MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by handfuloflight | 2025-06-22 13:08:08+00:00
Your original claim: Iran's hostility stems from 'Islamic' ideological doctrine.

Your new claim: Iran follows 'Islam as of its own understanding' and there's no central authority to define what's Islamic.

So you've just admitted that Iran's version isn't representative of Islam generally and that there's no authoritative way to call their interpretation 'Islamic'. That every community 'practices Islam as it understands it'.

This demolishes your original point even further. If anyone can interpret Islam however they want with no central authority, then Iran's actions tell us nothing about 'Islamic' doctrine, they only tell us about Iran's political choices wrapped in religious language.

By your own logic, I could point to: Indonesia, the largest Muslim country, which is democratic and has peaceful relations with Israel. Or the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, who've normalized relations with Israel. Jordan, Egypt: these have peace treaties with Israel.

I could point to these and say they represent 'Islam as of their own understanding' just as validly as Iran does.

You've essentially argued that Iran's interpretation is just one of many possible interpretations with no special claim to authenticity. That's the opposite of your original claim that Iran's hostility flows from Islamic doctrine.

You started by claiming Iran represents Islamic teaching. Now you're saying every Muslim community makes up their own version. Pick one: you can't have both.

And you still haven't provided a single citation of actual Islamic doctrine supporting violence against Jews, which was the original challenge.
by nivertech | 2025-06-22 13:09:13+00:00
> Iran is one of the safest places in the Middle East for Christians and Jews to live, work, and raise families

It is only somewhat safe for token minorities, tiny pockets of remaining Jews, native Christians: Armenians and Assyrians, but not Parsis (Persians who escaped Islamization) or Mandeans (an ancient gnostic sect)

Non-native Christians (i.e. Iranians who converted to Christianity) are severely persecuted. Same for various heterodox sects / offshoots of Islam like Baháʼís, Ismailis, Ahmadis, Yazidis, Shabakis, Yarasanis, etc.

Large non-token minorities (like Azeris, Kurds, Balochi, Arabs) are persecuted. Non Shias are unable to get a government jobs. According to some demographic estimations Persians per se are a minority in Iran, which would make it an apartheid state

Gays are forced to undergo gender reassignment surgeries

Women …

> A liberal *Israeli* friend told me several times that Iran ____

Thinking critically, what makes your so-called "liberal" Israeli friend an authority on Iran? Are they a recent Jewish immigrant from Iran? Do they speak Farsi? Are they an academic researching Iran? Do they serve in military intelligence or the Mossad (or not-Mossad)?
by uncircle | 2025-06-22 13:09:49+00:00
> It very much is an issue of philosophy towards wellbeing.

Exactly, it is a philosophical issue, whereas the person I was replying to was debating on the grounds of “knowledge is good”. I grew up with computers, saw the spread of the Internet but lately I cannot wonder if what we as a society, as tech workers have achieved over the past 20 years to be a net negative for humanity. I very much subscribe to the thesis that the effect of any form of technology, however small, has a radical effect on society; it profoundly changes the world in ways no one can predict, and I wonder whether the common place belief that technological research and innovation, often driven by pure greed, is not at utterly reckless and destructive philosophy.

Yet this is still a fringe position. People are starting to get disillusioned, but the common opinion is that this is good, progress is good, and the solution to the ills of society is more technology, more Internet, more data and more algorithms.

Humanity doesn’t need more knowledge, nor does it need more data and more information. In fact, I would claim this hunger for data, to know more, to measure more, to be a primary cause of the ills of modern society. We have become machines, operant and dependent on information, we forgot the human and biological dimension of our lives.
by Aachen | 2025-06-22 13:10:00+00:00
You really don't have to personally like someone for them to have useful information

The nazi party member Pascual Jordan contributed significantly to quantum physics but it's rarely mentioned because of that association. On the flip side, also the nazis ignored his suggestions for advanced weaponry, to their detriment I would imagine, because he valued jewish scientific contributions and so was considered unreliable politically. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascual_Jordan, discovered via AstroGeo podcast)

Also consider that you're on hacker news. Hacker ethics, or at least the version I've internalised, include judging people by what they say, not who is saying it (race, gender, and authority are commonly mentioned, but charismacy could also easily fall in that category)
by tim333 | 2025-06-22 13:10:29+00:00
I travelled in Iran a bit. I'd say it's pretty safe as long as you don't protest the government or contradict their religious views. My mum is a Bahai and deals with quite a lot of Iranian Bahais who get imprisoned, killed etc for believing in the wrong version of god. Bahaism is kind of an offshoot of islam and are generally more tolerant and less violent so they get killed as heretics by the lovely islamists.
by pjmlp | 2025-06-22 13:10:43+00:00
Me too, and never seen them elsewhere other than weekly discounts at Media Markt, until the shop finally gets rid of existing stock.

Also at least in Southern Europe, if kids use computers at the school at all, they tend to be desktop like deployments, and if families have to buy them, then Windows laptops get mostly acquired, as it is something actually usable, and in their budget.
by GlacierFox | 2025-06-22 13:11:18+00:00
Oh strike teams? Like the ones they sent in to Palestine? The ones that found it impossible to get anyone back due to the density of depraved traps around every corner and every tunnel while dealing with a populace that literally wants to wipe you and cut your head off at the first chance?

"Anything different would face massive opposition and carry a political death sentence for whoever gave the order."

That's your personal opinion.
by RickJWagner | 2025-06-22 13:11:24+00:00
My point is that evangelicals are not a monolith, and not all share the same beliefs.

The originating comment makes no hint that it is referring to anything less than 100%. It’s like saying “Black people think…” or “Women want….”, which invariably leads to some not funny generalization. Suggesting all evangelicals want the world to end immediately is in the same vein, IMHO.
by mjburgess | 2025-06-22 13:11:34+00:00
I wouldn't try to analyse any sabre-ratting rhetoric by foreign leaders either way. But if you really want to: start with your own.

Google all the times the US leaders have threatened annihilation against foreign nations, threats vastly more credible as a global superpower.

One should never take words very seriously in geopolitics. They are 2/3rds designed for domestic populations, to propagandize them (esp. in democracies, which must lie to their publics), and 1/3rds lies for the other side.

Serious analysers of geopoltical strategy are only concerned with actions, capabilities and growing capabilities. And they are esp. uninterested in domestic propaganda.

Everyone in the US elite is extremely well-aware of this; by pointing to iranian rhetoric now they are just propagandizing american audiences to support a war of aggression which is, largely, against the interests of the US population.
by EvgeniyZh | 2025-06-22 13:11:35+00:00
Iran has official discrimination against both ethnic and religious minorities.

On the other hand, Jews had to leave the Muslim countries both in Northern Africa and the Middle East, with the total Jewish population there shrinking from hundreds of thousands to hundreds. Compared to that, Iran, from which only 70-90% of Jews left, looks not that bad. However, there were testimonies that members of Jewish families aren't allowed to leave the country all together, so I'm not sure if everyone is staying there at will.
by dtagames | 2025-06-22 13:12:29+00:00
The reason is that each response in a thread is the response to not only the last prompt but all of the other prompts and responses in that thread. The LLM itself has no memory, so to answer every prompt, the entire thread is sent again.

This means that extracting a portion of the thread and starting a prompt from there won't give the same result and may not give a correct result at all if the excised section contains critical information.

So it is possible, and you can write your own RAG app which works that way, but you won't be happy with the results.

If you use Cursor, you can segment parts of the conversation into "plan" or "report" files (these are just markdown documents you ask it to make), then reference those files in a later conversation to bring in that context without retyping the thread.
Show HN: Wave – A C-like low-level language (now with %, [], and and= operators)
by LunaStev | 2025-06-22 13:12:41+00:00
Hi HN! I’m back with a major update to Wave, a C-like low-level programming language without a garbage collector.

Wave is still in pre-beta, but has improved significantly since last posted 77 days ago. It compiles to LLVM IR and aims to eventually replace C/Assembly in systems programming.

New in 0.1.2-pre-beta: - % operator (signed remainder) for integers and floats - `arr[i]`-style indexing now works dynamically across expressions and control flows - Compound assignment operators: +=, -=, *=, /=, %= (typed, with float casting) - Fixed float vs integer literal parsing - Added lib.rs for future package manager integration

Coming soon: - continue statement - Pointer operations - Native Whale backend (custom compiler, replacing LLVM) - Vex package manager

GitHub: https://github.com/LunaStev/Wave Docs: https://wave-lang.dev/

Would love your thoughts or feedback!
by halffullbrain | 2025-06-22 13:12:43+00:00
Machine-translated from the source (https://www.digmin.dk/digitalisering/nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/202...):

Denmark must become less dependent on the major tech giants when it comes to digital solutions in the public sector. Therefore, the Ministry of Digitalization is now starting to test a new open source solution.

This week, the Ministry of Digitalization is launching a new pilot project, where a group of employees will begin testing an open source alternative to the Microsoft Office suite.

Specifically, the open source platform in question is Collabora, which is based on the open source software LibreOffice. The employees in the Ministry of Digitalization’s department participating in the pilot project will have the Office suite in their case management system replaced with Collabora.

"As minister, I’ve spoken about the need to challenge our digital independence. Now we’re taking the first step ourselves in the Ministry of Digitalization with this new pilot project. I don’t delude myself into thinking that this means we’re ready to kick the tech giants out tomorrow, but I see it as a welcome step in the right direction. As politicians, we have an obligation to ensure that our IT systems in the future aren’t dependent on a few large companies," says Minister for Digitalization Caroline Stage.

The ministry is beginning tests of a new integrated document editing module in the F2 case management system, based on the open source platform Collabora built on LibreOffice. This means that ministry employees will test an alternative to the Microsoft Office suite and use open source document editing tools instead of Microsoft’s solutions like Word, PowerPoint, and Excel.

The solution will be rolled out for broader testing in the Ministry of Digitalization’s department on June 19, 2025. At that time, a group of departmental employees will have their Office suite in F2 replaced with the open source alternative. In the months that follow, the ministry will monitor and test whether Collabora can support the ministry’s workflows and needs in a satisfactory manner.

The upcoming testing work will focus, among other things, on functionality related to the ministry’s templates, formatting for government cases, use of 'track changes', tables, etc., and whether the solution can handle conversion to and from Word format without altering the layout of documents.

If the test period proceeds satisfactorily, the next step is expected to be a broader rollout of the open source alternative throughout the department.
by stafane | 2025-06-22 13:13:00+00:00
I recently launched AI Legal Helper, a tool that helps everyday people get instant, affordable legal support using AI.

I built this because I saw how hard it is for people to understand their rights or draft basic contracts without spending hundreds on legal fees. With AI Legal Helper, users can ask legal questions, generate documents, and get plain-English explanations—without a lawyer, and without waiting.

It’s still early, but I’d love feedback from the HN community on the product, the idea, or even the positioning.

Tech stack: Supabase, Vercel, GPT-4 API, Tailwind Happy to answer anything and show more behind the scenes.
by analognoise | 2025-06-22 13:13:50+00:00
Again, they did not start war with the United States - we attacked them. We had a nuclear deal with Iran and our own intelligence assessment was that they were NOT making weapons.

I'm going to take a second to cover some of the unintended consequences of this. First I'm going to point out that both Libya and Ukraine were disasters for non-proliferation. This (Iran) cements the fact that any regime, regardless of the cost or deal(s) with the Untied States, should absolutely develop nuclear weapons. If you're going to be bombed for NOT developing weapons, why would you actively NOT develop them? North Korea has them and has not been attacked - implying you must as rapidly as possible develop them, so as to not be attacked. The US will not save you if you give up your weapons (Libya, Ukraine), and will attack you if you aren't developing them (Iran). Therefore, get them ASAP, and never ever give them up is the obvious choice.

Let's take a second to look at the other logic here. You're saying that the country is "currently losing a full scale war" - the implication here is that the power imbalance will protect us.

I'm going to point out that "we can lose much in winning"; what if we win, but this new enemy flattens a few American cities, or sinks a carrier group? Being "big" isn't an invulnerability shield of some sort.

Doing this, we also potentially "burned" the stealth signature of both the F35 and the B2 - you don't think there were a handful of Chinese radars in that lot? Post processing of the radar data might allow our adversaries to come up with counters. Was it worth it? How will we feel about this if we discover later that they're both countered in a South China Sea/Taiwan dispute?

If this state is a "pariah", surely many countries will join us? No? Are we the "arsenal of Democracy" or did we turn our back on, say, Ukraine? Did we abide by all of our deals? Did our own intelligence show that they were a threat? Pariah states are those led by criminals, right? Totally unrelated, but wasn't Bibi on trial for corruption and scheduled to get cross examined in the next week or so? Pariah states threaten even allies, right? Like talking about invading Canada, or taking Greenland? They're led by criminals - would a convicted felon count? Just trying to be very clear here. Would a pariah state threaten their friends to extract concessions, or maybe illegally deploy the military, and let other criminals out of prison? Would a pariah state make Studio Ghibli images of crying women being arrested, "ASMR" videos of people in shackles, and promote them from official accounts? Who does this remind you of?

I posit this chain of actions made us, and the world less safe; this is an unmitigated disaster in every dimension.
by HEmanZ | 2025-06-22 13:14:01+00:00
Why in the world do you think they would use a nuke on the US? Why do you think they would use it at all? That is utter suicide. This is Iran, not ISIS (something a lot of Americans don’t know the difference between).

Their stated goal, and the only goal that makes any sense, is to use it for deterrence. Attacking any major power unprovoked like that would wipe them off the face of the earth. Just like if Israel tried to nuke Russia or something, it would be complete suicide. They know that without nuclear weapons to defend themselves, they will be conquered and the current regime will be overthrown, it’s only a matter of time. They don’t have the military power to resist being conquered by the major world powers. But some nuclear bomb would be enough to deter conquest (as it would have probably deterred Russia from attacking the Ukrain).

I think Israel has legitimate fears here, but with enough military capacity and a strong alliance with the US attacking them would also be suicide. Attacking basically anyone around them would be suicide.

Get your news from somewhere other than Fox. This isn’t “evil bad guys want to kill everyone”. This is “theocraric dictatorship doesn’t want to get conquered/overthrown by a major world power”.
by alganet | 2025-06-22 13:14:48+00:00
I'm starting to rate AI rethoric by a new metric: how much it relies on the general audience imagination.

This article features 8 "imagines" that are vague and feature common misconceptions about reality. These misconceptions include the illusion that things scale undefinitely (they don't), that breakthroughs are roughly the same level of difficulty at every step (they aren't), and so on.

> Now, imagine if all of those developments were instead compressed into the decade after 1925.

> Imagine if those changes, too, accelerated tenfold.

> Now imagine all the scientific, intellectual and technological developments that you would expect to see by the year 2125.

> imagine all of those developments occurring over the course of just ten years

> In our conservative scenario, we’ll imagine that AI capabilities reach human parity at a time when further scale-ups of training runs are no longer possible

> In our aggressive scenario, we’ll imagine that collective AI capabilities reach human parity soon

> The list above is incomplete. It does not encompass technological developments that we haven’t even imagined

> We should imagine entire industries — networks of automated factories staffed by robots working in the dark
by gitremote | 2025-06-22 13:15:31+00:00
The Times of Israel article's title is "For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces". The article's lede is "For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group."

You are not understanding what the article is saying, because you're mixing up different Palestinians. Palestine has a left wing party, the Palestine Authority, and a right wing party, Hamas. The Palestinian Authority, led by Abbas, recognizes the state of Israel and wants a two-state solution that also establishes a Palestinian state. Hamas does not recognize the state of Israel and wants to destroy it. Netanyahu is against the Palestinian Authority because he's more against giving legitimacy to Palestinian statehood than he's against war. He funded Hamas to delegitimize Abbas/Palestinian statehood/two-state solution/peace.
by lenkite | 2025-06-22 13:16:48+00:00
Sure, by that time the coup was successful. Anyone in Kyiv who objected to it would face arrest and incarceration themselves.

The vote did not follow formal impeachment procedure under Article 111 of the Ukrainian Constitution (which requires a Constitutional Court review and more formal steps).

I am sure you then have no objections to the 53–0 vote in Crimea to remove the then-Ukrainian-appointed prime minister Anatoly Mogilev and install Sergei Aksyonov and the subsequent referendum on autonomy. After all, this is "exactly how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work".
by netcan | 2025-06-22 13:17:32+00:00
> Our closest living relatives — chimpanzees and bonobos — are confined to a belt of Central African forests.

Gorillas are similarly ecologically constrained. But, the ancestor of all African apes was (likely) more like us, adaptive. At the least... they were a species or complex with a very large, multicontinental range.

Neanderthals lived in a very wide range of habitats. Northern Russia during an ice age. But also.. Israel. Gibraltar. Denisovans also had an extremely varied range... including high altitudes where most of the flora and fauna is specialized.

I'm not negating the idea that 70kya our ancestral African "tribe" spread into new ecozones. They spread all over the world. No surprise that this was an adaptive population.

But... I think humans as a generalist species that can specialize using culture... I think this goes way back.

It explains how the earliest arguably-homo species (habilis-georgicus) appears in the caucus so soon after evolving in Africa. 1.8mya.

Gorillas aren't going to show up in europe.
Ask HN: Were any of the DropZap World game rules hard to understand?
by amichail | 2025-06-22 13:18:14+00:00
If so, which specific rules did you find confusing, and how can I explain them more clearly?

P.S. If you haven't tried DropZap World yet, here's the link to this falling block game with lasers: https://apps.apple.com/app/id1072858930
by bearjaws | 2025-06-22 13:18:27+00:00
That is an absurd take.

Your friend's statement, that religious minorities in Iran are safe as long as they don't protest, is basically like a situation of domestic abuse.

An abuser might claim their partner is free and happy, as long as they follow the rules and don't speak out. The home may appear peaceful to outsiders, but this "peace" is maintained through fear, control, and the constant threat of violence for any perceived transgression.
by somenameforme | 2025-06-22 13:19:57+00:00
Ukraine never had "control" of nukes. Russia was the sole producer/controller of nukes within the USSR. Those nukes were then deployed throughout the USSR, but the individual regions within the USSR never had any capability to independently launch or control those nukes. It would be akin to what will happen when the US eventually collapses and we have military bases and nukes scattered throughout the world.

Germany in that case will then briefly technically have nukes, but no ability to knowledge of how to launch or control them. Had Ukraine tried to hold onto those nukes and/or figure out how to launch them they would likely have been invaded by just about every country in the world, including the US, so they gave them up for a few bucks and some kind words.

And I strongly disagree about Iran. Pakistan is also an Islamic country (with its proper name being the Islamic Republic of Pakistan) and a nuclear power, and they haven't just decided to go nuke India who they have abysmal relations with. Religion does provide a different level of comfort with death (and Iran has a longgggggg history of enduring pain to expel invaders on top), but it does not just turn people into death cult members.

There's some irony in that if Iran had nuclear weapons their relations with Israel would likely have been much better. Because Israel wouldn't have been constantly attacking, assassinating, and otherwise doing everything they could to undermine the country. It's similar to how if North Korea didn't have nukes then South Korea, largely as a proxy of the US, would likely have been actively attacking them.