MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by _bent | 2025-07-12 19:50:06+00:00
We've had kids accessing an Internet without any working age barriers for over 30 years now.

There have been problems, be that grooming, Facebook parties and maybe addiction to TikTok.

But being able to access adult content be that sexual or violent in nature doesn't really seem to have had much negative consequences.

Sure I wouldn't want my 10 year old to see 2 girls 1 cup - but I reckon it wouldn't be the end of the world if he did.

It's good that we have content recommendations. But we shouldn't try to actually enforce them.

Again: with all the options kids have had for accessing porn online in the last couple of decades, if it was actually THAT bad, we'd be having an epidemic. Yet we don't. The kids are alright
by jtang613 | 2025-07-12 19:50:37+00:00
Thanks for the interest. I wrote GhidrAssistMCP and the original GhidrAssist plugin which work hand-in-hand because I find they improve my RE workflow. They're not immune from hallucinations because the underlying models are not. However, they are fairly rare and I have had very reliable results with both Claude and ChatGPT. When used together, GhidrAssist+GhidrAssistMCP have been able to do some impressive analysis tasks.

If you're just getting back in the saddle, you might want to give both a try. In particular, GhidrAssist's "Explain Function" tool is really helpful at quickly summarizing code and reducing the mental overhead of making sense of large binaries.
by YeGoblynQueenne | 2025-07-12 19:50:50+00:00
(not the OP) Giant isopods. They're not real. I know there are pictures of what are supposed to be giant isopods but they are not real animals, instead they're clearly fake models of made-up animals.

Look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_isopod#/media/File:Bathy...

Clearly some kind of plastic model. I mean its eyes are gleaming menacingly. Or look at this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_isopod#/media/File:Giant...

Seriously, wikipedia? Seriously? That's clearly a hoax.

Giant isopods are. not. real.
by willmarch | 2025-07-12 19:52:53+00:00
"For the most part, U.S. citizens (or nationals) can never be stripped of their U.S. citizenship (or nationality). It's the most secure immigration status there is. However, limited exceptions do exist. Also, people can give up U.S. citizenship voluntarily. This article will look at both possibilities."

Rosie was born in the US and is not voluntarily giving up her citizenship. I want to believe you're discussing in good faith, but nothing you posted is relevant to this discussion if it is the president threatening to strip a US citizen's rights from someone who isn't voluntarily giving them up.

There is no defending or explaining away what Trump is doing; it is awful, should be called out as awful, and it is unAmerican to the core. This isn't "trolling" this is creeping facism and should be called out as such.
by perching_aix | 2025-07-12 19:53:35+00:00
> At least you can check

I don't think they enable me to inspect e.g. my CPU's firmware, or that they're able to provide any guarantees about the hardware itself.

So it still just makes for a large shopping bag sized trust-me-bro box executing hundreds of billions of instructions a second. But now with a false sense of comfort.

I'm more than happy to concede on this being overly dramatic though, provided you concede on having been engaging in a similarly unserious hyperbole of your own.
by jkaplowitz | 2025-07-12 19:54:10+00:00
Most of us alive in the US today never had a right to buy liquor anonymously, unless you’re making a natural rights argument independent of contrary constitutional or statutory law. The 21st Amendment gives lots of authority to states to regulate or prohibit alcohol sales, including the right to require ID.

With that said, even now, it’s normal that liquor stores only look at IDs without transmitting or recording the information anywhere (in the absence of fraud concerns), so if the purchase itself is made with cash, it has most (not quite all) of the same data privacy and security consequences as a true anonymous purchase.

This is very different from the online porn age verification proposals.
by Terr_ | 2025-07-12 19:54:38+00:00
> cellular networks

I often like to point out--satisfying a contrarian streak--that our original human equipment is literally the most mind-bogglingly complicated nanotechnology beyond our understanding, packed with dozens of incredible features we cannot imitate with circuits or chrome.

So as much as I like the aesthetics of cyberpunk metal arms, keeping our OEM parts is better. If we need metal bodies at a construction site, let them be remote-controlled bodies that stay there for the next shift to use.
by Marsymars | 2025-07-12 19:55:30+00:00
From “Payoneer Fees”: https://www.payoneer.com/about/pricing/

> Annual account fee: This fee applies only to accounts that receive less than $2,000 USD (or equivalent) over a 12-month period. Customers who pay for an Annual Plan are not subject to this fee. 29.95 USD
by aydyn | 2025-07-12 19:56:59+00:00
> what you meant when you said "realistic", right?

No, apparently I must clarify that I meant "realistic" when I said "realistic".

> even stronger ideology and biases is even less of a convincing argument.

I have not even given my perspective so this just reveals your own ideological biases; the mere act of challenging your perspectives means that, to you, that person is biased.
by conradev | 2025-07-12 19:57:34+00:00
You mean like this?

https://webkit.org/blog/16993/news-from-wwdc25-web-technolog...

It’s a W3C spec led by Okta, Apple and Google based on an ISO standard and it is being rolled out as we speak.

This part

other iOS applications that have registered themselves as an Identity Document Provider.

Has some fun history: California went with an independent contractor for its mDL implementation, which ultimately pressured Apple into integrating open(-ish) standards to interoperate.
by iopapa | 2025-07-12 19:57:35+00:00
Co-author of atopile here – super excited to see this on HN!

Coincidentally, we just built an MCP server for atopile, and Claude seems to love it. It makes a big difference in usability, and also exposes our re-usable design library[0].

A bit about atopile[1]: Our core idea is to capture design intent in a knowledge graph with constraints and high-level modeling of components and interfaces. This lets us do much more than just AI integrations: we’ve built an in-house constraint solver that can automatically pick passives (resistors, capacitors, etc) based on the values you've constrained in your design.

Currently, atopile directly generates KiCAD PCB files, so you can finish the layout (mainly the connections between reusable layout blocks). We're also generating artifacts like I2C bus trees and 3D models, with power trees and schematic generation on the roadmap.

Happy to answer questions or go into technical details!

[0] https://packages.atopile.io/ [1] https://atopile.io/
by mopsi | 2025-07-12 20:00:50+00:00
> Either way, I'm not defending russia;

Whether you recognize it or not, you are. You have been propagandized to such an extent that you perfectly repeat well-known lies from the Russian propaganda machine, all while being convinced that these are your original thoughts rather than something implanted in you. The accusation that Russia is surrounded by armies and missiles is the most obvious example. You did not reach that conclusion independently, because it's simply false. Someone told you this, and you repeat it without questioning.

Now, Russians are doing their best to poison LLMs so that if you ever start to doubt and try to consult an LLM, it will reinforce the same lies and you'll never escape them and you'll continue to reject the truth as "Western propaganda".
by markus_zhang | 2025-07-12 20:01:01+00:00
OK I might be wrong about the visitor pattern, but what I really did not like is to use the accept() and visitBlah() way to execute AST nodes: https://craftinginterpreters.com/representing-code.html#the-...

I did continue reading the book (not the original author of that reply) but I do think it is distracting for newbies. I had to come back to this page over and over again to recollect memory about the pattern, because I usually read it one chapter or a few sections every week, so every time I had to remind myself how this visitBlah() and accept() pair works. I really think a big switch() (or anything that works but is simpler) would be a lot easier to understand.

The other reason I dislike this kind of stuffs is that I have someone in the team who really likes to use patterns for every piece of code. It's kinda difficult to tell whether it is over-engineering or not, but my principle is that intuition always beats less lines of code (or DRY), unless it is absurdly more lines of code or repetition. And to test that principle you just grab a newbie and see which one makes more sense to him.
by Bender | 2025-07-12 20:01:36+00:00
Absolutely good faith. It also says:

Committing any of the following acts will create a presumption that it was performed voluntarily with the idea of giving up U.S. citizenship, although the person might later be able to rebut (disprove) this presumption:

So he may presume that she is no longer in need of a US citizenship. Has she publicly stated otherwise or is she just playing the back-and-forth drama game he started? If you know Trump and Rosie then you have to admit they both love drama. She could easily state, "I have no desire to rescind my US citizenship. I wish to keep my US citizenship." and then just ignore him until legal action is required.
by ProllyInfamous | 2025-07-12 20:02:18+00:00
If you simply add a `-` (en-dash) between the `t` & 2nd `u` in the URL, your viewing experience automatically skips all external ads, without login/premium.

Syntax: www.yout-ube.com/watch?v=XqZsoesa55w

This also works for playlists, and auto-repeats.

edit: is this getting downvoted because it works and people are worried this service might disappear should this bypass become too popular..? Just curious.
by TheOtherHobbes | 2025-07-12 20:02:56+00:00
It's been systematically undermined for decades through cultivated conspiracy culture, with digressions into wellness woo and evangelical movements of all kinds.

The pitch is the usual anti-intellectual narrative: "How dare these people, with their fancy educations, look down on you and patronise you. Everyone's opinions are equally valuable. They're probably in it for the money."

It's been very organised, and both science and academia have completely failed to respond to it.

You can give science a pass because most scientists struggle to understand how craven politics and propaganda are.

Academia should have known better. Hannah Arendt described it far ahead of time. But somehow plain anti-authoritarianism became less sexy, and certainly less of a career move, than Continental Philosophy and Critical Theory, which have turned out to be largely impotent when faced with full-on fascism.
by kelnos | 2025-07-12 20:03:16+00:00
At this point I think accusing conservatives of hypocrisy is blase and yesterday's news.

Of course conservatives are hypocrites. All they care about are their end goals, and they will say and do whatever they need to say and do in order to achieve them.

One of those goals involves enshrining Christian values into law. Christian values themselves are often hypocritical and contradictory. And inconsistent: ask 10 Christians to weigh in on a thorny moral issue and you'll get 15 different answers.

And on top of that, the conservatives in power have a fetish for using those power structures to enrich themselves and their cronies, under the guise of "small government" and "free markets".

I don't think exposing conservative hypocrisy is a winning or useful strategy anymore. Conservatives are masters at cognitive dissonance, and at hand-waving away inconsistencies in their views, or the very real, very negative consequences of their policy plans. I'm not sure what the right strategy is, though. And perhaps this is why liberals fail to win hearts and minds when it matters.
by daxfohl | 2025-07-12 20:03:55+00:00
Going a little further, what I'd really like to see is the core concepts implemented in a way that allows a standard implementation to follow straightforwardly from the type system, but also allow for doing nonstandard things. Like, "here's a logic language built in" is kind of boring. What's more enticing is "Here are the components. Here's a nominal implementation based on these components. Here's a weird thing you can do that we hadn't actually designed for, but could fit certain use cases."

I remember Jon Skeet did a whole series of blog posts on reimplementing C# async, which was possible because C#'s async syntax isn't bolted to the implementation, and added features like coroutines that weren't part of C# at all. https://codeblog.jonskeet.uk/2011/06/22/eduasync-part-13-fir.... Similarly Daniel Earwicker had a series where he implemented async/await using iterator syntax instead https://smellegantcode.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/unification-....

And sure, now I know it's all kind of fancy but fairly trivial stuff you can do with monads (and I guess free monads in the Linq-to-SQL case), but it was fascinating to me at the time.

So yeah, for "selling" purposes, I think rather than selling datalog built into the language as a front-page feature, a series of "how to build a datalog" posts would go further in showing off the power of the components of the language that it's built from.

(And FWIW I do like the way C# has built-in support for "important" monads like iterators (foreach), generators (yield), async (await), optional (null propagation operators), etc., even though a language purist would argue against it. I think it provides an easier on-ramp for newer developers, and helps make common things more concise and readable. So it'd be interesting to see where that line would best get drawn for logic programming, what gets special-but-extensible syntax support, and what is purely implementation and functions).
by delichon | 2025-07-12 20:04:11+00:00
I want a button on each user (that opts in) that allows me to see their feed just as they do. A read-only impersonation. When I see a take that I wildly disagree with I frequently wonder what set of views of the world they are operating from. This feature would help look at the world from behind the eyes of those I need to learn from the most: those that seem to live in a different one.

A starter pack in comparison is a one-click embubbler. We need better bubble explorers and comparers. Like "Grok, me and @joe disagree on <topic-x>. Compare the relevant items in each of our feeds and summarize the difference in values, facts and sources that we consume."
by spacechild1 | 2025-07-12 20:05:43+00:00
That Tennessee law is particularly crazy:

> (a) Pubic hair, vulva, vagina, penis, testicles, anus, or nipple of a human body

Naked bodies do not harm anyone. This is US puritanism at its peek. Glad the author also pointed out the hypocrisy of treating nudity as more obscene than violence.
by axoltl | 2025-07-12 20:05:52+00:00
I can't comment on MCP use specifically but I can comment on using an LLM while reversing. I use a local instance of whatever ends up being SOTA for local reasoning LLMs at 30B-70B params quantized to 4-6b. I feed it decompiled code to identify functions that are 'tedious' to reverse engineer. I recently reversed a binary that was compiled with soft float and had no symbols or strings. A lot of those functions end up being a ton of bit-twiddling. While I reversed the business logic I had the reasoning model identify the soft float functions with very minimal prompting. It did quite well on those!

I also tried to have it automatically build some structs from code showing the access patterns, and it failed miserably on that task. Likely a larger model (o3 or opus) would do better here.

I personally don't think letting an LLM do large parts of the reversing would be useful to me as I build up a lot of my mental model of the system during the process, so I'd be missing out on that. But for handling annoying bits of code I'd likely just forego otherwise? Go ham!
by naikrovek | 2025-07-12 20:07:51+00:00
> Just don’t use Microsoft garbage wherever possible. Default opt-in is how it starts.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

This fork is for use internally within Microsoft, and consists of patches which allow them to build FIPS 140-2 compliant applications using Go. Their stated goal is to get their changes merged upstream.

It’s not intended for use outside of Microsoft, it doesn’t support most of the platforms that Google’s Go does, and it isn’t meant to replace Google’s Go for any single person outside of Microsoft, though I suppose it would be useful for anyone wanting to write FIPS-140 compliant Go applications.

It’s open source, so you can check it out and compare against google/go if you want. It’s microsoft/go on GitHub.

You make all anti-Microsoft people look insane then you make statements like this from a position of ignorance.
by VBprogrammer | 2025-07-12 20:08:35+00:00
The avherald is reporting second hand reports of the Indian media. The EEC MN4 microcontroller is located on a control board on each engine. A dual failure seems improbable.

The fuel cutoff switches are of a similar design to the 737 and most other Boeing aircraft. A failure in that design seems less likely than the most charitable explanation, that the copilot inadvertently went into the wrong mode of muscle memory.

The interim report does mention the SIAB NM-18-33. If you read that document it specifically says that the fuel cut-offs were installed with the locking feature deactivated on some 737 aircraft. It's a pretty big leap to that causing this incident. Someone or some thing would still need to have touched the switches to move them.
by notahacker | 2025-07-12 20:09:02+00:00
Understand the first part perfectly. Yes, a small portion of newspace involves [or will involve) spacecraft that don't spend most of their life orbiting in nice predictable arcs above ground stations with occasional also predictable small station keeping or conjunction avoidance adjustments, and it stands to reason that the most advanced and classified US SDA capability has access to better sensor data and models.

But that seems like a very poor argument for removing a system which might be approaching obsolescence in military terms but is still relied on for a rapidly increasing number of civil satellites to make rapidly increasing conjunction avoidance manoeuvres (and is also relatively inexpensive). Anything that makes them less aware threatens defence and critical civil government infrastructure too, and the private sector doesn't exactly seem to be embracing it as an exciting opportunity - look at the quote from Slingshot! Plus if anything the changes taking place would seem to be a reason to invest more in orbital traffic control with regulation to make it more like the FAA. You don't have to give away the classified tracking tech if you're barking out move orders rather than simply sharing predictions so operators come to their own conclusions about conjunction risk, and likewise orders and requirements for operators to broadcast position and intent are a much better way of dealing with a future of private servicing missions and space megastructures than "let them buy their own tracking data and make their own decisions"
by dalyons | 2025-07-12 20:10:18+00:00
> I'd like to 100x our energy supply

I kind of see where you're coming from now. However, I don't particularly care about 100x'ing our future at the moment. For right now, I care about solving the existential risk of climate change - lets get to 1x as carbon free as possible, as quickly as possible. And at present the quickest and cheapest way to do that is solar/wind + battery. Any dollar diverted from solar/etc right now to "go full nuclear" delays our progress against decarbonization.

Once we are out of the danger zone we can talk about our 100x future, and sure build nukes for that if you want, sounds great. Perhaps given 20 years of investment we can make them competitive, like we did for solar.
by perching_aix | 2025-07-12 20:10:27+00:00
This blogpost covers a workaround they discovered that would have let MV3 extensions access important functionality that was not normally available, only in MV2.

This workaround was fixed the same year in 2023 and yielded a $0 payout, on the basis that Google did not consider it a security vulnerability.

The conclusion then is that uBO (MV2) stopped working for me today after restarting my computer, I suppose.
by ProllyInfamous | 2025-07-12 20:10:28+00:00
Content restrictions should just be an option with the ISP: to make the entire modem/phone disable adult content and/or require age verification. This, I would disable (presuming `on` by default).

>2 girls 1 cup

I still remember showing that to curious ladies in grad school (who'd heard about it); some of my favorite reaction footage.

>10 years old

My generation's equivalent was lemonparty.com

=>O<=
by root_axis | 2025-07-12 20:12:04+00:00
IANAL, but it seems like things are already moving in this direction. For example, FL has a similar state law regarding pornography, and the response from many porn sites has been to comply or block FL IPs rather than fight it up to the supreme court. I guess someone will do it eventually, but I suspect there is an assumption that they'd be wasting their time and money to do so.
by matheusmoreira | 2025-07-12 20:12:47+00:00
I believe them. The restrictions are reasonable and appropriate for nearly everyone. Extensions are untrusted code that should have as little access as possible. If restrictions can be bypassed, that's a security bug that should be fixed because it directly affects users.

I also think uBlock Origin is so important and trusted it should not only be an exception to the whole thing but should also be given even more access in order to let it block things more effectively. It shouldn't even be a mere extension to begin with, it should be literally built into the browser as a core feature. The massive conflicts of interest are the only thing that prevent that. Can't trust ad companies to mantain ad blockers.
by Terr_ | 2025-07-12 20:13:34+00:00
Exposure != Accumulated comments, especially if you aren't counting distinct authors.

Dig a little deeper, and you'll see that particular submission ("US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law") was visible on the front page for barely five minutes [0] before something abruptly exiled it to to the end of the second page and a slide into obscurity.

In contrast, I randomly picked something from several pages down today that which looks bland with triple-digit comments, and got "A Typology of Candianisms." Turns out that has even more comments (327!) and was visible on the front page for about twenty hours [1].

Quite a difference, isn't it? I'm not against the idea that HN needs to guard its content-mix, but we should not live in denial about it happening.

[0] https://hnrankings.info/44397799/

[1] https://hnrankings.info/44515101/
by Keyframe | 2025-07-12 20:14:04+00:00
I get your point. Truth is on both ends though. There truly are games which peaked in their visual style and even with modern power at their disposal nothing could be added that would make them look better. The medium they used, some of them, they used it to its maximum potential. I'd take pixel art's swan song game of Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Modern rendition of it with let's say more detailed graphics, even vector one, would just make it look worse. It's perfect the way it is and I'd argue if you were to do it today and you chose the same art style, it'd come out the same with only smaller differences (like overall high resolution but still "subdivided" into smaller ones, effectively still being lower resolution).