MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by hilbert42 | 2025-06-21 10:43:24+00:00
Deliberate abuse and misuse of a product is not covered under any normal warranty, and overclocking the CPU could fall into that category depending on the specific warranty (some CPUs could not be overclocked for that reason so it was irrelevant).

User software is another matter altogether. Users could always install whatever they wanted.

It seems you are not old enough to remember that the PC was originally designed to be modular and flexible and that applied to both the hardware and software.

The whole raison d'être from the S-100 bus of the 1970s and the IBM PC† of the '80 was to provide users with a computer system that was flexible and that users could adjust and alter to suit their needs. This meant that users were actually required to alter the configurations of their PCs. No one would have questioned such action, it was considered completely normal.

Moreover, warranties took this into account and it was a normal procedure to add RAM, disk drives and video cards etc. without voiding the warranty. What's more, one could even upgrade the CPU (and if necessary its clock speed) and the rest of the hardware would still remain in warranty—that's why CPUs until recently were 'socketed' and not soldered into place. Of course, the third-party CPU wouldn't be warranted—not on the PC's warranty anyway.

What you are referring to is a sleight-of-hand by some sleazy ratbag manufacturers to change the PC from an open system and make it proprietary. Any system administrator or corporate buyer (at least until recently) would have objected to any clauses in the warranty that would have forbidden modifying equipment as mentioned. I know, I was head of a government IT department for years and contacts that included such punitive warranties would never have been awarded—they would never have passed my desk. Not that I ever saw any mind you. (BTW, there some were warranty claims, altering the equipment was a non issue.)

What we are seeing now (and this whole discussion) is about reclaiming the open nature of the PC—and our computing equipment in general, our phones, etc.

Fortunately, the Right to Repair movement and the Right of Ownership—people like Louis Rossmann and iFixit—are beginning to make inroads into keeping these sleazy carpetbaggers in check. As we've seen Right to Repair laws are getting enacted.

† The original IBM PCs had full service manuals that included electronic circuit diagrams and even the BIOS source code! To suggest we weren't meant to alter things is sheer nonsense. (I still have my copies of these manuals.)
by hnlmorg | 2025-06-21 10:44:20+00:00
You’re not wrong for wanting it. But you are wrong for expecting that every studio should only ever release completely original content.

The reality is that there is room for studios to release original content AND sequels.

For every Star Wars and Marvel rehash there is a Big Hero 6, Elementals, and Zootopia.

And for every Nintendo there are a dozen indie games studios releasing creative new games.

The key to avoiding rehashes is literally just to avoid them. ;)
by Apreche | 2025-06-21 10:45:03+00:00
> The issue is that people become incapable of interrogating why we enjoy what we enjoy. Thinking critically about something is somehow synonymous with a moral condemnation of that thing.

This is something I have been thinking about for many years. I am always introspecting and trying to understand why I am the way I am. Why do I enjoy what I enjoy. When making assessments I strictly separate moral judgements, from judgements of quality, and from personal taste. I find it very difficult to have meaningful conversations about even basic things, like books or movies, because most people don’t seem to even understand how to answer the question “why do you like it?”
by hoppyhoppy2 | 2025-06-21 10:45:28+00:00
>Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

>Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
by kerkeslager | 2025-06-21 10:46:43+00:00
> The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is their irrelevance.

The primary thing that makes advertisements disagreeable is the whole thing. There is nothing good about ads, ever. If I want information about a product, I'll go looking for it, and I won't go to an advertiser. If I'm looking to watch a YouTube video, there is absolutely no condition under which I want to hear about a product unless that's explicitly what I went to that video to hear about.

All ads are lies. There is never an ad that tells you about the flaws in a product or compares it honestly to competing product. I'm simply not interested in being lied to.
by almostgotcaught | 2025-06-21 10:47:33+00:00
> Given that both `maxDollars n` and `maxDollars_spec n` are defined to be natural numbers, I'm not sure why Richardson's theorem is supposed to be relevant

Did you know that the naturals are a subset of the reals? If Richardson's doesn't convince you there's also

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem

> Examples

> Is P equivalent to a given program Q?

Irrespective of where you're convinced it's 100% true that equality of two functions is undecidable in general.
by hnlmorg | 2025-06-21 10:47:36+00:00
Actually, I would think the artist is mad for selling those paintings so cheap. Paintings usually command a much higher price tag.

Then I’d compliment your ability to create a flowing theme throughout the house.

The problem with your analogy here is that art for the home (or anywhere outside a museum or gallery) is generally bought to compliment the overall aesthetics of the building, rather than to be enjoyed in isolation.

> Now if i had 17 unique paintings exploring a variety of motifs and styles, each one with a story to tell that would actually be worth talking about.

That’s called “eclectic”, which is basically an artsy way of saying “mismatched”. Some people dig that style. Personally I don’t.
by sksjvsla | 2025-06-21 10:49:00+00:00
The Medium post is more of a high-level case study for a mixed audience (including non-technical decision makers). I intentionally kept the details lighter there, partly to avoid overwhelming readers and partly because the real “meat” (like our Ansible/Terraform patterns, Prometheus config, etc.) is harder to convey in that format without turning it into a giant technical appendix.

I’m happy to share specific configs, diagrams, or lessons learned here on HN if people want — and actually I’m finding this thread a much better forum for that kind of deep dive.

I'll dive into other aspects elsewhere: You can't doubt that given what I am sharing here.

Any particular area you’d like me to expand on? (e.g. how we structured Terraform modules, Ansible hardening, Prometheus alerting, Loki tuning?)
by ryukoposting | 2025-06-21 10:49:10+00:00
I'll take 12 seconds of silence over seeing the same goddamn T-Mobile ad for the 100th time. Seriously, I can watch a 5 minute video and at it'll play the exact same ad THREE TIMES, at the start, somewhere in the middle, then at the end again. And it's always the most loud, obnoxious ad imaginable.

I was skeptical of SmartTube but it really is the only way YouTube is tolerable anymore.
by scott_w | 2025-06-21 10:49:37+00:00
It’s relative. No, I’m not sitting on the shoulder of the team that manages that (nor should I, there’d be 40 EMs bothering them!) but I fully expect my CTO has done it. And if not? Well, one day it’ll blow up and I’m looking for another job but that’s no different to any other possible major issues.
by smokel | 2025-06-21 10:51:21+00:00
Even though you seem to have a lot of support on Hacker News, I don't think making root access a fundamental right is preferable.

Historically, computers have not granted you access to everything. Most home computers used to have ROM cartridges, which could not be modified, at least not by an average user. Also, when using unrestricted operating systems, such as as MS-DOS, a simple virus could wipe all your hard work.

In our current time, devices are connected to other machines, and the problem of security and privacy has increased dramatically. Unfortunately, we still don't have operating systems that are secure enough to be used by untrained persons. It makes perfect sense to lock down these devices.

I basically see only two ways out:

1. Allow developers exclusive access to development systems, similar to how console development works.

2. Implement a secure operating system.

It will take an extreme amount of effort to do the latter, and it might even be impossible to gradually absorb the mess of interfaces that people and companies expect to work.

So that probably leaves us with the first option. Personally, I would love devices to be locked down more, so that the crazy threats from hackers will be less severe. But I would also love to keep developing software. Having to jump through some hoops is probably unavoidable. The situation could be compared to requiring a driver's license in order to safely drive on the shared infrastructure.

As much as I agree with your sentiment to have freedom, it still seems somewhat overly optimistic to expect this to work in our complex society.
by a2128 | 2025-06-21 10:52:03+00:00
And videos like this one really shouldn't ever have ads, they shouldn't try to block playback for having an adblocker installed, and they shouldn't tell you to "sign in to confirm you're not a bot"[0], and it feels like YouTube should be liable for negligent manslaughter when they do all of the above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtYSTrjKonU

[0] https://i.imgur.com/8SDKRkZ.png
by Workaccount2 | 2025-06-21 10:53:18+00:00
Think about all the ways you a smarter than the average person.

Well this is one of them too, unfortunately.

Ads work extremely well. Often they are the single most important aspect of product. Google and Meta are two of the largest corporations on Earth entirely because thin brains click their ads all day. Your hate for ads isn't misguided, but you are hitting the wrong mark.
by Zak | 2025-06-21 10:53:28+00:00
I agree. I would love to have an "advanced permissions manager" that lets me specify that AccA can write to the /sys devices for the charge controller and AdAway can write to /etc/hosts, but not the reverse.

That doesn't give me any less power than root, but does give those apps less power and limits the potential impact if one gets compromised. I think when most people say the device owner should be able to get root, they mean that the owner, rather than the manufacturer or OS vendor should have the final say in all cases, not that it has to literally work just like root on Unix.
by masklinn | 2025-06-21 10:53:36+00:00
> struct tags greatly reduce the boilerplate code required to map fields to fields.

Are you somehow under the impression that Go is unique in having a terse way to map fields to fields?

> It’s really quite novel once you understand it.

It's the opposite of novel, putting ad-hoc annotations in unstructured contexts is what people used to do before java 5.
by delusional | 2025-06-21 10:55:37+00:00
> No need to just have just 1 model that maps 1:1 to your DB row. This applies to all languages

One reason is to avoid copying data constantly. I don't just mean this from an efficiency perspective, but also (and maybe more so) from a simplicity one. If you have a library for shoving data into a struct mechanistically, but you then take the data from that struct and shove it into an additional struct, what's the point of the library? You're writing the code move the data anyway.

In my dayjob I see this tendency constantly to have a lot of different very narrow structs that somehow integrate into some library, and then a TON of supporting code to copy between those structs. Only to then do very little actually useful work with any of the data at the end. I generally think you'd be happier with fatter structs that integrated less with weird "struct-filling" libraries.
by theluketaylor | 2025-06-21 10:56:02+00:00
> Having your vehicle serviced by someone other than the dealer could void your warranty and poses a safety risk

Good tongue in cheek post, but in the US Magnuson-Moss prohibits warranty claim denials merely on the basis of non-OEM parts and service. It also puts the burden on the manufacturer to demonstrate the defect or failure was the direct result of the non-OEM part. Other jurisdictions have similar laws on the books.

Right to repair already exists in certain aspects and needs to be expanded (and enforced. Tons of those ‘will void warranty’ stickers are lies and you have legal rights to poke around)
by kerkeslager | 2025-06-21 10:57:14+00:00
> First it was "I hate how much ad companies track me and build profiles on me."

> Now it is "I hate how ads are irrelevant."

This is an HN echo-chamber complaint, made by people who work for advertisers trying to come up with a way to make their ads seem less awful.

The fact is, relevant ads aren't better. They're still ads, and ads are still inherently bad.

If I'm looking for a used car, I do not want to hear ads from Bob's Lemon Shop about why they're the best place to buy cars. If Bob's Lemon Shop is the best place to buy cars, I'll find that out from independent reviewers who have shopped their before. An ad from Bob's Lemon Shop is relevant to my interest, but that makes it worse because now I'm susceptible to manipulation by the company that paid the most for ads instead of making a more rational decision based on true information from unbiased sources. Having more relevant ads is not good for me, it's good for advertisers.
by Bostonian | 2025-06-21 10:57:46+00:00
https://archive.is/bJ79C

Subtitle: 'The leading expert on its nuclear program, David Albright, sizes up the progress of Israel’s military campaign.'

'As Israel’s mission to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity continues, a grave and obvious question confronts us: How did the West, the U.S. in particular, allow Tehran’s nuclear threat to grow unchecked for so long?

David Albright, an American physicist and nuclear-weapons tracker, is among the world’s foremost experts on Iran’s nuclear program. He’s president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a nonprofit, nonpartisan institution that focuses on the spread of nuclear weapons to rogue nations and terrorists. On June 12, the day before the first Israeli attack, Iran could “make enough weapon-grade uranium for 11 nuclear weapons within a month,” Mr. Albright says. Pre-attack Iran was on track to have enough highly enriched uranium for 22 weapons in five months.

Israel’s continued pounding of Iranian sites has degraded Iran’s capabilities. But the damage’s extent will take many days to establish, and the threat from Iran isn’t remotely contained. Mr. Albright’s “worst-case assessment” is that Iran could “still break out and produce enough weapon-grade uranium at Fordow”—the clandestine enrichment facility deep under a mountain south of Tehran—“for a nuclear weapon in several days. I do not know how much of the current stock of 60% uranium has been destroyed by Israel. If most of it is still in Iranian hands, then Fordow could make enough weapon-grade uranium for nine nuclear weapons within a month, assuming it continues to operate.”

Iran could still have enough for 15 weapons in five months. But there’s also some reassurance: Iran’s “overall breakout capability,” he says, “has been degraded because of the loss of Natanz,” its largest enrichment facility, which Israel struck on June 13.'
by CSDude | 2025-06-21 10:57:47+00:00
Blanket statements like this miss the point. Not all data is waste. Especially high-cardinality, non-sampled traces. On a 4-core ClickHouse node, we handled millions of spans per minute. Even short retention windows provided critical visibility for debugging and analysis.

Sure, we should cut waste, but compression exists for a reason. Dropping valuable observability data to save space is usually shortsighted.

And storage isn't the bottleneck it used to be. Tiered storage with S3 or similar backends is cheap and lets you keep full-fidelity data without breaking the budget.
by Ygg2 | 2025-06-21 10:58:21+00:00
I mean the companies, are using the AIs, right? And they are in a sense replacing them/retraining them. Why doesn't AI in TwitterX already blackmail Elon?

To me, this smells of XKCD 1217 "In petri dish, gun kills cancer". I.e. idealized conditions cause specific behavior. Which isn't new for LLMs. Say a magic phrase and it will start quoting some book (usually 1984).
by sksjvsla | 2025-06-21 10:58:26+00:00
Great question. Technically speaking I might not need both, but I have a gut feeling that one of these cloud providers might not be as hardened as the hyperscalers, and that Russia is just waiting to put one of these two services down. So for maximal resiliency I chose to design from a multi-cloud setup from the beginning.

Scaleway came up but is more expensive. IONOS did not come up in our research.

Part of what we tried to do was to make ourselves independent from traditional cloud services and be really good at doing stuff on a VPS. Once you start doing that, you can actually allow yourself to look more at uptimes and at costs. Also, since we wanted everything to be fully automated, Terraform support was important for us, and OVHcloud and Hetzner had that.

I'm sure there's many great cloud providers out in Europe, but it's hard to vet them to understand if they can meet demand and if they are financially stable. We would want not to keep switching cloud providers. So picking two of the major ones seemed like a safe choice.
by sixtiethutopia | 2025-06-21 10:58:35+00:00
It's email-compatible and uses pgp for encryption. No forward secrecy and supports sending unencrypted messages as well for people who don't have pgp.

No forward secrecy and will automatically switch to unencrypted messages if you receive an unencrypted message from a contact.

I wonder if it's vulnerable to downgrade attacks from adversaries falsifying the sending address. If an adversary sends an unencrypted email imitating a contact will delta chat reject it or will it silently switch the chat with that contact over to unencrypted email?
by commandersaki | 2025-06-21 10:59:58+00:00
There is a simple way to stop watching ads

Requires getting out a credit card. Even simpler is an ad blocker.

As for the ethics of ad blocking, I'll consider unblocking ads when Google stops with the unethical (think Tai Lopez) and downright malicious ads (deepfakes of Elon suggesting to invest in crap like "Quantum AI"), and only then will I reconsider removing the blocker and maybe even paying.

Put simply, ad blockers provide a safer browsing experience.
by acdha | 2025-06-21 11:00:23+00:00
The neat thing here is that we don’t have to make uninformed speculation about this, we can just look at how it worked in the past. Anyone who did family tech support in the 2000s knew that every family visit involved removing all of the malware their relatives had installed – ESPECIALLY the ones who “knew” what they are doing! – and it was even odds that you’d see stuff like that on computers at businesses, libraries, banks, etc. All you had to do was say it’d improve system performance, give them free coupons or porn, and they’d trip over themselves to install it. This is why iPads and ChromeOS devices became so popular because everyone who actually knows how to use a computer safely knows people who say they do but absolutely do not.

It’s also important to learn how the modern abuse industry works. Since the 2000s, malware has grown into a multi-billion dollar highly professional industry used by governments around the world and the scammers have professionalized as well. You should look at some of the YouTube videos of scammers social engineering people into giving them remote access, approving bank MFA challenges, or talking them into making cryptocurrency purchases - and while we might sneer and say they’re uneducated or careless, most of them are distracted or old, just like most of us will be some day. If there’s a prompt, millions of people will approve it and if it means their device can no longer be trusted that’s a lot of money and e-waste.

I don’t like any of this. I want to have root on every device because I grew up with unfettered PCs (first installed Linux .9 using a disk editor, etc. etc.) but the landscape has changed since then. We can’t pretend otherwise, but we could call for regulation to balance the interests of owners and device manufacturers just as we allow people to customize their cars without giving up the concept of safety or emissions testing.
by MaxBarraclough | 2025-06-21 11:00:40+00:00
> From what I know about C this code probably breaks on platforms that nobody uses.

Your intuition is correct. Even if never dereferenced, casting a compile-time constant other than 0 to a pointer type in that way is implementation-defined, might not be correctly aligned, might not point to an entity of the referenced type, and might be a trap representation. [0] If I understand correctly, saving a trap representation to a variable causes undefined behaviour, as doing so presumably constitutes reading the trap value [1] (I had a tough time finding a definitive answer on that point).

I think it would be compliant to use the intptr_t type (assuming it exists on that platform) and give special treatment when it holds -1, i.e. never cast back to the pointer type if it holds -1. (Alternatively, use uintptr_t and give special treatment if it holds UINTPTR_MAX.) This would still rely on the assumption that the special value will never collide with the actual pointer values you need to work with, of course.

[0] https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/INT36-C.+Conve...

[1] https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2091.htm
by malwrar | 2025-06-21 11:00:50+00:00
Whenever I’m in a situation where I can’t skip an ad (e.g. TV, radio, on foreign computer, etc), I usually turn down the volume and look away. Am I, in some sense, stealing whenever when I am not thoroughly considering each of the generous offers that Brand and Company have paid money to have delivered personally to devices of people like me? Is this inconvenient time spent while avoiding their message my penance, and is trying to skip it altogether somehow what turns my actions into sin?

Of course it’s all about everyone getting paid! I always just find it silly when my fellow plebeians try to echo some false obligation to abide by this system when people like us have been avoiding it for as long as it has existed.
by lyu07282 | 2025-06-21 11:00:51+00:00
> while people not voting with their wallet is the main reason for all corporate shenanigans we are experiencing

That's what I'm getting at is wrong. The paper straws are an analogy, if everyone stopped driving cars and lived in the woods we could reduce carbon emissions significantly, therefore the reason we can't stop climate change is people not voting with their wallets. Everything is people not voting with their wallets, it applies to everything, that's why it applies to nothing.
by itsdrewmiller | 2025-06-21 11:00:53+00:00
There is no screen at all on these - there are some other glasses in the market that have some visual aspect (not environment-aware but spatially aware enough to keep a virtual monitor in place). This one is the current market leader I believe: https://us.shop.xreal.com/products/xreal-one-pro?srsltid=Afm...
by bsenftner | 2025-06-21 11:02:01+00:00
Yeah, all the more reason not to have them doing autonomous behaviors.

Rules of using AI:

#1: Never use AI to think for you

#2: Never use AI to do atomonous work

That leaves using them as knowledge assistants. In time, that will be realized as their only safe application. Safe to the user's minds, and safe to the user's environment. They are idiot savants, after all, having them do atomonous work is short sighted.