MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by SllX | 2025-06-21 21:57:56+00:00
> But I do think that having an outside court publicly try the guilt or innocence of somebody within the U.S. is much more palatable than having some non-court within the U.S. decide on whether non-U.S. citizens living outside the U.S. should live or die.

If I were neutral on America and if a neutral disposition, you might be correct. However, I’m not.

The President of the United States is elected to be a civil and military leader, as the Head of the United States Government, as the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and to represent the United States abroad as our Head of State.

All other things being equal, I would prefer the POTUS to also be moral and to generally be a good moral leader in his capacity as the POTUS, but that is not the same as being nice, and “nice” is not what the elected President is elected to be.

So, would I for example, prefer to capture people like Qasem Soleimani and try them in an open court? Absolutely. Is that more practical than having killed him when the opportunity presented itself dealing a blow to an enemy nation, taking out one of the most important men in his nation which is openly hostile to America and our ally? Not really, but I’d rather see someone like that dead than in a position to threaten American assets and personnel in the region. You can even debate whether American assets or personnel should be in the region, but as long as they are, it is absolutely the President’s job to defend them, because it is under his orders that they are present at all and the American military is formed from the people of our country, and nowhere is it written in our Constitution that the President’s decisions should be second-guessed or tried in an International Court. Even our own courts shy away from this as it relates to foreign policy and the policy of the military.

> It's hard to complain that a court with very little power to enforce any ruling is giving U.S. citizens an open trial.

It would be pretty easy to complain if they pursued trying American citizens when we don’t recognize their jurisdiction over American citizens. The ICC, whatever else it is, is still a court with the backing of real sovereign nations. They’re not a high school debate club.

> How exactly do you judge what is appropriate and what is not?

A combination of morality, the law, diplomacy and hard power. You can even concoct scenarios if you wanted to where the United States may even been in the losing moral position but still win on all other fronts, but for starters, we’re not party to the Rome Statute, we do have our own laws on trying war crimes, and we also maintain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
by slt2021 | 2025-06-21 21:58:20+00:00
you are being dishonest. Only 161 people were convicted at Nurembourg trials, Nazi Germany's population was 70 mln (I am not even including Italy or Japan).

The rest of the Nazis were given amnesty and continued working for the USA, or continued living/serving as usual as part of West Germany's Wehrmacht forces.

The whole process was heavily politicized and completely sham, massive tortures were used to obtain "evidence" of guilt.
by tengwar2 | 2025-06-21 21:59:30+00:00
Not for Mac. MacOS is an open garden: there is an app store; or you can install signed apps (requires Apple cooperation); or you can install unsigned applications. MacOS gives you a nudge to the app store (which has genuine advantages) and a much stronger nudge away from unsigned non-app-store apps, but it is still an open garden. iOS is closed garden, which makes some sense for the security guarantees it can give for financial applications.
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-06-21 21:59:30+00:00
A while back, someone here linked to this story[0].

It's a bit simplified and idealized, but is actually fairly spot-on.

I have been using AI every day. Just today, I used ChatGPT to translate an app string into 5 languages.

[0] https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/superhuman-what-can-ai-do-i...
by daemonologist | 2025-06-21 22:00:36+00:00
No, this performs the same task as CoTracker or TAPIR, but intended for running at a higher resolution. Point tracking is useful both for keeping track of the position of a target and for "inside-out" positioning of the camera.

YOLO is mostly concerned with detecting objects of certain classes in a single image, and SAM is concerned with essentially classifying pixels as belonging to an object or not.
by valliappanr | 2025-06-21 22:00:42+00:00
built a Python-based tool called static_website_audit that crawls static websites and compares two versions — either from live/staging environments or using snapshots from the Web Archive. It supports semantic (text), literal (HTML), and visual (image) diffing. Useful for regression checks, digital preservation, or QA automation. Examples included:

Compare production vs staging

Compare two Web Archive snapshots
by RicoElectrico | 2025-06-21 22:00:45+00:00
It is a narrative mostly driven by artists. Your value is mostly in the knowledge and experience you gained.

In case of artists, them being able to make a living was an aberration to the historical pattern, specifically predicated on creation being hard and reproduction being easy. Before 20th century or so it used to be hard/hard, now with GenAI we're at easy/easy and neither can sustain them. Add to that their idealism and that is where it comes from. The "you can become anyone you want" and "follow your dreams" we all were told did not help either.
by sealeck | 2025-06-21 22:01:01+00:00
> Cumulative interest is a b*tch though, put that 800m into the debt.

Do you think that the return on investment into science is really less than 4.5% (interest rate on gilts) per year?

> You say the UK has a budget of a trillion, but around 70% comes from consumer spending.

70% of government expenditure is consumer spending??? This statement is nonsensical.
by leptons | 2025-06-21 22:01:19+00:00
My Macbook Pro had to have the motherboard replaced 8 times in 3 years after purchase. I had to sue Apple in a class action along with a lot of other people, and we won. And they replaced it with an Intel mac that was forced to be obsolete, now the thing can't be updated and some software has stopped working because it can't be updated.
by gjm11 | 2025-06-21 22:02:51+00:00
Given that so far the nearest things to successful AR glasses have been produced by Google and Meta, I think the relationship between wearing AR glasses and seeing ads is unlikely to go the way you are hoping.

(I too would love there to be AR glasses that you can put arbitrary software on, only under your control, rather than that of some rapidly-enshittifying company that has the device locked down. I suppose it's not strictly impossible that that might happen, but it doesn't seem like it's the way to bet.)
by pydry | 2025-06-21 22:03:44+00:00
>It doesn’t. It’s why I never cite general popularity for Israel

Yet you cited "Israel is uniquely popular" as a reason for why they get their way.

Which is not true.

>Israel has a vocal minority that loves it. It has not had, until last last year, a vocal minority that hates it

It not only had a vocal minority that hates it it had a vocal minority of Jews that loathe it.

The minorities arent the point though, the money and the foreign influence over America's government is.

Remember the "vocal minority" in Moldova who fight for pro Russian policy? Theyre not "vocal minorities" thats just Russia.

Israel is no different. It's a foreign country taking control over the American government.

>Even today, very few voters would trade pocketbook issues for a pro-Palestinian policy portfolio

That's probably increasingly less true these days (genocide isnt a historically popular policy) but beside the point.

The "minority" which operates on behalf of a foreign government is getting real close to ramming $200 per barrel oil down everybody's throats not because theyre "motivated" but because America is run along plutocratic lines and is fully captured by that foreign government.

>It’s a tempting tale, and simplifying model, to assume unilateral causes of policies

I assume that'd where the "uniquely popular" thing came from.
by v5v3 | 2025-06-21 22:04:11+00:00
He said that China and the world don't see the UK as a big player anymore. Which is true.

UK has it's legacy advantages, UN permanent seat, nuclear weapons etc but the empire is long gone and it grows weaker by the year.

After the war, Germany was at its lowest point and the UK squandered it's lead and fell below Germany.

All of Europe + USA failed to bring Russia to it's knees no matter what they tried.

The world is changing and in the new world order UK is slipping down the ladder.
by dimitry12 | 2025-06-21 22:05:07+00:00
What are the keywords for finding a lawyer who can advise on non-competes?

Asking because it turned out nearly impossible to find a local lawyer to advise on a dispute couple months ago - with 9 out of 10 telling me they only do divorces or real estate or immigration. I was literally calling one by one from a list based on what I believe were relevant search criteria on State Bar website.
by slt2021 | 2025-06-21 22:06:11+00:00
>>jury of your peers from your community according to our laws

when it comes to Crimes against humanity (genocide, mass killings, tortures, etc) - our peers are whole Humanity, and everyone who support United Nation's Human Rights Declaration.

You cannot have American human rights to live, and at the same time deny the right to live to non-Americans. Which is what America is doing: extrajudicial murder of foreigners (drone strikes + collateral murder) and sponsoring of terrorism and genocide (Israel-gaza war).

the point is not to argue specific bullet points on obscure US codes, but 30 very basic unalienable universal human rights.

if USA denies these rights to the whole world, then there is no reason to expect the whole world support america in any way, like lending money by buying US treasuries, exchanging oil for freshly printed worthless USD, respecting US tourists' right to live when they are exploring the world, etc
by tomhow | 2025-06-21 22:07:17+00:00
The way this started was when almostgotcaught made a comment that said "jesus christ you people are so thick", in a reply to a different commenter. That commenter had written an inflammatory comment attacking America's "barbaric cultural history". I chided them first and flagged their comment so it was killed, and only after that responded to almostgotcaught, because "jesus christ you people are so thick" is well towards the worst end of the spectrum of inflammatory comments we see here. I hadn't seen any of the stuff from typeofhuman at that point, and nothing about dog-whistle comments had come onto the radar. I was just focused on dealing with a user who seemed to be waging war against HN and going off on a tear, which they've done before. They (almostgotcaught) are a user who has a history of posting inflammatory comments, about things that have nothing to do with racism; the first comments they were called out for by dang were about programming languages.

I've been doing this work in various forms for a long time, and we've had cases before where dog-whistle comments have been posted, and, in the best instances the way they've been handled by the community has been anti-inflammatory and mature. That is, others reply with sober explanations about what's going on, and send emails to the moderators so we can know about them and take appropriate action (killing comments and banning users). In such cases, the issue was dealt with very effectively and without it turning into a huge meta-drama that gives it much more visibility than it needs to have.

This is ultimately the point I keep trying to make. HN's guidelines and feedback mechanisms are designed to deal with this stuff, and have a track record of dealing with this stuff very effectively when people use them properly, which most people do, most of the time. That could have happened in this case too. When people take matters into their own hands and wage war, everything breaks down.
by sean2 | 2025-06-21 22:07:25+00:00
My anecdote is the opposite: I never get the hour long ads when my tablet is sitting there, only when I'm holding it. I always thought they knew the long adds were playing to an empty room, holding my place in the video till I came back to skip, and YT was deliberately trying to coax me back to watch with short ads.

I also let the hour long ads play when I'm holding my phone (just to mess with the algorithm) so maybe that is just my experience.
by bigyabai | 2025-06-21 22:07:57+00:00
Sure nukes can be illegal. Maybe not in international jurisdiction, but here in the US we have Federal U.S. Code 18 § 831 and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

Which is somewhat salient when you consider how Israel actually got enriched uranium. It was straight-up stolen from NUMEC in the 1960s, and when the CIA found out about it they helped bury the story. If America actually cared about policing nuclear proliferation, they would have started with Israel.

Clearly, we don't care (and that should have been clear to us all since Reagan).
by noman-land | 2025-06-21 22:09:09+00:00
These people you are having business relationships with are putting you at risk by refusing to adapt to increasing threats. While you are meeting them where they are at, you are less safe, and so are they.

So every time you say yes to that meeting, in an unsafe place, and don't attempt (or demand) to redirect that meeting to a safer place, you are perpetuating unsafety for everyone.

If you don't consider it to be your ethical duty you should at the very least be doing it purely out of self interest.
by bognition | 2025-06-21 22:09:23+00:00
This is an absurd way to think of this. Following this same train of thoughts for humans:

The business logic for humans is a single reproductive cell.

A single sperm weighs 2.3 x 10^-11 grams. If the average male weighs 75kg the. The bloat ratio for a human male is 3.2x10^15

Getting back to the app there is huge value in not needing to run the command yourself. Sure it’s wrapped in a UI that comes with “bloat” but honestly who cares. When was the last time someone needed to worry about hard drive space, when it comes to a 40mb file.
by tptacek | 2025-06-21 22:09:25+00:00
The problem you're up against in writing persuasively to me is that I have a bunch of reasons to dislike DNSSEC. The transparency and root-of-trust issues are the ones that, in my experience, are most legible to people who aren't deep into cryptography. But they're not my biggest issue.

I think the fundamental design of DNSSEC is wrong. Its role in Internet security is mostly as a vector to keep 1990s cryptography in common use. Offline signing was wrong. Signing and not encrypting was wrong. The model we ended up with for authenticated denial is wrong. The trust model is wrong. Top-down deployment, rather than bottom-up with incremental value: wrong. It's really hard to look at DNSSEC as a design and find anything right with it.

I don't blame the DNSSEC authors for this; they were working with constraints and assumptions that got rewritten in the 2000s. I do blame the DNSSEC non-authors who refuse to accept the idea that the IETF could have gotten something wrong and are still trying to push this contraption on people.

Finally, as I keep saying: we're never going to get "DNS transparency". Governments run the roots of the DNS hierarchy. Governments don't run CAs, and even then, a single browser had to amass so much market power that they could dictate terms to the CAs (and, in the process, kill some of the largest CAs) in order to make CT happen. That simply cannot happen with the DNS.

The dumbest thing about all of this is that the only purpose DNSSEC still serves is as an extra layer of authentication for domain-based WebPKI challenges. Nobody needs to change their zones to get better security than that! We can just run a protocol between the CAs and the registrars (it exists!).
by spacemadness | 2025-06-21 22:10:01+00:00
I think we’re going to have to deal with the stories of shareholders wetting themselves over more layoffs more than we’re going to see higher quality software produced. Everyone is claiming huge productivity gains but generally software quality and new products being created seem at best unchanged. Where is all this new amazing software? It’s time to stop all the talk and show something. I don’t care that your SQL query was handled for you, thats not the bigger picture, that’s just talk.
by adamcharnock | 2025-06-21 22:10:05+00:00
ISO27001 doesn't specifically require disk encryption. Rather it requires data on disks be protected according to how it is classified. Disk encryption is one way to achieve this, especially in a shared-hardware environment.

In this case, the disks being in a ISO27001 data centre with processes in place to ensure erasure during de-provisioning (which Hetzner is, and has), may well also meet this criteria.
by yongjik | 2025-06-21 22:10:26+00:00
> Other additions are of more dubious value. Brian Reynolds names as one of his biggest regrets his dogged determination to let you design your own units out of the raw materials — chassis, propulsion systems, weapons, armor, and so on — provided by your current state of progression up the tech tree, in the same way that galaxy-spanning 4X games like Master of Orion allowed. It proved a time-consuming nightmare to implement in this uni-planetary context. And, as Reynolds admits, it’s doubtful how much it really adds to the game. All that time and effort could likely have been better spent elsewhere.

Huh, I'd never have guessed. I thought that was the best part! Felt much more "organic" than Civilization's pre-constructed units.
by SllX | 2025-06-21 22:11:12+00:00
> you don't elect the leaders in america.

We do.

> Two major party leaderships nominate their candidates, backed by hundreds of millions of corporate and special interest funding.

Other Americans. You’re also discounting the impact small-dollar donors have had in American politics as of late and the public primary system.

> Then some process called electoral college (that has some vague resemblance of the plebiscite) weights two candidates and picks a winner.

1) The Electors of the Electoral College are in turn elected by the people of the United States.

2) This only applies to the President and Vice President of the United States and no other public office.

3) Most States have laws against faithless electors, but the slate of electors appointed by each State’s elected legislature reflects the popular vote within that State.

> The candidate then has to obtain approval for every cabinet position from the congress (which is also getting funding in hundreds of mils from major corporate and special interest lobbying groups), that ensure that people occupying cabinet positions have policies aligned with their financial donors

Half of what you’re doing is just describing politics, but yes, the elected President makes appointments, and the elected Senate confirms or denies them.
by tguvot | 2025-06-21 22:11:34+00:00
The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995[1] is a public law of the United States passed by the 104th Congress on October 23, 1995. The proposed law was adopted by the Senate (93–5),[2] and the House (374–37).[3] The Act became law without a presidential signature on November 8, 1995.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act
by m11a | 2025-06-21 22:13:18+00:00
Well, the apps often come bundled with a bunch of other stuff. Automatic updates, background workers, telemetry …

All of which sucks up your compute resources and battery. Repeat for every such little utility app you have on your Mac. Some may implement that random stuff inefficiently (eg very frequent telemetry), which sucks even more. Some of it may even be wrong, vibe coded, or copy pasted.

Personally, puts me off installing random utility apps, even if the single utility would be useful.
by vkou | 2025-06-21 22:13:51+00:00
What sort of punishment do you think would have been appropriate for the systemic extermination of an entire race of people? And for starting a war that killed tens of millions? For an illegal coup against the government of a country (which is what the Nazis did in 33)?

How could you think that 161 convictions was enough for this? Far more than that had direct agency and culpability for those crimes.
by vkou | 2025-06-21 22:14:34+00:00
> A core principle of American justice is judgement by a jury of your peers from your community according to our laws, not by foreigners on the other side of the planet according to foreign laws.

When a US president signs a death list - the assassination of someone, does that person get a trial by a jury of their peers first?

Or do they just get a predator drone missile in their direction?

I think it's accurate to say that a core principle of American justice is that there is one set of rules for the in-group, and another for the out-group. And any institution that tries to normalize this is anathema to that principle.
by v5v3 | 2025-06-21 22:15:48+00:00
What's the probability of success that the UK could start a battery tech company today and compete?

The Japanese, Koreans and China have been spending billions over last decade.

The UKs second biggest industry is entertainment and thats because they lured Hollywood over via generous tax breaks.(Which Trump has sid he will be addressing).

UK needs to pay down debt, invest in education and hope the next generation of talent choose to remain in the UK and not leave for another country.
by ghaff | 2025-06-21 22:16:11+00:00
I've actually dealt with this in third-party IP cases I've consulted on. Of course a lot of "bench advice" best practices (use a debugger as a silly example) shouldn't cause a problem--or maybe even some various specific experiences about practices that worked. A file dump of corporate strategy and business plan presentations or code--even if they probably get pretty stale after a few years--probably not.
by summerdown2 | 2025-06-21 22:16:38+00:00
> Trump says many things that nobody actually believes.

It's not a valid argument to use the general case here. Because in the case of this particular statement, it clearly isn't true that "nobody actually believes" it. It's clear that many people actually believe it.

> That's actually a good political strategy in tough times: Keep your opponents always unsure about what you're gonna do next.

I mean, sure. But in this case Denmark thought they were an ally, not an opponent. Should they also be unsure about whether one of their territories is going to be attacked?

Or are they, after all, an opponent?
by TZubiri | 2025-06-21 22:17:13+00:00
"and technically the site has survived."

Only if you squint. If you look at the quality of the site, it has suffered tremendously.

The biggest "fuck you" are phishers buying blue checkmarks and putting the face of the CEO and owner to shill scams. But you also have just extremely trash content and clickbaits consistently getting (probably botted) likes and appearing in the top of feeds. You open a political thread and somehow there's a reply of a bear driving a bicycle as the top response.

Twitter is dead, just waiting for someone to call it.
by SllX | 2025-06-21 22:18:31+00:00
> You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am talking about your Orange Guy.

I’m not. (EDIT: just edited this in, though I thought I’d already written this part earlier when I quoted you. My bad.)

> You are the one who said we defend American interests. If you can't defend that statement, then just retract it.

We do defend America’s interests, but the President—any sitting President—sets the agenda for how the American State and Military goes about it. Resource allocation is a part of leading. What part of that is difficult to understand?