by https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/20286#issuecomment... not only seem the core developers not care about runtime performance at all, they also seem to have a completely absurd perception of their own project, esp. in relation to other, genuinely small FOSS projects.

It's just wild. I hope this can still be turned around, and OpenSSL can somehow re-emerge from this clusterfuck as the stable bedrock of web transport security that we learned to rely on from 2014 onwards.
by mjg59 | 2025-05-11 09:49:28+00:00
For most of the past 20 years, brightness control has been ring 0 mechanism, ring 3 policy. ACPI provides a mechanism for the OS to interface with the EC in a way that aligns with any SMM that's going on, and where we are now is just fundamentally better than the halcyon DOS days you're pining for. It also means we don't need to involve another computer in here, which is what the EC is.

> Otherwise the EC takes care of everything.

See, that's just not possible. Modern displays have the backlight integrated into them, and the control is over something that's roughly i2c over eDP. But the same i2c channel needs to be accessible to the OS, and if the OS and the EC try to access that at the same time then things will break. So you need some kind of locking, and that's utterly impossible if hitting a key just jams you into SMM and smashes some bits over there - you might do that in the period between the OS writing an index and writing a value.

> ...and if it was handled by SMM, Windows doesn't need to care at all!

The behaviour of the SMM handler is defined by the platform vendor, and if the vendor ends up only testing against one OS then they may embody assumptions about that OS. In this case they assumed that SMM could only be triggered when running on CPU 0, which was true in the case of Windows and not in the case of Linux. This isn't about Windows needing to care, it's about SMM being a mechanism for vendors to accidentally assume that what Windows does is universal.

> Then again, I'm not surprised at your misdirection and half-truths given you've been essentially shilling Treacherous Computing and Restricted Boot among other hostilities.

I am arguing that it is better that this code lives in visible space, executed in the context of the OS, and subject to security boundaries that the OS imposes. You appear to be arguing for opaque code running on a separate microcontroller, mediated by code running on the main CPU, but which stops the entire OS from running while it executes, and which is hidden from the OS. Which of these sounds better for the user?
by holowoodman | 2025-05-11 09:50:32+00:00
You are right about open source developers who do this on the side, as a hobby, and even if they don't are usually underpaid and understaffed. They do deserve more time and a different approach.

But corporations making big bucks from their software need to be able to fix things quickly. They took money for their software, so it is their responsibility. If they cannot react on a public holiday, tough luck. Just look at their payment terms. Do they want their money within 30 days or 25 work days? Usually it is the former, they don't care about your holidays, so why should anyone care about theirs? Also, the bad guys don't care about their victims' holidays. You are just giving them extra time to exploit. The only valid argument would be that the victims might not be reading the news about your disclosure on a holiday. But since you are again arguing about software used by a lot of companies (as opposed to private users), I don't see a problem there. They also have their guards on duty and their maintenance staff on call for a broken pipe or something.

What's most important is that I'm saying we should revert the "benefit of the doubt". A vast majority of corporations have shitty security handling. Even the likes of Google talk big with their 90 day time window from private irresponsible disclosure to public disclosure. And even Google regularly fails to fix things within those 90 days. So the default must be immediate public and full disclosure. Only when companies have proven their worth by correctly reacting to a number of those, then they can be given the "benefit of the doubt" and a heads up.

Because otherwise, when the default is irresponsible private disclosure, they will never have any incentive to get better. Their users will always be in danger unknowingly. The market will not have information to decide whether to continue buying from them. The situation will only get worse.
by Ashymad | 2025-05-11 09:51:10+00:00
He wasn't saying that the engineers believe that in ontological sense. Rather he was presenting the difference in how we usually think about complex systems (i.e. the thermostat "wants" to keep a stable temperature). We abstract away the materialism we believe in because it's not practical and in a way we come back to the causes that aristotle wrote about, just metodologically not ontologically.

With vibe coding, one could even say that you can believe in the computer's intent to write the code and the code working through that intent. You might not even know how the code looks after all.
by znpy | 2025-05-11 09:51:22+00:00
> Thankfully fewer and fewer each year, but they exist.

Are we sure we should be thankful?

Looking back on VB6, now that i'm in my mid-30ies, i think it had some great points. Basically, a simple app was fast and easy to build and did not require to ship (!) and run (!!!) an entire google chrome instance to render a few buttons, some textboxes and a bit of logic.
by jasonlotito | 2025-05-11 09:52:03+00:00
> It would never occur to me to watch someone else talk about or play a game online, let alone pay for the privilege.

Wait till you find out about American Football, or Soccer, or any of the racing events.

But seriously, we talk about programming. And people pay to talk about programming. Why wouldn’t people interested in gaming or other things do the same?
by perlgeek | 2025-05-11 09:52:26+00:00
I agree that repeated observation increases the confidence in a hypothesis.

But, only if it's a hypothesis that can be validated in such a way.

From OP

> By internal architecture, what I mean is, when someone talks to me, what I notice first are the supporting beams propping up their words: the cadence and tone and desire behind them. I hear if they are bored, fascinated, wanting validation or connection. I often feel like I can hear how much they like themselves.

The last part (how much they like themselves) is an interpretation or a causal speculation, and something very prone to confirmation bias.

Like, what kind of observed behavior would you make less confident in that?

The article is a mix of very good observations and some more speculative statements, which seems to trigger us, the HN commenter crowd :-)