MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by karmakurtisaani | 2025-06-22 06:53:33+00:00
> Put all this together and it seems abundantly clear that the sole purpose of Iran's HEU program is the production of nuclear weapons.

Not true. One simple reason could be just to keep the appearance of the program ongoing in order to gain leverage in negotiations. Remember that Trump pulled US out of the negotiations on his first term, this could easily just be Iran's response to it.
by PaulRobinson | 2025-06-22 06:53:46+00:00
Great work so far, but I note you are looking at a custom double-decker railcar with what looks like a very large loading gauge. My understanding is that for most of Europe, double deckers are not used due to loading gauge limits imposed by tunnels, bridges and so on. I presume your planned routes take that into account? Is that one of the reasons your mocked journey planner app doesn’t include the UK?
by PeterHolzwarth | 2025-06-22 06:54:00+00:00
Much of humanity has learned, and so aggressively pursues anti-proliferation.

America, the west, and many countries beyond the west, have been working to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades.

Iran is detested in much of the middle east. If they get nukes, the rest of the middle east will feel compelled to quickly pursue their own nuclear weapons programs.
by francisdavey | 2025-06-22 06:55:04+00:00
To chime in on how English law approaches this (and perhaps amplify some of the good points already made): the common law position is that any restraint of trade is contrary to public policy and so should not be enforced unless some exception can be shown.

Post employment restrictions fall under the doctrine of restraint of trade - which explains why we use "gardening leave". While you are employed you and your employer have a relationship which includes a duty of loyalty by you to your employer. They have duties such as a duty to pay you for your work. By default they should also be offering you work, so a specific "gardening leave" clause is required to keep you at home, bound by restrictive covenants but without work and being paid.

After employment, it is much harder to make restrictions that will bite. Typically an employer must show there is some legitimate interest they are protecting and that it is reasonable to do so.

Hence: non-solicitation of clients tends to be easier to justify, though only if an employee actually had some kind of relationship with or knowledge of those clients. Whereas a non-compete is much harder to justify. It is also harder to make reasonable, hence time/space/sectoral limitations.

Looking at confidentiality: the default established in the amusingly named Faccenda Chicken v Fowler (Mr Fowler was a frozen chicken sales lead). It is that you are bound by the usual duties of confidentiality that arise when anyone has confidential information but that you cannot be prevented from using information gained while working that is part of your normal skill acquired as part of the job unless that is so secret as to amount to a "trade secret".

In this case, Mr Fowler knew where to sell chicken (from having done so). While this was confidential, he was able to use that information (not being a trade secret) in setting up a competing frozen chicken sale network.

The core idea is that you can't stop someone plying their normal trade.

That's the default. Obviously if you sign an agreement that imposes post-contract confidentiality obligations it can go further than Faccenda Chicken, but if it went too far, it would also be vulnerable to the rule against restraint of trade.

In short:this sort of "you cannot work in the industry" idea is very unlikely to work in England and Wales (and I suspect the rest of the UK - though I am strictly only an English lawyer).

That said: there is still value in reading your contract of employment carefully and making sure that you are happy with it.
by sgt101 | 2025-06-22 06:55:47+00:00
>He said that China and the world don't see the UK as a big player anymore. Which is true.

So what? You can see people however you want, but you still have to live with them in your world and they have a vote on what happens next. This is what Russia discovered in Ukraine, and the USA in Iraq before it. China may want to boss everyone in the world, but it can't - it can't have everything it's own way and run the world as a Marxist Leninist 1984 style nightmare, we won't allow it.

>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.

Well after WW2 we had 270% GDP to debt ratio and the country was bombed into bits. British industry had retooled for a war economy and there was no capital to retool meaning that the fundamental disadvantages for industries like shipbuilding where British yards were located in the wrong places on the wrong rivers became sharply plagent. I grew up in the 1970's and there were still bomb sites in London and Portsmouth then. If that was a legacy then you can keep it.

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

I agree, we should have kept Germany as an agrarian low population country so as to dominate continental europe... oh no, wait: I just realised! That would be both evil and stupid! Instead we should have Germany develop into a liberal democracy full of enlightened well educated Germans and make sure to be good friends with them so that we can work together in the world to shape it for the common good.

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

Or we were trying the "Germany mark 2" move, but the Russians are so stupid that they invaded Ukraine and manged to ruin themselves for the rest of the 21st century? Time will tell. Perhaps ask the guys with no hands and faces begging on the Moscow underground what they think?

>The world is changing and in the new world order UK is slipping down the ladder.

For sure, but who cares? No one serious in the UK wants to be in charge of the world and frankly that's been the case since about 1919.

What we want is to sit on our little island with our nice wind turbines and good internet and make interesting things while enjoying our gardens. I think that fundamentally that's what 99% of the worlds population would like to do but there's 1% playing "lets kill the XYZ" or "I am due the respect and tribute of the people of YZX" as if this was 1850 and no one has nuclear weapons.
by dotancohen | 2025-06-22 06:56:10+00:00
> To suggest Iran would do it anyway is equivalent to saying that they're completely, crazy, fanatical, genocidal and stupid

It's the Iranian government saying they'd do it, not westerners. And you seem to have some sort of culture complex. Their culture is different than yours (not better, not worse, but different) and for them dying to liberate land from infidels is not crazy, it is the highest honour their society bestows.

There is nothing racist or dehumanising about acknowledging cultures different from your own. In fact, I would say that assuming everybody adheres to your cultural values is the racist position.
by motorest | 2025-06-22 06:56:22+00:00
> 3. You can use highly enriched uranium (HEU) for things other than weapons, but the weapons are the only things that require HEU.

OP seems to expect everyone to believe that any regime invests years and small fortunes in research sites built in networks of bomb-proof bunkers buried inside mountains, right next to their network of ballistic missiles, to research medical applications.
by sparkie | 2025-06-22 06:57:56+00:00
> Lisp is not, nor has it ever been, a functional programming language. It had lambda decades before other languages figured out it was a good idea, but it had set! for just as long.

"Functional programming" used to just mean having first-class functions that you could pass as arguments and return from functions. Lisp has always been functional. It's never been purely functional, which is a different thing - concerning itself with referential transparency rather than first-class functions.
by vessenes | 2025-06-22 06:58:16+00:00
Washington's non-compete laws are pretty mild these days, although it is true that it's not California.

I'm also not sure where you heard that Washington is "business friendly." B&O Tax, labor laws, Seattle city politics and the institution of income tax have all driven significant exodus from WA elsewhere over the last ten years.

But, Biden admin + WA laws in 2020 and 2024 make it a relatively low employee load for non-competes, as far as I know. Duration limited to 18 months, auto canceled if an employee is laid off, $120k-$300k income floor under which they are not enforced, details must be offered before job offer made (including a verbal job offer), no venue shifting regardless of location of employer, new employers are granted presumptive standing to sue on behalf of a new hire, agreement only allowed against current customers of the company, not enforceable when selling equity of up to 1% of a company to competitors of the company..

These are not your father's east-coast non-compete agreements! Combined with broad federal support that a non-compete cannot stop you from earning your living, e.g. banning a doctor from working for a competing healthcare system is likely no-go on its own.
by jcgl | 2025-06-22 06:59:37+00:00
That was entirely my experience running Debian. Especially when you include needing a more up-to-date version of the software, rather than the years-old version that comes with Debian.

Switched to Fedora, and now the majority of things is recently updated in the repos. (The flatpak library is increasingly robust, but that of course applies to Debian too.)
by Dylan16807 | 2025-06-22 07:00:14+00:00
Amplified meaning if you have 1000x as many cars you have 1000x as many failures?

That's fine. Insurance is built on that model. What's the issue?

Or do you mean something else?

(If amplify means a ton of the cars crash on the same day because they share code, I doubt that being a big effect, because all the cars are in different places working on different data feeds. And even moderately high spikes would be absorbed fine.)

(If amplify means the crash rate of each car goes up when you add more cars to the fleet... why would that happen?)
by KevinCarbonara | 2025-06-22 07:01:00+00:00
I don't know that it can be confirmed, but Iran is claiming that the US tipped them off. This is a fairly standard tactic, and it makes more sense here. This is something that would satisfy both the pro-war crowd and the group that is pro-Israel or anti-Iran, but not necessarily pro-war. We get to show our strength and support for our allies without really committing.
by ta12653421 | 2025-06-22 07:01:15+00:00
>projects as a completely separate activity, but I don't file that under improving your application skills. <

Absolutely NOT my experience!!! In my case, being able to put "sideprojects" on the tabe, which were somehow adjacent to the role, it always made huge plus.

Currently I'm interviewing for a role for which they rejected a second interview after the first one, when i showed them something i've developed during my recent sabbatical - instead they asked just for completing a 2-slide-ppt and will hire me without having ever met (the corp office is 3 miles away from me)
by gherkinnn | 2025-06-22 07:01:41+00:00
Strategic bombing doesn't work. With the exception of maybe nukes, wars aren't won from the sky and strategic objectives are hard to achieve. The bombing prior to Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom was operational bombing, its purpose was to flatten resistance so the Army could roll in.

It appears that no matter what, no matter the technology involved (maybe with the exception of nukes), you always need grunts on the ground to hold it.
by throw310822 | 2025-06-22 07:02:17+00:00
All this talk about nuclear weapons is purposefully misleading. Iran had agreements in place to keep its nuclear program under strict and thorough international checks, and was currently negotiating a new one. The original deal was scrapped on Netanyahu's request, and the bombing was started by Netanyahu to prevent a new one.

Israel doesn't fear Iran's nukes. Israel fears an economically functional Iran and uses the wmd excuse to sabotage it as much as possible. The worst possible outcome for them is Iran proving it has no nuclear weapons at all and having its sanctions lifted.
by karmakurtisaani | 2025-06-22 07:02:26+00:00
But have you seen how cool the bunker buster bombs are? Like, how, incredible the engineering there is? It's going to be so awesome see those in action!

The same people would have drooled over the engineering of concentration camps. "Yeah it's sad there's some human casualties, but you have to appreciate the thought that went into it, and imagine doing that at that scale!"
by vessenes | 2025-06-22 07:03:56+00:00
This is great. As someone who has made a few MCP servers in the last few months, MAN this spec moves fast; well ahead of Anthropic's internal support for it, and well ahead of documentation for implementation. It's like the Javascript community suddenly got automatic code creation agents, and went to town..

That said, the original spec needed some rapid iteration. With https support finally in relatively good shape, I hope we'll be able to take a year to let the API dust settle. Spec updates every three months are really tough, especially when not versioned, thoroughly documented, or archived properly.
Org markup should replace Markdown
by freedsoftware | 2025-06-22 07:05:22+00:00
It does everything Markdown can and much more. And it's older.

Emacs isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it was a mistake by Github to latch onto Markdown. Now we are stuck with such a limited markup format with so many incompatible versions--none of which are as adept as Org syntax.

I'm guessing it's because Org markup was not embraced early enough by non-Emacs users that Github didn't do it.
by eesmith | 2025-06-22 07:05:29+00:00
I am a software developer with little knowledge of the topic.

What do we call a personified supernatural being who is not worshiped? Are there really no such entities?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God informs me: "In polytheistic belief systems, a god is "a spirit or being believed to have created, or for controlling some part of the universe or life, for which such a deity is often worshipped". The "often" tells me that a god is not always worshipped.

How should I make sense of this line from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin#Roman_era_to_Migration_Pe... : "There is no direct, undisputed evidence for the worship of Odin/Mercury among the Goths, and the existence of a cult of Odin among them is debated."

Definition 1 starts 'The veneration, devotion and religious rites given to a deity'. What veneration, devotion, and religious rites are attested?
by eloisant | 2025-06-22 07:05:41+00:00
That's not really new, the small teams in the 2000's with web frameworks like Rails were able to do as a team of 5 what needed a 50 people team in the 90's. Or even as a week-end solo project.

What happened it that it because the new norm, and the window were you could charge the work of 50 people for a team of 5 was short. Some teams cut the prices to gain marketshare and we were back to usual revenue per employee. At some point nobody thought of a CRUD app with a web UI as a big project.

It's probably what will happen here (if AI does gives the same productivity boost as langages with memory management and web frameworks): soon your company with a small team of friends will not be seen by anyone as equivalent to 100 or 1000 people, even if you can achieve the same thing of a company that size a few years earlier.
by crossroadsguy | 2025-06-22 07:06:06+00:00
No. Iran vehemently wanted nukes and the West (and its strong/rich local vassal states) vehemently didn't want Iran to have the nukes and Iran knew that and the West knew that Iran knew that. So no. (In fact SA has quite some money into Pakistani nukes; not sure what's the "access" agreements :P)
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-06-22 07:06:21+00:00
> No, you benefited from sitting on that productive asset. Getting a free stock option is still a meaningful benefit even if you never case it in.

If you buy a ton of steel with no intention of ever doing anything other than selling it for the same value as you paid for it in a while, you haven't benefited from it and have in fact cost yourself value in opportunity cost because other investments return more than that.

If you get a free stock option and then there is a 30% chance it turns out to be worth something, the government benefits from the same 30% chance that you'll get money from it which will then be taxable income.

> The money you got from that loan is an asset you’re not investing in that hypothetical.

Loan principal doesn't create net assets. You get new money and new debt at the same time and they cancel.

> As to “spend all of your assets and have nothing left” yes I mentioned going broke was an option repeating what I already said isn’t an argument here.

I took your implication to be that it was something bad and so nobody would purposely do that. But people purposely do it all the time. They have some money and then choose to spend all of it instead of investing any of it.

> Ignoring the possibility to just spend more today and also spend the same amount in 10 years is disingenuous here.

Even that scenario still requires the amount of investment to increase. What you'd be doing is spending some but not all of the taxes deferred on the amount you initially invested, e.g. instead of spending $33 and investing $33 you invest $37 and spend $42, and you had ~$12 extra because of the taxes deferred on the $37. But now you're investing $37 instead of $33, and that's the minimum you could invest to get the same after-tax amount in ten years because now you haven't paid the taxes yet.

Doing that is also more disfavored because you get better returns from diverting more money to investment but the benefits of immediate spending haven't increased.
by FilosofumRex | 2025-06-22 07:06:53+00:00
Your "terrorists" militias predate formation of Islamic Republic of Iran, in 1979. Yasser Arafat, and all other Palestinian liberators were also labeled as terrorists.

Can you name one Palestinian who has fought against Israel's occupation and is not considered a terrorist by you?

https://jcpa.org/the-parallels-between-yahya-sinwar-and-yass...
by chaosprint | 2025-06-22 07:07:05+00:00
If you are interested in music language, you might also want to try Glicol:

https://glicol.org/

The syntax is hardware-inspired, wysiwyg-style lazy diff graph updating. you can use it directly through wasm on the web page; there is also a cross-platform cli version:

https://github.com/glicol/glicol-cli

I am currently working on porting it to no std embedded systems
by ImJamal | 2025-06-22 07:07:08+00:00
> They had jack. Zero. Nada.

> It was ginned up BS

This is just not true. You can view the documents on wikileaks and other organizations.

> that led to the worst foreign policy blunder in 100 years, directly creating ISIS, deaths of 500k Iraqis and kicking off the migrant crisis.

Perhaps, but completely irrelevant to whether or not they had WMD.

I don't get why people who are on the right side of this refuse to admit this.
by fastball | 2025-06-22 07:07:32+00:00
If they don't control it, it's not the "other people's" land either.

Land belongs to whoever controls it. That's it. That is all it will ever be.

If there is not some higher power (e.g. the UN, who you say does not have authority), you have no recourse.

No matter what land it is or who they are: nobody currently living was there first. The only claim is always "I was the last to control it". But none of us are the first.
by throw310822 | 2025-06-22 07:07:39+00:00
> Jerusalem was Jewish majority in the time of the Ottoman Empire [1]

(Links a page that shows the exact opposite)

> If one were to call Britain White Man's Land and start a terror campaign against African, Asian, and Arab immigrants, would the world community accept that?

Isn't that exactly what happened, i.e. Israel declared half of the land "Jewish land" and proceeded to ethnically cleanse 800 thousand palestinians with whom they had been living side by side in the previous decades?
by jdietrich | 2025-06-22 07:08:10+00:00
The dehumanising thing is to steadfastly believe that deep down everyone holds secular liberal values, regardless of their words and actions.

Secular discussion about conflict in the Middle East frequently discounts the possibility that self-professed religious fundamentalists are in fact religious fundamentalists. A lot of Israeli settlers really do believe that they are fulfilling a sacred duty. A lot of Palestinians really do believe that becoming a martyr for al-Aqsa guarantees them an eternity in paradise. A lot of American Evangelicals really do believe that conflict in the Middle East will bring about the day of judgement.

I might believe that we live in a godless and meaningless universe in which death is final, but that puts me in a very small minority. Most people -throughout history and across the world - frequently act in ways that are totally irrational from a secular perspective, but are perfectly logical within a framework of faith.
by jeffhuys | 2025-06-22 07:08:11+00:00
Really all I wanted was uBlock and that works.

That being said, after being my daily driver for almost a year, I went back to safari about a month ago with Wipr. 3x speedup and battery efficiency. Unfortunately, it became buggier instead of less buggy :(

Still use it on mac tho - vertical tabs are a game-changer.
by WastedCucumber | 2025-06-22 07:08:51+00:00
I do see this as bloodlust as well.

I think the attacks aren't just about a nuclear weapons program. First, the program, according to US intelligence, does not exist. I'm inclined to believe them. [1] Second, unrelated infrastructure has been attacked, including energy infrastructure, hospitals, and state media.

All of that points not to the destruction of a nuclear weapons program, but of a country. The Israeli government claims to want regime change now... but that claim only came some time after the attacks started and there's no reason in that case to bomb hospitals. The Israeli government claimed the hospitals were "hiding" missle sites, but haven't presented any evidence of that, and have used that excuse many times before now, and were clearly lying.

Ah, plus the countries involved are engaged in a separate act of bloodlust at the moment. Which doesn't directly mean that the attacks against Iran are the same, but it certainly colors the picture.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/gabbard-trump-intelligence-iran-n...
by nine_k | 2025-06-22 07:08:55+00:00
In 1930s and early 1940s, emperor Hirohito of Japan approved of a number of terrible things done by the Japanese imperial armed forces to people of China and Korea, and warred bitterly with the US. But once he realized that he's losing the war, and Japan can be just destroyed by nuclear bombs, he decided to surrender, in order to avoid the complete destruction of his country and senseless deaths of Japanese people. (This is somehow documented.) He cared about the Japanese and Japan more than he cared about his majesty, or honor, or abstract ideas; he agreed to abdicate of all his powers.

Sadly, I highly doubt that the regime of the ayatollahs is going to act like that, instead of fighting fanatically to the bitter end and the last drop of Iranian blood if need be. (A bitter end is very far from the current situation though.)