MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tiahura | 2025-07-12 18:53:58+00:00
A bit off base. He's basically having a meltdown over what's actually a pretty narrow ruling about age verification.

First, he claims the Court "nullified the First Amendment" for sex writing, but that's just not what happened. The Court explicitly said adults still have the right to access this stuff—they just need to show ID first, like buying beer. That's not "nullification."

Second, Ellsberg acts like any sex scene anywhere triggers these laws, but H.B. 1181 only hits commercial websites where over a third of the content is sexually explicit material that's harmful to minors. His personal blog with some raunchy stories? Probably doesn't qualify.

Third, the whole "fifteen years in prison" hysteria ignores that these are civil penalties, not criminal prosecutions for most violations. And interstate prosecution for a California blogger? Extremely unlikely.

Age verification requirements do create real burdens and privacy concerns. But Ellsberg's "the sky is falling" rhetoric makes it impossible to have a serious conversation about the actual trade-offs between protecting kids and preserving adult access to legal content. The Court tried to balance these competing interests—it didn't burn down the First Amendment.
by sillysaurusx | 2025-07-12 18:54:38+00:00
If you were correct, the only situation it would happen in is when the pilot flying asks for X to happen, and the pilot monitoring instead does Y. Pilots don’t just randomly reach over and screw with the controls. Everything is called out, and as far as I know there were no callouts here (e.g. “gear up”).

This is a bit like someone parking their car, pulling the handbrake, turning off the car and putting their keys in their pocket, then arguing that it’s a practiced maneuver because it happens at the end of every car ride.
by histriosum | 2025-07-12 18:54:59+00:00
> The report is actually a little cagey about whether the locks were properly installed on these switches. Said locks are supposedly optional.

The locks/gates on the switches are definitely NOT optional. There was an SAIB about some switches that may have been installed improperly. It didn't result in an AD, which likely means the extent was limited or potentially even nil.

The switches were moved to cutoff with a one second delay between the first and second switch. That's pretty suggestive of deliberate movement. I've flown a Max9 simulator, which has the same switches. Moving one of them by accident would be impossible, let alone two of them.

I agree with not jumping to conclusions about the pilots and possible motives or circumstances, but I will bet a lot of money that the switches were just fine.

The CVR will likely have audio of the switch movement to confirm as well.
by gs17 | 2025-07-12 18:55:19+00:00
> The public library in rural Donnelly, Idaho, at only 1,024 square feet, had no practical way to create an enforceable “adults only” section and no budget to defend against lawsuits. Therefore, to comply with the law, they decided to make the entire library for adults only. The library has banned minors from entering the library (even to use the bathroom) unless they are accompanied by an adult, or holding a waiver from their parents.

This is absurd. It does look like they're suing, with help from a lot of publishers, at least.
by almostgotcaught | 2025-07-12 18:55:46+00:00
> you are just consuming tokens from a stream.

My guy... Do you think that parsers just like... concat tokens into tuples or something....??? Do you not understand that after lexing you have tokens (which are a "type") and AST node construction (an "operation") and that the grammar of a language is naturally a graph.... Like where else would you get the "recursion" from....

If that doesn't make sense I invite you to read some literature:

> makeAST():

> asks the tokenizer for the next token t, and then asks t to call the appropriate factory method the int token and the id token call makeLeaf(), the left parenthesis token calls makeBinOp() all other tokens should flag an error! does the above "smell" like the visitor pattern to you or not? Who are the hosts and who are the visitors?

https://www.clear.rice.edu/comp212/02-fall/labs/11/
by jpalomaki | 2025-07-12 18:57:01+00:00
When you spend a lot of time working with a model, you probably start developing a "relationship" with it. You know how to describe things, what to expect. The model has learned your preferences. I don't think I will be jumping from model to another just like that. Not at least to save a few bucks on monthly fees.

For more generic AI it won't be just about the models. It's also about access to data. Everybody is closing the gates to content. xAI is in interesting position because they have all the data in X. X is great source when you want to know what is happening in the world. And they have also a deal with Telegram (although I'm not sure to what data they can access).

And even if the models become commodity, I don't think they will be worthless. Plenty of companies make big money on selling commodities. If AI delivers, selling access to the models should be a business opportunity of the century. Even if margins would be low, the business will be huge and infinitely scalable.
by alienthrowaway | 2025-07-12 18:57:31+00:00
I was surprised the Register didn't provide the additional context of AFRINIC's revocation of Cloud Innovations IP4 blocks that were being sold anywhere but Africa[1][2][3].

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43753738

2. Now-deleted report on involved parties by South African news org https://archive.is/bcSDY

3. https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/172579/cloud-innovations-i...
by op00to | 2025-07-12 18:57:31+00:00
Dismissing this as a “meltdown” ignores the real First Amendment stakes. Requiring ID to access legal adult content isn’t like buying alcohol. It introduces surveillance and self-censorship, especially with vague thresholds like “one-third explicit” or “harmful to minors.” That legal ambiguity alone forces smaller publishers to self-censor to avoid risk. Unlike alcohol, speech is a constitutionally protected right, not a regulated commodity. Buying beer doesn’t create a permanent record of your interests or route through third-party identity brokers.

Whether or not speech is the explicit target, the chilling effect is the outcome and likely the intent. Lawmakers know these rules shrink the space for controversial content online. The burden and fear do the censoring for them. That’s not hysteria it’s how digital speech is throttled.
by root_axis | 2025-07-12 18:58:06+00:00
> In fact, under the laws that the Supreme Court just upheld, prosecutors in Tennessee and South Dakota can even reach across state lines and prosecute writers on FELONY charges for a single paragraph of sexually-explicit writing on my site that they think "harmed" kids in their states, facing up to FIFTEEN years in prison, for failing to implement ID-checks on my dinky little free WordPress site.

> It's unlikely these interstate prosecutions would happen...

It might wind up being uncommon, but definitely not unlikely - it's basically assured that it will happen eventually, especially if the judge finds the text in question particularly or personally offensive.

I guess now is a great time to start a KYC company.
by mschuster91 | 2025-07-12 18:58:16+00:00
There was a collision between two comm satellites about 16 years back [1], and that was with satellites that we could track and theoretically control - with the debris collision of 2005 [2], that makes two events.

We've been lucky that this is the only publicly known satellite to collide with another satellite, other than satellites that got shot down as a demonstration of power.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision

[2] https://www.space.com/969-china-space-debris-collide-orbit.h...
by mjburgess | 2025-07-12 18:58:49+00:00
I really don't care about persuading anyone of this account. You can go find biden blackmailing the ukrainian leadership with threats of removing aid unless they play ball on changing gov appointments etc

The time to go thru all the sources on this and expose western propaganda would take longer than i care to spend. "Of course, ", there is no western propaganda.

Either way, I'm not defending russia; i don't care about any of the countries involved. At best, i'm on the side of peace -- UA should have negotiated early as was the public consensus of US generals at the time. Now it's all to late and it doesn't matter what anyone thinks.

If you want to live in a world where your gov is virtuous; good for you. Let's just not train LLMs on people rabidly insisting that their side doesn't produce propaganda
by _heimdall | 2025-07-12 18:59:11+00:00
What do you mean "ethics dictates?" We define ethics and they generally reflect the current culture, ethics aren't universal and can't dictate anything.

The scientific method, though, would dictate that a cohort size should be large enough to show a high probability of safety and efficacy, assuming that is what is being tested. It would also dictate that a control group would be needed to compare against the test group.

I totally understand the ethical concerns of potentially allowing children to be harmed while part of a control group, but when the test is being done specifically because there is currently no treatment the only change is that they would pick a group of untreated children that are a valid control group for the study. Either way those children wouldn't be treated and there really isn't an ethical issue to deal with.
by jacquesm | 2025-07-12 18:59:15+00:00
That's because we're hackers and we're too cool to be bothered with pesky politics. /s

On a more serious note: HN tries hard to stay in its lane, but there are quite a few people on here that are engaging in political activism, but that every now and then make a (sometimes even useful) tech comment to avoid the activism ban hammer.

Personally I don't really see the difference between 'curious conversation' vs 'click bait' and 'rage bait'. Examples abound, but the balance as it is struck right now picks a reasonable median between 400 hour work weeks for the people involved and some kind of manageable work/life balance. It works, but barely and it is still worth reading but I find myself getting more and more cynical reading HN. Oh, and of course we really don't do humor.

And some people here really do care about both privacy and freedom, and some people are not absolutists but rather see that there are reasonable limits to both of these. Another thing to remember is that HN is global, you're going to find a predominantly English speaking audience here but so many people around the world manage to express themselves reasonably well in English that you will find all kinds of cultures represented here, including ones that have entirely different ideas on subjects such as freedom and privacy. And then there are the tech bros who want freedom and privacy for themselves and less of both of those for the rest of us.
by immibis | 2025-07-12 18:59:35+00:00
I heard they make quality products that last 20 years and don't use WiFi, too. Maybe they should try exporting to America.

If true, it's indicative of some American vs European ideology. American tech bro soyjaks keep screaming criticisms about things like GDPR preventing remote-brickable wifi washing machines, and European bases nordic mans are like "bro those things are crap, why would I want them"?
by CaptainFever | 2025-07-12 18:59:46+00:00
It's not even open-weight. It's weight-available. It uses a "modified MIT license":

Modified MIT License Copyright (c) 2025 Moonshot AI Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Our only modification part is that, if the Software (or any derivative works thereof) is used for any of your commercial products or services that have more than 100 million monthly active users, or more than 20 million US dollars (or equivalent in other currencies) in monthly revenue, you shall prominently display "Kimi K2" on the user interface of such product or service.
by behnamoh | 2025-07-12 19:00:24+00:00
Great, yet another hyped up word to keep the AI hype going...

I respect Karpathy, but I can’t shake the feeling that recently has been doing more damage than good to the AI community. First he came up with “vibecoding“ and now this one. What we need is better engineering approaches to build AI systems, not buzzy marketing words that only benefit AI companies.
by gxs | 2025-07-12 19:00:28+00:00
There was a thread on reddit asking the other day what about the modern world bothers you the most

I actually considered this question and after thinking about it, despite everything going on, I think it boils down to lack of privacy as my biggest gripe in the modern world

It’s such a tough concept to explain to the if you don’t have anything to hide crowd, but if someone wants to disappear, I don’t care if for good or bad reasons, they should be able to

If you don’t want the government on you, if you don’t want people you know to find you, if you just want to reinvent yourself, it doesn’t matter why - you should be able to do this. It just “feels” like an innate right. Normally I don’t like to argue using “vibes” as justification, but this to me is just part of my value system/morals which is inherently arbitrary to begin with

Encroaching on this privacy encroaches on a bunch of other rights, like free speech as you’ve mentioned

The fact that this is the case makes it even clearer to me that privacy is a basic fundamental primitive

Would love to hear alternative perspectives and other justifications for or against privacy
by perihelions | 2025-07-12 19:00:32+00:00
There was a NYT article a couple weeks ago about Chinese morality police doing mass arrests of erotica authors,

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/28/world/asia/china-boys-lov... ("Chinese Police Detain Dozens of Writers Over Gay Erotic Online Novels") [note article contains large images of erotica novel covers]

But you'd *expect* that of the PRC; the US, wow, has it ever fallen fast and fallen hard.
by potamic | 2025-07-12 19:00:52+00:00
There's also maintenance lapses, faulty repairs, defective parts, and as far as software goes I can think of n number reasons how a ghost can manifest itself inside program logic. This is a new gen plane that relies more on software than any other before, and has in fact seen a couple of incidents with loss of thrust, both related to software. I think it's more prudent to be asking hard questions around these than to outright dismiss it as an open and shut case. Besides, the murder/suicide angle is the least interesting outcome. Because there's nothing you can do after that, other than to just move on.
by xp84 | 2025-07-12 19:01:16+00:00
So, while I agree that this feels foreign and wrong to me as someone who has experienced "The Internet" for so long, I can't help but wonder if we can separate that from how the offline world works.

I'm asking this in good faith.

Given that:

1. The Internet is not an optional subscription service today the way it was in 1995. Every kid and adult has 1,000 opportunities to get online including on the multiple devices every one of their peers owns, which a single set of parents has no control over. So "Just keep them off the Internet/control their devices" seems like a silly "Just" instruction.

2. The Internet is nearly infinite. The author of this editorial says "then install a content blocker on your kids’ devices and add my site to it". This is a silly argument since the whole point is that no one has ever heard of him/her and it's obviously impossible for a filter (let's just assume filters can't be bypassed) can "just" enumerate every inappropriate site even if it employed a full-time staff who did nothing but add new sites to the list all day long.

So given all of that, how do we justify how the Internet must operate on different rules than the offline world does? One can't open a "Free adult library" downtown and allow any child to wander in and check out books showing super explicit porn. I'd have to check IDs and do my best to keep kids out. It also seems like it would be gross to do so. If you agree with that, why should the Internet operate on different rules?

I'd also like to separate the logistics from the morality here. If you believe it's hard to do it without satisfying privacy concerns, totally true! But then the focus should be on finding a good privacy-respecting solution, not just arguing for the status quo.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-07-12 19:01:46+00:00
> The vast majority of the government budget is entitlements and military.

The vast majority of the government budget is "entitlements and military" because donors have their pork classified as those things when they don't want it to be cut. A lot of entitlement programs are structured as handouts to the companies providing those services (e.g. drug and healthcare companies, or landlords) or vote buying of affluent retirees who don't actually need a government subsidy. And I'd like to see someone try to claim with a straight face that there is no waste in the military budget.

But even within those budgets, most of the waste and corruption isn't a single program going to a single place. It's millions of programs that each waste millions of dollars and collectively waste trillions of dollars. And then it doesn't matter if you classify the program as military or entitlements or something else; what matters is if the program is worth the candle.

The problem is that everybody will say that their program is worth it, many them are lying, and it's hard to tell who isn't.

But the thing that's unambiguously true is that the amount of government revenue has been stable as a percentage of GDP for generations and has been growing in terms of real dollars per capita, and yet the amount of government spending has outpaced that by a huge and growing amount.

Is DOGE making a hash of things? Maybe, but then let's do a better job instead of using it as an excuse to keep running reckless deficits until the largest item in the federal budget is interest.
by mceachen | 2025-07-12 19:01:52+00:00
Are you remembering the same BASIC that I’m remembering? With fixed line numbers? Refactoring was near impossible. Spaghetti code was par for the course. You were forced to build everything twice or thrice if you wanted a final product that wasn’t embarrassing.

Just not having line numbers cooked in is a total game changer.

And no GOTO.
by zahlman | 2025-07-12 19:02:02+00:00
> 2.4 million bitcoins are lost forever

I don't have access to the sources for your numbers, but you fail to explain why this is a problem. Physical bills get lost or destroyed all the time, too.

> the same institutions the mysterious man said his system would replace.

I'm unaware of Nakamoto making any such claim. At most there was a goal to provide an alternative to the fiat currency system (https://cointelegraph.com/learn/articles/what-is-the-purpose...).

It turns out that people - most notably merchants - are thus far uninterested in using it that way. Government fiat is how everyone is accustomed to valuing legal tender. Further, government currently will not allow for fractional reserve banking to be done using Bitcoin deposits. FRB is essential to how our credit system works - although I imagine it would also cause a problem for Bitcoin anyway, since its value is supposed to depend on artificial scarcity.

> only a handful of rich people with servers worth millions can actually mine them.

Historically, Bitcoin can be and has been mined on consumer hardware. Whether this is profitable will depend on several factors, but it's one of the reasons that consumer grade graphics cards have increased in price lately. I'm unaware of any major economies of scale here.

> And if you own even a tiny bit of bitcoin, and read something like this, you go ballistic

You have apparently been around HN for 16 years; you should know better than to post like this.

> I can't think of a worse system to fight inequality.

This is a complete non sequitur. "Fighting inequality" is not as far as I can tell a goal of Bitcoin, and in general new technologies have no moral obligation to do so.

> The banks won.

This is fundamentally at odds with your own claim that criminals - especially money launderers - hold large amounts of Bitcoin.
by BrendanEich | 2025-07-12 19:02:15+00:00
> Brandon Eich

To be an elite HN hater, you need to spell my name correctly.

> it's his career at Mozilla that most intersects with the period of major collapse in market share.

This is completely wrong, since I was a founder of Mozilla from 1998 on, so I was there for growth from 0 for Mozilla Suite, then from 0 for Firefox, to the peak after Chrome was out. Did you think I just joined Mozilla in 2010?

Some links:

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share#monthly-2009...

Note the orange line for Firefox. Statcounter doesn't go back earlier, but we started from 0 with mozilla/browser, grew to a million or two with Phoenix/Firebird, then on to millions from launch on Nov 9, 2004 of Firefox 1.0.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38998243

Lots of decline after I left, but I'll take some blame for decline before I quit, if you credit me for all the growth from inception. Deal?
by gchamonlive | 2025-07-12 19:02:28+00:00
You must be hurting from patting yourself in the back. You should first remember that front page is a matter not only of interest to the community, but timing, luck and moment. It's meaningless that it took a week to be in the front page. It's there now and we are discussing it. And it also doesn't diminish the value of other discussions that is dear to HN readers.

If you feel like antagonizing an entire community, maybe you should consider just leaving it and finding your own group. It'll be hard for us but we'll make it here without you.
by ttul | 2025-07-12 19:03:10+00:00
The GOP under Trump has considerably changed from the GOP under Bush. There is no longer a political home for Reagan/Bush-style conservatives. Perhaps a shift might be coming with the next economic downturn, which seems inevitable given the risk-off investment climate across most industries stemming from Trump’s erratic, unpredictable trade and economic policy. Things don’t look bad just yet, but it takes a while for the full impact of such enormous changes in sentiment to ripple down through the entire economy.
by jynelson | 2025-07-12 19:03:39+00:00
when’s the last time you wrote a parallel array traversal in C?

also, consider reading the linked post about how assembly instructions are no longer a good approximation of how your computer works: https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3212479. in general, writing in a language that is not close to the hardware allows the compiler to adapt when the hardware changes; for example futhark has the ability to execute using either SIMD or GPUs precisely because it’s not over-determined by the source language. C ties processors to the model of the PDP-11, which hasn’t been manufactured for 30 years.