MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tabbott | 2025-06-27 19:33:47+00:00
If you're doing consumer chat with friends and family, I'd recommend Signal over Matrix or Zulip.

For a community: A lot of communities want anyone in the public to be able to join their spaces and read their channels. For that use case, E2EE makes the chat system slower and less usable, with limited security benefits over using web standard encryption.

What E2EE may protect you from is a malicious server operator reading the organization's messages. If the server operator is a leader in the organization already, that person may already be directly a recipient of all the interesting messages anyway. The practical benefit I see for E2EE in Zulip is mainly for Zulip Cloud or other settings where a third party is hosting the Zulip server for you.

As for decentralization, a self-hosted Zulip server only talks to external infrastructure for sending notifications (Emails, mobile push) and to implement user-controlled features (E.g., outgoing webhooks). The Zulip API is fully documented, easy to understand and implement, and has community-developed clients.

Maybe you're thinking of federation? Matrix has fancier mirroring functionality, which can be important if your use case requires sharing dozens of channels with dozens of other servers. But Zulip is supported by Matterbridge and has various nicer mirroring integrations for sharing a channel with another server on various protocols.

But I don't know of many use cases where the usability of the core chat system isn't far more important than the usability of federation features.
by tfourb | 2025-06-27 19:34:47+00:00
E.U. lawmakers (including those in the individual nation states like Denmark) and judges generally can get quite nasty if they want to. Just look at Apple (a U.S. company and the richest one at that) getting systematically bent of a barrel by the E.U. commission.

Hosting your stuff outside the E.U. does not really protect you from this. More likely than not, your content relies on other companies (host, ISP, etc.) to be delivered to your audience and those companies either do have a presence in the E.U. or want to retain a working relationship with E.U. authorities. It's simply a question of how much energy E.U. authorities would be willing to invest in enforcement.
by nobodywillobsrv | 2025-06-27 19:35:58+00:00
As a syncthing user who has also thought about this problem, syncthing is good but reading around it seems like running it on a phone is a pain and then simply pasting from share or clipboard is yet another pain to implement. So there is possibly some useful stuff TODO in bridging all that friction. I haven't literally tried but have read about it all once and decided not to. Cool space of problems.
by acoustics | 2025-06-27 19:36:51+00:00
Comparatively, how vulnerable is America to an executive gone wild compared to its peer countries?

The US has a three-tiered judiciary that moves slowly, Congress has a very high threshold for impeachment and removal (and a slow process), and the order of succession is basically locked in for four years. The people are not easily moved to action, and it's doubtful how much they could realistically accomplish.

Universal injunctions were a Band-Aid fix, one of the very few avenues our system permitted for there to be any rapid institutional response to illegal and immediately harmful policy. But that is no more.

As an exercise, what happens if a president issues a "throw enemies in the woodchipper" executive order? How many hours or days would it take the other branches of government to legally nullify the order? (What they can do in practice is another question.)

It's an extreme example, but a future admin could use the current admin's reasoning to unilaterally confiscate guns and force you to be a plaintiff in federal court to get relief.
by arp242 | 2025-06-27 19:37:00+00:00
Yes, this is literally the entire job description of a judge: to "judge" if someone broke the law. Details on what judges have jurisdiction over differ (in some countries they can't rule on constitutional matters), but this is basically how it works everywhere. You have appeals processes and whatnot to deal with mistakes. This is civics 101 separation of powers stuff.
by techjamie | 2025-06-27 19:37:12+00:00
The most difficult part is getting parental enforcement. Because a lot of parents:

A. Aren't tech savvy enough to set up rigorous controls.

B. Don't feel like dealing with setting up the controls to keep their kid quiet.

C. Allow things that contain the content anyway. (Twitter, Discord, Reddit, etc.)

And D. Assuming their kids don't learn to bypass it anyway.

I'm sure with the locked down nature of devices today, good parental controls are easier to come by. But when I was a tech savvy teen, the controls on my machine weren't much more effective than wishful thinking.
by hackingonempty | 2025-06-27 19:37:19+00:00
> Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

> Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

> Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

> Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

> Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

So he argues that there is a first mover, a first efficient cause, an independent necessary being, a cause of all other beings, and an intelligent director but he just assumes that each of those things is the god he believes in who has a son named Jesus, etc...

Well, maybe his assumption is wrong and those things are actually aspects of Mother Nature, or an Invisible Pink Unicorn, or The Five Fairies. How could we possibly tell the difference?
by int_19h | 2025-06-27 19:38:27+00:00
> It makes sense that you should be able to assign a pointer to a size. If the size is signed, this cannot be done due to its smaller capacity.

You can, since the number of bits is the same. The mapping of pointer bits to signed integer bits will mean that you can't then do arithmetic on the resulting integers and get meaningful results, but the behavior of such shenanigans is already unspecified with no guarantees other than you can get an integer out of a pointer and then convert it back later.

But also, semantically, what does it even mean to convert a single pointer to a size? A size of an object is naturally defined as the count of chars between two pointers, one pointing at the beginning of the object, the other at its end. Which is to say, a size is a subset of pointer difference that just happens to always be non-negative. So long as the implementation guarantees that for no object that non-negative difference will always fit in a signed int of the appropriate size, it seems reasonable to reflect this in the types.
by trod1234 | 2025-06-27 19:40:21+00:00
I know a person that did this, 25+ years in industry.

He was forced into retirement after half a decade of what sounded like tortured politics, gross mismanagement and fiscal waste.

Many times they said they wanted something, he would do the legwork, collect requirements, and put up preliminary PoC, it would be approved, but then they scrap it at a cost of hundreds of thousands only 6 months later and then go with the 2nd outside vendor at a greater cost doing half of what was asked with 4x more people required on staff.

It turns out the first outside vendor was lied to initially by the Administration, they asked for and reviewed the existing work already done, and said they couldn't match or do better for the locked in budget amount already paid which met the needs they asked for, but ultimately didn't use at all. This almost never happens.

Those people who initially got hired as a result of that, were laid off within 1-2 years, and the work fell to helpdesk (without the resources).

The last few years they removed the various positions he had started with, eventually throwing him on helpdesk in-person and on the phones when they laid off the student/staff helpdesk people.

This was following Covid, and he was in that 90% fatality band of age demographics related to Covid, and they still forced him to in-person work.

In many areas, there is a large gap between needing something, and getting something. They may have a need, but they don't have the demand, and that's a structural issue that only gets worse over time until it fails and must be rebuilt from scratch.

Its really telling about these type of employment structures when the public data is known and shows certain age groups are at extreme risk, and they choose to put their workers in harms way anyway.

Given the many horror stories I've heard through the grapevine about academia (over decades), as well as the experiences that confirm many of those stories;

Sure there is a great need but through decades of scandals, mismanagement, and crises they've burnt the bridges and have a rightfully earned infamous level of notoriety.

The reason the need is so high is because they largely can't find anyone willing to subject themselves to that level of organizational malice.

The competent people won't even bother applying because there is no amount of money they would trade for their personal sanity.
by throwawayffffas | 2025-06-27 19:40:56+00:00
> It will be way easier to exploit potential security flaws.

It will be also easier for other people to find them and report or fix them.

In general it's a bad plan to rely on code secrecy for security. It's security through obscurity which never works out. All the cryptography schemes and algorithms are public. Most of the public internet runs on open source code. Transparency is a strength, not a weakness.
by bigyabai | 2025-06-27 19:40:56+00:00
Well sure. But the Starship does, so you either have to scale up the space drive or scale down the Raptor engine to get a fair comparison. "power to weight payload lift capability" is a completely facetious comparison if your impulse is too weak to leave the atmosphere.

A middle-schooler could tell you how this goes. The microwave probably weighs ~80lbs to lift 100lbs of rocks. A single Raptor engine has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 200 - the microwave has a ratio of 1.2.
by derriz | 2025-06-27 19:41:01+00:00
Sorry for the confusion - I meant to use ! and not ().

"It's not, but not due to the return, it's because you're trying to return a Result from a function that returns an i32."

That's exactly my point. "return <expr>" is not just an expression which can be typed. If you tell me the types of all the identifiers used, I can look at any expression in Rust which does not include a return, and tell you if it's well typed or not. If the expression includes a return, then I cannot tell you whether the expression is well-formed.
by strukturedkaos | 2025-06-27 19:41:18+00:00
Co-founder of Langua here.

Congratulations on the launch! Very cool take on combining the structure of a personalized curriculum with voice chats.

Langua has both a chat mode and a voice mode for uninterrupted conversations to give learners flexibility. Our initial approach has been less structured which is ideal for intermediate / advanced learners. We have had a lot of demand from beginners for more structured and personalized learning paths, so we're rolling those out as well.

Best of luck with with ISSEN.
by tfourb | 2025-06-27 19:41:33+00:00
The proposed legislation is specific to deepfakes, i.e. artificially generated images of real persons.

For actual photographs of real persons Denmark and many other E.U. countries already have a broad system of legislation that governs your right to your own likeness. It usually assumes that it would be illegal to take and/or publish an image of a random person in a place/during an activity where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e. in their backyard) or that was taken in a manner explicitly designed to circumvent reasonable precautions to ensure privacy.

This is counteracted by the public interest, which can cover certain activities of public persons (i.e. a prominent politician having an affair) or public activities of random persons (i.e. you taking part in a protest march). It's decided on a case by case basis based on quite detailed laws and decades of jurisprudence.
by epage | 2025-06-27 19:41:47+00:00
> Second (and a much worse problem) are macros. They actually hit the same issue. A macro that expands to 10s or 100s of lines can very quickly take your 10000 line project and turn it into a million line behemoth.

Recently, support as added to help people analyze this

See https://nnethercote.github.io/2025/06/26/how-much-code-does-...
by jemiluv8 | 2025-06-27 19:43:01+00:00
Yet here we are, it is out there, some are already poking at how they render responses from their api. Trying to understand some of the technical choices they had to make. Someone has probably cloned this and started pluggin in their own api - or reverse engineering the various api calls.

In the end, the fact that it exists makes a difference. It won't be useful to all especially non-technical people who've never seen the nuts and bolts of a vscode extension.
by stevenwoo | 2025-06-27 19:43:11+00:00
Citizen or immigration status does not matter, it depends if they are in a state with the case being litigated in federal court or if they live one of the twenty eight states that did not join the case. The Trump admin can make up whatever rule they want for the other twenty eight states. The Supreme Court just narrowed the specifity of injunctions to solely the litigants which opens up a huge can of worms in American legal system.
by DangitBobby | 2025-06-27 19:43:43+00:00
This attitude is first of all disappointing, but also predictable, and crucially exactly reflect (I believe) the closely held beliefs of legislators and judges trampling on 1st Amendment rights "for the children". The age verification scheme is blackmail, designed to discourage access to pornography for adults, plain and simple. If it weren't, they would have set up age verification schemes that allow you to remain anonymous.

Instead of being smug about how you like the outcome (this time) you should be concerned that your constitutional rights are subject to the arbitrary moral whims of whoever happens to be in power at the time. Imagine a Congress and complicit SC that together legislates it's illegal to visit Christian churches without government age verification because some right wing factions churn out violent extremists who brainwash and indoctrinate children into their ranks as young as possible?
by schiffern | 2025-06-27 19:44:11+00:00
>age-related deafness

Interestingly, there's been some suggestion that hearing loss is not inevitable with age, but is mostly just the accumulation of noise-related hearing loss in a loud industrial society.

https://canadianaudiologist.ca/a-new-perspective-on-chronic-...

https://www.icben.org/2017/ICBEN%202017%20Papers/SubjectArea...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-024-00660-3

I think partly the issue is that how we measure noise doesn't match how noise causes injury. Your cochlea acts as a spiral resonant tube, essentially a "physical FFT," concentrating energy at a particular frequency onto a particular location in the spiral. Too much (local!) energy damages the hair cells, causing conductive hearing loss.

But because we calculate A-weighted decibels by summing all frequencies and then checking if we're above the injury threshold (vs checking whether we exceed the injury threshold at any frequency), using A-weighted decibels can't accurately determine damaging noise levels. If all the energy is concentrated at Middle A it will cause more damage than spreading the energy out across the spectrum, even if the A-weighted decibels come out equal.

It's a somewhat subtle, wrong order-of-operations problem. There's also a separate problem that A-weighting is designed to normalize for perception at various frequencies, not hearing damage.

I've tried searching the literature to find out whether this is either 1)wrong, or 2)generally known within the fields of audiology and occupational hygiene, but so far I've come up empty.

--

I recall an HN poster long ago saying how they wore earplugs daily to achieve "super hearing." It occurs to me that all they were doing was actually protecting their ears from damage. :-|
by kotaKat | 2025-06-27 19:44:34+00:00
Hell: My fellow kids in class ~2008-2011 were using Ultrasurf to get to Facebook, powered by Falun Gong. I remember those days quite well, and the half-assed attempts by IT staff to keep us from running it or saving it to our network drives.

I just remembered my home IP address by heart to RDP back home. Another one of us hosted a free website somewhere with a spare copy of Ultrasurf to get around the filters in the first place.
by vel0city | 2025-06-27 19:44:44+00:00
You're misunderstanding my description.

You don't just need "someone". You'll find "someone" say anything, including that the Earth is flat, its 40,000 years old, and we're controlled by lizard people. The standard isn't "someone". You'll find someone who claims a table of ICD codes or a stop sign appeals to their prurient interest and is sexual in nature.

You'd need "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" to say that under the Miller test and have the court/a jury to agree. Not just any person applying any standard.
by jemiluv8 | 2025-06-27 19:45:00+00:00
That is why people are comfortable open sourcing things like this. It is good publicity and they don't loose anything. On the other hand curious devs get to poke around and wonder how their copilot prompts were processed by the plugin. Or how it handles attaching files to context. And even what it sends in its payloads.

Of course most of the value is on the API service side. That holds true for most applications these days.
by volted | 2025-06-27 19:45:21+00:00
These are interesting options! Thanks for sharing your feedback. Dealing with an existing stack is an interesting problem. But frankly, to think of setting up an SSG and then plug it into a Cloud CMS frontend in my view sounds complicated. But I see the appeal for existing projects.

I think the question to figure out is: What would be a way to keep PRSS simple for the average person, but powerful enough for Devs? Currently the approach is to have the preset build system (to reduce third party dependencies and bugs), but provide the ability for devs to fork themes locally and use them in PRSS (this is supported).

Ideally folks should only need to download PRSS, and have the Wizard to automatically setup Git and the GitHub CLI, and then PRSS would take care of the rest. But as I hear of folks use cases, it brings some good perspective. I will definitely think about these further! Thanks!
by Canada | 2025-06-27 19:45:27+00:00
We need to put these restrictions on device, and hard socially punish anyone who breaks the pact. Like, our kids get phones with parental control, they get the whitelisted approved stuff only on those.

If I give my kid a general purpose computer with unsupervised access, I better be on top of that, especially if your kid is over. It's dangerous.

We are the adults here, we have to control the children for their own good, and frankly for our own good too whether said children belong to us or not. And we sure can, and we have always done so without eliminating vice, we just agree to exclude the children and punish any adult who breaks this pact. If we can't even control the children, we must be the most incapable idiot generations of all human history.

We do not need to give children access to the internet. There will be nothing of value to children published that can't be whitelisted inside of a week, and the delay of a week won't matter.

Conversely, we cannot afford to allow a comprehensive internet censorship regime for the adult public. It's too important for civil society to survive that every adult have unrestricted read and publish rights with every other adult. Therefore, the only reasonable move is to kick the children off of it.
by ryandrake | 2025-06-27 19:45:59+00:00
Nobody really has products anymore! Big Tech’s only product is their stock price and will do pretty much anything to improve it. Small Tech’s product is themselves and they are just trying to sell that product to Big Tech, so that they can have their exit and then spend their time working on Big Tech’s stock price, too.

Also: I lived through both 2001 and 2008 and today seems very different. During the previous downturns, life was still basically OK for those who managed to keep their jobs. All they needed to fear were the next round of layoffs. Today, executive leadership seems hell bent on both reducing staff AND griefing those employees they keep in various ways to make sure they know their place. Perks and benefits disappearing, compensation frozen, expanding work expectations, general antagonism, and so on. I don’t remember any of that happening in previous downturns.
by kbolino | 2025-06-27 19:46:34+00:00
I appreciate looking at things from a different perspective! I can see your line of argument now.

I should clarify. I don't think JS killed frames, that's not what I meant. If anything, I think JS could have saved frames. But the failure of frames left a gap that eventually JS (esp. with AJAX) filled. Lots of other stuff was going on at this time too, including alternative tech like Java, Flash, and ActiveX, all of which were trying to do more by bypassing the "standard" tech stack entirely.

I think the ossification of web standards from ca. 1999 to 2012, combined with the rapidly growing user base, and with web developers/designers aggressively pushing the envelope of what the tech could do, put the standard stuff on the back foot pretty badly. Really, I'm talking about the whole ecosystem and not just the standards bodies themselves; there was an era where e.g. improving HTML itself was just not the active mentality. Both inside and outside of W3C (etc.), it seemed that nobody cared to make the standard stuff better. W3C focused on unproductive tangents; web devs focused on non-standard tech or "not the intended use" (like tables for layout).

So I think we can say that <frameset> frames died a somewhat unfair death, caused partly by their initial shortcomings, partly by people trying to break outside of the (literal) boxes they imposed, and partly by the inability of the standard tech to evolve and address those shortcomings in a timely fashion. But just as there was a reason they failed, there was a reason they existed too.
by jamesharding | 2025-06-27 19:46:50+00:00
The term "Heavy" (for wake separation) in the ICAO context is 100% based on MTOW! In the context of this graph, these are flights where we carry 3 or 4 pilots, and I am not in the seat for takeoff or landing. We still operate at the control during the middle of the flight when the other pilots are on their rest break. Not sure where the name "Heavy" came from here, but is it just the term used at my airline (and probably others? Some use "relief crew")

Good call on the data smoothing - I will look into a fix for this!
by llcooliovice | 2025-06-27 19:47:08+00:00
> We've explored the reactivity landscape. While early DOM templating proposals didn't include updating, userland systems have thoroughly explored the landscape by now, and discovered good mental models and better and worse implementation approaches. I think we can now zero-in on a system that combines the best features from the different approaches.

AFAIK Ryan Carniato/Solid JS is still exploring what’s possible with signals. I don’t think userland exploration of this space has entirely finished, and further innovation may be possible.