MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by sokoloff | 2025-07-12 20:14:28+00:00
What?! I know hundreds of people who have had it, and only one I know went to the hospital. Zero died. I’ve had it three times. Zero hospital visits. One was “bad cold”; one was “mild cold”; the last was “would have never known I had anything if not for a complete loss of smell, which made me test”.

Where is this place where everyone who gets infected with C19 goes to the hospital or seriously risks death?
by kelnos | 2025-07-12 20:14:37+00:00
This feels helpful, but puts a big burden on the person targeted. I live in California; let's say I run afoul of this Tennessee law and am criminally prosecuted.

California decides this is bullshit and won't extradite me to Tennessee. Great. The article mentions that 20-odd states are implementing similar laws (though most offer only civil penalties, not criminal). Let's say I want to visit friends in New York. I get on a plane, and the plane flies over one of those other states with shitty laws. They've decided to help Tennessee with their shitty-law enforcement, see that my name is on a passenger list of a flight crossing that state's airspace, and they require my plane divert to a local airport so they can arrest me.

Ok, maybe states can't do that? But I still have to be careful how I fly; I have to only take direct flights, or be very careful as to which connecting airports I allow in my itineraries. I have to hope that all my flights go smoothly, and that my flights never have issues that require them to divert to an airport in a state with shitty laws.

This still sucks for people who don't have to live in states with these garbage laws.
by VerdisQuo5678 | 2025-07-12 20:15:09+00:00
Is there anything we can actually do to combat this? Im short of ideas, tho the 33% rule can be potentially worked around by generating loads of fake content similar to a previous poster who generates fake content for scrapers to eat Im in the UK and they recently passed a similar law banning any explicit _imagery_, which I already thought was bad but the land of freedom beats us out again, the literally surveillance state, at least that's that's enforced top down by ofcom instead of an army of injury lawyers so it works at ofcom's speed
by tyre | 2025-07-12 20:15:37+00:00
If you are a paying subscriber, you are self-identifying as (likely) a higher net-worth. The problem for ad platforms allowing paid opt-out is that the most valuable users leave the network.

Then they have to go to advertisers and say, “advertise on our network where all the wealthier people are not.” A brand like Tiffany’s or Rolex (both huge advertisers) aren’t going to opt into that.
by xpe | 2025-07-12 20:16:55+00:00
>> For example they often have attended college and believe in science.

> One doesn't believe in science. One uses science as a tool to test hypotheses, using real world evidence to understand reality and truth.

The first quote is a shorthand. The second quote is accurate, technically, except that perhaps the author is misunderstanding the first quote. When many people write "person P believes in science", you can accurately translate that to "person P sees the value in science as a tool for truth-seeking."
by Barbing | 2025-07-12 20:17:15+00:00
I wish I could browse the web kinda like this but minus the human:

Make Signal video call to someone in front of a laptop, provide verbal instructions on what to click on, read to my liking, and hang up to be connected with someone else next time.

(EFF’s Cover Your Tracks seems to suggest fresh private tabs w/iCloud Private Relay & AdGuard is ineffective. VMs/Cloud Desktops exist but there are apparently telltale signs when those are used, though not sure how easily linkable back to acting user. Human-in-the-loop proxy via encrypted video calls seems to solve _most_ things, except it’s stupid and would be really annoying even with an enthusiastic pool of volunteers. VM + TOR/I2P should be fine for almost anybody though I guess, just frustrated the simple commercial stuff is ostensibly partially privacy theater.)
by 1718627440 | 2025-07-12 20:18:17+00:00
Ok?

Do you ever only use one of find and grep? I think they are very similar as the search and the filter bar. I mean you can replace find with tree | grep, not sure about the other way around, but it's probably also possible.

> There is zero need

I do, so it is not exactly zero and I would be annoyed to have them gone, because it is a huge time saver when handling thousands of messages.

> if there is no result for the text entered in the textbox then switch to the search

If the filter starts to draw in messages from other directories, that would be stupid and kind of defeats the point of having a filter in a first place. If you want that why don't you use the search?

> it's just Mozilla wanted to copy-paste the idiotic solution of MS Office with a top-most search function

I don't care where the search bar is placed and I think that functionality did already exist before the current UI, either via ^K or in a menu. I (maybe) do agree with you, in that I don't like putting widgets in window frames (that's for the WM) and prefer classical (CUA-like) menubars.

Can you please criticize the functionality itself? I can't comprehend why you don't see the point of a separate filter. Do you mostly keep messages in the INBOX?

Maybe my original word choice wasn't optimal, because you can consider filtering a subset of searching, but I do consider them to be different. If you rather you use a different terminology, that's fine, but I don't think it will change my point.
by kelnos | 2025-07-12 20:18:31+00:00
That's not even universally true, though. I've been to bars where they scan the barcode on my drivers' license. I assume that's more convenient than reading the data off it, so maybe they're just doing it for convenience and aren't storing the data anywhere, but who knows, maybe they are. Maybe there's a database somewhere with a list of name, date, time, location tuples for some of my bar visits from years ago. Creepy.
by markus_zhang | 2025-07-12 20:19:21+00:00
I'm still looking for the 2025-2030 version of a kid's first computer. C64 and Apple ][ made sense back then because whatever the poor animation they provided back in the late 70s/early 80s are exciting ENOUGH for younger version of us. Back then ANY interaction is good enough. NES was the bang but it definitely requires a lot of imagination to match the sprites to the box arts. I think the key here is to force the kids to use imagination.

Actually I'm going to do an experiment on my soon to be 5-years-old son. I have exposed some cartoon shows to him, but none of them is very fancy. I gave him Curious George and Bluey, both fall more into the hand-drawn camp than the CG camp. I have never expose him to any games or mobile apps like TikTok. I'm going to expose NES games or C64 games to him and see if he is interested. Despite my respect to John Carmack, I'm always in the camp of "you don't need post-2000 graphics to make any genre interesting, even for FPS", and I always believe the advancement of graphics hurts games more than benefiting them.
by Keyframe | 2025-07-12 20:19:41+00:00
(disclaimer, I have maybe a bit too much of this retro hardware.. unhealthy amount, ahem).

Raspberry Pi 400 / 5 would be that.. but, in reality and pragmatically since it needs to be something widespread I'd argue it's actually a browser. In Chrome you hit Ctrl-Shift I and console is right there.
by matheusmoreira | 2025-07-12 20:19:50+00:00
Because by paying you are demonstrating you have more than enough disposable income to waste on their extortion. You're paying for the privilege of segmenting yourself into the richer echelons of the market. You're basically doing their marketing job for them and paying for the privilege.

At some point some shareholder value maximizing CEO is going to sit down and notice just how much money he's leaving on the table by not advertising to paying customers like you. It's simply a matter of time.

Take a third option. Don't pay them and block their ads. Block their data collection too. It's your computer, you are in control.
by throw0101c | 2025-07-12 20:20:18+00:00
> All these ID check laws are out of hand. Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids. Why would anyone trust some random blog with their ID?

Kind of unfortunate that PICS[1][2] and POWDER[3][4] never really took off: it allowed web sites to 'self-label' and then browsers (and proxies?) could use the metadata and built-in rules/filters to determine if the content should be displayed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_...

[2] https://www.w3.org/PICS/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Web_Description_R...

[4] https://www.w3.org/2007/powder/
by willmarch | 2025-07-12 20:20:37+00:00
I appreciate the reply but here is why I feel like what you're saying isn't in good faith.

Rosie has not become a naturalized citizen of Ireland, she has expressed interest but (unless you have evidence otherwise) her only citizenship is US.

As you said, she would voluntarily have to give up her citizenship. It is not within the US governments's power to remove the constitutional rights of citizens, only to preserve their natural right as laid out within our Constitution.

When you say things like, "he may presume that she is no longer in need of a US citizenship" it feels completely disingenuous since clearly this isn't some basic bureaucratic matter, he is directly threatening a US citizen with unconstitutional actions simply to silence criticism which is not what we do in this country and it should chill every American to their core to see such things happening.

The US Presidency isn't a reality TV show and politics isn't entertainment. We're witnessing abhorrent behavior from a sitting president and the threat alone is an abuse of executive power meant to suppress free speech and criticism. You might find it funny or trolling, but I expect more from our leaders in this country.
by toast0 | 2025-07-12 20:20:46+00:00
How could they be separate issues when the submission of an ID image obviously enables both the subsequent storage of the ID and also the presentment of the ID to others.

We know that very few organizations are capable of effectively controlling confidential information that they're legally bound to keep confidential. Requiring things that are going to lead to large stores of ID images is asking for trouble.

When you show your ID in a store, the clerk generally doesn't retain a copy of it, and if they do, it's apparent because they take the card to scan it... regardless, they can't take the scanned copy and present it at another store, because the other store will detect that it's not an original.
by theoreticalmal | 2025-07-12 20:21:27+00:00
That’s quite a stretch. I loathe ads as much as anyone else here, but I don’t consider being exposed to them as violating the sanctity of my mind (is my mind even sacrosanct, such that it could be violated?) it’s just something I don’t like.

And yes, attention is absolutely a currency that can be used to pay for things. Like any other voluntary transaction, no one is entitled to my attention unless we both voluntarily agree to it.
by const_cast | 2025-07-12 20:21:40+00:00
It's less accurate for the reasons you listed: it includes gender, which isn't always accurate and is unnecessary.

The problem is that there are trans men who exist, who may be pregnant. If asked if they are a woman or a woman who may be pregnant, they would answer no, which is incorrect in the larger context.

Pregnant people is naturally a superset of pregnant women, so pregnant women WOULD be more precise, if the advice applied only to pregnant women, which it almost never does. So that means we should almost never use pregnant women, as it's inaccurate.

Specificity should not be sought in the face of inaccuracy. For example, "brick house" is more specific than "house". So if I said "I live in a brick house", that should be better right? No, because it's wrong - I live in a wood house.

Per my original comment: "we want it [terms] to include every thing it should, and nothing it shouldn't." Pregnant woman doesn't include everything it should.
Ask HN: Can "Pull Request to Get Hired" Replace Traditional Tech Hiring?
by jerawaj740 | 2025-07-12 20:22:00+00:00
I’ve been thinking: what if hiring was as simple as submitting a pull request?

Instead of resumes and endless interviews, candidates could fork a company’s repo (or a prepared test repo), fix a bug or add a small feature, and get hired based on real contribution.

Has anyone tried this? What are the challenges, and would companies actually hire this way? Curious to hear thoughts from both founders and engineers
by almostgotcaught | 2025-07-12 20:22:10+00:00
> I really think a big switch() (or anything that works but is simpler) would be a lot easier to understand.

It's much easier conceptually to implement this using recursion instead of a while loop and a token stack (it's basically DFS). So I disagree with you there.

> 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

I'm with you - I really don't give a shit about patterns (which was my whole original point - who cares). But that last part I don't agree with - systems code (like a parser) doesn't need to be legible to a noob. Of course we're talking about a textbook so your probably right but like I said most production parsers and AST traversals are written exactly this same way. So anyone learning this stuff hoping to get a job doing it should just get used to it.
by JoshTriplett | 2025-07-12 20:22:51+00:00
The comment upthread was:

> In practice this is going to be utilized to shut down sex education and other content deemed "harmful to children".

Many of the books on the lists I linked, and many other such lists, are in fact educational in a variety of ways. Often they're banned precisely because they cover topics that people in power don't want there to be any education on.

(And, to be clear, this comment should not be interpreted as in any way supporting the idea that a book should need to be "educational", or have any other redeeming quality, in order to not be banned.)

"Sex education" is not so narrow as to only include an approved/mandated textbook (though those and their content do get affected by these attitudes as well). Having e.g. healthy relationships (or for that matter unhealthy relationships) depicted or described in fiction is part of a well-rounded education.

It's also remarkable, and ironic, how often depictions of dystopias, particularly dystopias that restrict books and other access to information, get banned.

And, frankly, banning something misses the opportunity to contextualize it and talk about it, and instead makes it more appealing.
by kelnos | 2025-07-12 20:23:12+00:00
Flip it on its head.

An age verification requirement might stop your 12-year-old from accessing a porn site headquartered or hosted in the US, but it will do nothing to keep your kid from finding porn on any of the thousands (tens of thousands? more?) of websites hosted in various other countries who don't care about this sort of thing.

These sites are (or will be, if US-based sites become inaccessible) just as easy to find, and just as hard to block with normal parental-controls style content blocking.

Requiring age verification in the US doesn't solve the problem. It just stifles free speech and turns us even more into a Christian nanny-state. The people pushing these laws don't care about children, in reality. They care about banning pornography in the US, and this is one step on that road.

> If you believe it's hard to do it without satisfying privacy concerns, totally true!

That's not the issue. The issue is that it's impossible to achieve the stated goal (making it impossible or even hard for children to access adult content), period. Whether or not the age-verification is done in a privacy-preserving manner is irrelevant.

There are two ways to "solve" this problem. One is better parental controls, but this will always be a cat-and-mouse game, and will never be perfect. The other is to accept that your kids will sometimes see things that you don't want them to see. That's how the world has always worked, and will continue to always work. Be there for them to provide context and support when they run across these things by accident and are confused or upset, and punish when they seek it out against the rules and boundaries you've set for them. You know... be a parent, and parent them.
by ffsm8 | 2025-07-12 20:23:20+00:00
Its definitely older. I remember hearing about it around a job I had in 2017-2020, but it was already an established term by that time.

Quote:

2013-2015: The concept of SSR in JavaScript frameworks emerged with React (released in 2013). Initially, it was referred to as "reconciliation" or "bootstrapping" — React would match the DOM with the virtual DOM.

2015: Around the release of React 0.14 and React 15 (2016), the term "hydration" began appearing in the React ecosystem to describe the process of attaching event listeners to server-rendered markup.

The first known mention in React documentation and community discussions around 2015-2016 clarified that React would "hydrate" the HTML. This distinguished it from full re-rendering, which would discard the server-rendered DOM.
by ttoinou | 2025-07-12 20:23:21+00:00
There is also the possibility that LLM might help us understand language better and make this domain more rigorous. Only researchers can see if thats gonna be happening

Since when do people like the fuzziness of outputs?

A lot of tasks are fuzzy by nature, there are multiple valid results, multiple interpretation of the situation / context etc. We’re gonna discover new areas where computers will be useful finally
by rhubinak | 2025-07-12 20:24:24+00:00
> This is my argument exactly. A seat gives a certain small amount if influence, the resulting policy will be an approximation of what is best for everyone. This may be pretty far from what is best for a developing country with fast growth if the majority is well developed countries with low growth.

The point is that all of the countries in the EU are well developed countries with similar growth and closely tied economies. The example you have given would be more accurate if you'd compare a 65yr old with 50k savings and a 55yr old with 40k savings. What would be the (ideal) alternative? Having custom currency with policy tailored for each region? Each industry? Each person? Sometimes there's more value in unity.

> You can get Euro denominated mortgages in Poland as well.

Have you tried getting one? I did. The bank deduces 10-15% from your income due to currency risk when calculating interest rate and max loan amount. There are plenty of folks working abroad and earning EUR instead of local currency. Ask them about their opinion on this.
by StrLght | 2025-07-12 20:24:50+00:00
I don't agree with this conclusion. Google is fully responsible for MV3 and its' restrictions. There's no reason to shift blame away from them.

Let's do a thought experiment: if OP hasn't reported it, what do you think would happen then? Even if different ad blockers would find it later and use it, Google would have still removed this. Maybe they'd even remove extensions that have (ab)used it from Chrome Web Store.
by dyauspitr | 2025-07-12 20:25:08+00:00
Why wouldn’t there be bias? This is the guy that did a Nazi salute, an ideology that specifically calls for races of people to be exterminated. I can’t imagine another situation where you need to as aggressively biased.

It’s no surprise he has released the most censored LLM so far.

It’s like saying I shouldn’t be biased against my kid’s schoolteacher who is a habitual sexual offender.
by teiferer | 2025-07-12 20:25:41+00:00
I'm sorry, I don't get the point. Perhaps I'm missing something.

If I open a single port to my home server, then anybody can send any traffic to my server on that port. The attack surface is exactly the process running on my home server, listening on that port.

If I use the cloudflare tunnel, anybody using my web service connects to some cloudflare server which transparantly forwards, through the tunnel, everything to the process running at home. The attack surface is ... exactly the process running on my home server, receiving everything coming into the tunnel, effectively listening on the port opened on the cloudflare server.

Where is the difference? Any security issue in the process running on my server that can be exploited by sending traffic to it is attackable in either case.

Does cloudflare filter the traffic in any way? How does it know what's good and what's bad traffic?
by ViktorRay | 2025-07-12 20:26:06+00:00
This article is incorrect.

The Supreme Court’s ruling only applied to obscene sexual material. It doesn’t apply to sex scenes within artistic works or sexual content in general.

There’s a test used to determine whether sexual material is considered pornographic. It’s known as the “I know it when I see it” test.

More info on this test here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

More specifically here is what is considered obscene:

The criteria were:

1. whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

2. whether the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, as specifically defined by applicable state law;

3. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The third criterion pertains to judgment made by "reasonable persons" of the United States as a whole, while the first pertains to that of members of the local community. Due to the larger scope of the third test, it is a more ambiguous criterion than the first two.
by __turbobrew__ | 2025-07-12 20:26:49+00:00
It could be a bet that Cloud Innovation would fare better under an ICANN takeover vs AFRNIC re-establishing control? From some articles I have read, the providence of how Cloud Innovation got their IP blocks is either lost or unknown, so maybe they are betting that if ICANN took over they would not touch Cloud Innovation blocks as the windup of AFRINIC would cause records to be lost?

Or it could be a bet that AFRINIC will eventually re-assert control, so the best thing you can do is try to muddy the waters and raise questions about AFRINICs legitimately which will add more procedural muck and further delay control.
Show HN: I Built a Stick-On Wireless Lamp That Installs in 30 Seconds
by kingvyn | 2025-07-12 20:26:56+00:00
Hi HN!

I recently built a simple, rechargeable wall lamp that doesn't require any tools, wires, or drilling. It sticks to surfaces using adhesive pads, rotates 360°, and charges via USB-C. The goal was to make lighting *super minimal, renter-friendly, and easy to install*.

The idea came from personal frustration — I live in a rented apartment where I can’t drill holes, and I wanted a modern-looking light I could reposition easily.

I know this isn’t a software product, but I figured some of you might appreciate the problem-solving side of it — designing minimal hardware that’s useful, elegant, and simple. Would love feedback on the product or the landing page:

Happy to answer any questions about the design, battery, lighting specs, remote control logic, etc.

Thanks!