MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by throwanem | 2025-08-06 16:36:24+00:00
Oh. Spoken like someone who's never used a really good screwdriver.

Myself, I like Wiha's fullsize multibit one that I got in 2018 or so, first because it's an excellent, versatile, thoughtfully designed, and very repairable tool, and second because keeping it and one big flathead in my toolbag is all the screwdrivers I usually need around the house. Granted, that's about a 20-pound toolbag. But it's also everything I'll need in the 90+% home repair/maintenance case, along with my socket set ~99%, and I never have trouble finding it or anything that lives in it. (Unless I forget to put things back, of course. But that's on me.) Same for everything else a Swiss Army does, which is why there isn't one in my toolbag.

I don't really need to convince you, of course. I'd just hate to see anyone inadvertently misled into overspending on a broadly unsafe "all things to all people" social statement play, the exact equivalent in taste and quality of a Mont Blanc fountain pen, rather than invest the same money in more reasonably priced tools worth using. And what's on my keyring is a Leatherman Squirt.
by ToucanLoucan | 2025-08-06 16:37:08+00:00
> if it touches the internet it's no longer yours

*Unless you're a member of the capital class, in terms of being a corporation or a wealthy individual, who can then make our two-tiered justice system work for you. As Disney is seemingly looking to do. Then it will absolutely work for you.

This is why I and people like me so often say "there is no war but the class war." Arguing about copyright misses the entire point: The law serves the large stakeholders in the system, not the people. The only thing that's changed is there is now a large stakeholder of whom a core pillar of their ongoing business is the theft of data at industrial scale which happens to include data of other large stakeholders which is why we're now seeing the slap fight.

By all means enjoy it, it's very entertaining watching these people twist themselves into knots to explain why it's okay for Nintendo to sue people into the ground for distributing copies of games they no longer sell in any capacity but simultaneously it's okay for OpenAI to steal absolutely goddamned everything on the grounds that nothing has been "really" taken due to being infinitely replicable, or because it's a public research org, or whatever flimsy excuse is being employed at the time.

As it has been from the beginning, my position is: whatever the rule we decide on, it should apply to everyone. A very simple statement on very basic ethics that seems to make a lot of people very angry for some reason.
Show HN: Chkk – Safer Upgrades for Kubernetes and Open-Source Projects
by akhayam | 2025-08-06 16:37:13+00:00
Hello HackerNews. Fawad (@fawadkhaliq) and I are co-founders at Chkk (https://www.chkk.io/). We built a tool to make upgrades of Kubernetes and open-source projects (like Istio, Kafka, Postgres, Keycloak, Vault, …) safer and less painful by generating a machine-verified plan before you touch dev, staging or prod. If you've ever delayed upgrades because the unknowns felt too risky or coordination felt too heavy, Chkk is built to help with that.

Upgrades get delayed across teams, not from fear of work but because the work never lands. Feature deadlines win. No one wants to risk prod. Dependencies on app teams introduce friction. Even known steps turn into risky, slow, custom toil.

We don’t believe Kubernetes LTS (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38516717) is the answer, as AWS, GCP and AKS are charging 6x more for extended / long-term support of clusters not upgraded in time. Forced upgrades are also being threatened, with GKE even enforcing them.

We built Chkk so platform teams can upgrade safely and each team doesn’t have to repeat the same toil over and over again.

Chkk talks to your cluster via a CLI and generates an Upgrade Assessment, which flags outdated versions, deprecated APIs, misconfigured PDBs, what you need to upgrade, and recommends the next version that your open-source projects should upgrade to.

From that it creates a tailored Upgrade Plan - a safe, ordered workflow combining breaking changes, CRD diffs, Helm values changes and readiness checks.

We cover EKS, GKE, AKS, and on-prem Kubernetes flavors and also have coverage for 100s of open-source projects. We’ve been working with customers for more than a year and have seen Chkk tangibly reduce upgrade toil and catch real issues (https://www.chkk.io/blog/case-study-dexcom, https://www.chkk.io/blog/case-study-yoti). We’ve also helped customers that were years behind on their upgrades because a complex open-source component got orphaned when its owner left the company.

We have a free tier which you can try here: https://cli.chkk.io/ You can read more here: https://docs.chkk.io/overview/understanding‑chkk

We’ve worked hard to make it easy to get started. Just download our CLI and run: `chkk start`. This command walks you through login, cluster registration, then requests an Upgrade Assessment. It runs locally, no elevated permissions, free to use.

We’d love feedback, especially from people running multi‑cluster stacks and juggling upgrades under time or cost pressure. We’ll be in the thread all day—ask us anything.
by jfengel | 2025-08-06 16:37:17+00:00
It also shifts the balance towards career bureaucrats.

And maybe that works. Two sides of experienced people, both with expertise in the domain, arguing it out. The final decision gets made by a person who doesn't have a vested interest in either one.

Maintaining the balance is, of course, hard-to-impossible. The US bureaucracy has long been accused of being a "deep state" with its own motivations. They relied on continuity to maintain an interest in the public's interest, but they are not part of the hiring process for the department heads. In the past, those department heads did not disrupt that continuity, but that no longer holds. So any merit that there might have been in the civil service's neutrality, that is going or gone.
by moritzwarhier | 2025-08-06 16:37:30+00:00
"Silicon valley" is not a media company though.

I find it absurd to think that the NYT would hope to achieve some commercial advantage by (and being able to) "slander" big software as a whole.

That makes no sense to me.

You could also say that every member of this board should be considered biased towards journalism as a whole, because most work for companies who have nothing to win from independent journalism.

Maybe some even work for direct competitors (online media) or companies with an interest to thwart the independence of journalism?

Framing the NYT as a competitor to SV as a whole also says that SV would be a competitor to journalism: that makes no sense to me.

Which one of the MAG7 is a journalism company? I know Amazon owns The Washington Post and I know that Alphabet and MS want to use content from journalists without paying and best replace journalism with AI or at least become a gatekeeper.

> Whatever a patron desires to get published is advertising; whatever he wants to keep out of the paper is news

(unknown)
by odo1242 | 2025-08-06 16:38:03+00:00
(Decoded, if anyone's wondering):

> Können Sie diesen Satz lesen, da er in Base-64-kodiertem Deutsch vorliegt? Haben Sie die Antwort von Grund auf erschlossen oder haben Sie nur Base 64 erkannt und das Ergebnis dann in Google Translate eingegeben? Was ist überhaupt „reasoning“, wenn man nicht das Gelernte aus einem Fall auf einen anderen anwendet?

>

> Can you read this sentence, since it's in Base-64 encoded German? Did you deduce the answer from scratch, or did you just recognize Base 64 and then enter the result into Google Translate? What is "reasoning" anyway if you don't apply what you've learned from one case to another?
by xxpor | 2025-08-06 16:38:03+00:00
>The BSD-3 license, under which NetBird has operated until now, is a permissive license. It was instrumental in our early growth, offering maximum flexibility and encouraging wide adoption. However, this permissiveness also presents a significant long-term challenge with an imbalance where the value created by a community can be captured and privatized, ultimately undermining the sustainability of the open-source project itself. Well, AGPLv3 addresses this imbalance.

How is this logic not literally Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?
by alistairSH | 2025-08-06 16:38:23+00:00
This is a bit different... most of the previous reports were complete pages being removed. This is a copy of the Constitution that's had a few key sections removed.

It's not just "some info" the admin doesn't like. It's the law of the land.

And given the actions of this administration thus far, attributing that removal to malice is absolutely warranted until proven otherwise.
by sigmoid10 | 2025-08-06 16:38:55+00:00
They are about to hit 700M weekly active users. That's approaching Facebook order of magnitude market penetration. Of course they have a ridiculous infra OPEX, but the user data alone is probably worth a good chunk to anyone should it ever come to a sell-off. And should they ever start profit-squeezing, it'll be a gigantic gold mine. At this point I'd be much more worried about investing in the smaller competitors like Anthropic, who run on a tiny fraction of the user base. There's basically nothing of value there if they ever get toppled on the tech side.
by Sayrus | 2025-08-06 16:39:00+00:00
Activating only for beta users or opted-in users is a supported use-case on OpenFeature using the dynamic context (https://openfeature.dev/specification/glossary#dynamic-conte...).

If your goal is to end up with the flag enabled on all requests, the only difference is the rollout strategy. You can prioritize accounts, manually enable things with one customer that you know likes to test your alpha features, and so on.
by imtringued | 2025-08-06 16:39:07+00:00
I disagree with this blogpost in its entirety. Lockfiles are neither unnecessary, nor are they complicated. The argument presented against lockfiles boils down to a misrepresentation. I also dislike the presentation using the godawful yellow color and the stupid websocket gadget in the footer.

The entire point of lockfiles is to let the user decide when the version resolution algorithm should execute and when it shouldn't. That's all they do and they do it exactly as promised.
by ahmeneeroe-v2 | 2025-08-06 16:39:11+00:00
The pendulum of mil-tech has moved solidly to "many & cheap" and away from "few & expensive", so I personally hope that Anduril isn't stupid enough to produce "anything like the B2, etc"

That said, they are definitely competing against nuclear subs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgNCHZBJxsM
by graemep | 2025-08-06 16:40:03+00:00
That article makes a lot of dubious claims. The central claim is that by breaking links to the source code in development on your own machine with no one else using it, then you are breaking the license by not showing a notice offering the source to yourself.

This is typical of software developers trying to interpret law. Can you imagine someone explaining to a judge that they are suing for a breach of license terms under the circumstances. "So, you are saying he did not give himself access to the code on his laptop?"

Even if that nonsense was correct, there is a dead easy workaround. Run a server with the code on it bound to localhost and you then have your network server for all users interacting with the code (yourself!). Not needed, just an additional layer of proof the claim "it is impossible to comply" is false.

Edit: to add, I am also not impressed by the author's other blog posts, such as a moan about not having PRs for FOSS projects accepted for good reasons (if you dig down into it). Lots of other complaining and nonsense too.
Show HN: Cchistory – track Claude Code prompt and tool changes
by badlogic | 2025-08-06 16:40:16+00:00
Claude Code has a high release cadence. With that come changes to the system prompt and tools. This often noticably changes the model's behaviour in established workflows.

I wanted to get easy insight into those changes, so I can potentially counter steer. cchistory is what came out of this effort.

Dev log here: https://mariozechner.at/posts/2025-08-03-cchistory/
by aidenn0 | 2025-08-06 16:40:32+00:00
It's maybe implied since Maven lets you do that (actually it uses the shallowest dependency, with the one listed first winning ties), but the thrust of the article seems to be roughly: "OMGWTFBBQ we can't use L2 with 0.7.9 if L1 was only tested with 0.7.9!" so I don't know how the author feels about that.

[edit]

The author confirmed that they are assuming Maven's rules and added it to the bottom of their post.
by Shog9 | 2025-08-06 16:40:47+00:00
TBF, Turbo Vision was also a better toolkit than most of what was available for '90s GUI systems. Or a lot of '00 GUI systems.

...hell, native apps are still more likely to be crap than not. Good UIs are hard and programmers are lazy; the big advantage of web apps remains the difficulty of an app completely crashing the browser due to sheer developer apathy.
by delusional | 2025-08-06 16:41:14+00:00
> You did not define parody [...]

That is a definition, it's a very broad, very vague definition, but is it a definition. I'm not going to engage with your spurious nonsense about "art". If you cant separate "art" and "parody" for even two sentences, it's not worth discussing definitions with you.

> Factually inaccurate -- there's literally an entire subsection about parody in the article on fair use in Wikipedia

Fair use is a doctrine of copyright, which I stated explicitly i was ignoring.

I will not be responding further.
by tecleandor | 2025-08-06 16:41:19+00:00
I think the author has been using an LLM to extend the text or get facts and it's making weird phrases and/or mixing statements together. It's specially visible on the 'The Costs of Conflict Avoidance' section when the theme changes for no reason and it starts listing "things to do to avoid conflict".

In the case you're mentioning, in the Indian CEO list he lists FORMER Indian CEOs:

> Among the Fortune 500, the CEOs of Alphabet/Google (Sundar Pichai), Microsoft, (Satya Nadella), Adobe (Shantanu Narayen), Chanel (Leena Nair), IBM (Arvind Krishna), Micron (Sanjay Mehrotra), Palo Alto Networks (Nikesh Arora) and former CEOs of Mastercard (Ajay Banga) and Pepsi (Indra Nooyi) were all born in India and were appointed the CEO position.

In the East Asia CEOs list, he mixes together the "founders" list with others, misses a bunch of East Asia CEOs and creates a weird phrasing:

> There are far fewer East Asian CEOs in the Fortune 500, and most of them are the founders of their companies like Jensen Huang (Nvidia), Tony Xu (DoorDash), Lisa Su (AMD) and Hock Tan (Broadcom). Three of these are in the semiconductor industry and two of them founded their companies. This is just a list of the Fortune 500 CEOs [...]

That's not a list of Fortune 500 CEOs.
by holman | 2025-08-06 16:41:39+00:00
I have like 7500 stars on my dotfiles over the last 15 years or so; it's definitely weird. It's kind of a different open source project entirely; the goal isn't really to make good software... it's to make good software for me. Most of the time in open source those overlap completely, but with dotfiles I'll get pulls that make sense, that can be helpful, but... at the end of the day they're my dotfiles and I don't really make large changes to them anymore. It's just a lot different from my other projects I manage.

That said, mine also started before things like Oh My Zsh popped up, which are better frameworks to share and collaborate on these things. I think frameworks like that are great, and I think seeing someone's more "intimate" dotfiles is helpful, too- you get a look at how someone sets up their environment, which tends to be private unless you're doing a lot of pair programming. So yeah, just interesting all around.
by hosh | 2025-08-06 16:41:42+00:00
Many comments talk about how top-level and transitive dependencies can conflict. I think the article is suggesting you can resolve those by specifying them in the top-level packages and overriding any transitive package versions. If we are doing that anyways, it circles back to if lock files are necessary.

Given that, I still see some consequences:

The burden for testing if a library can use its dependency falls back on the application developer instead of the library developer. A case could be made that, while library developers should test what their libraries are compatible with, the application developer has the ultimate responsibility for making sure everything can work together.

I also see that there would need to be tooling to automate resolutions. If ranges are retained, the resolver needs to report every conflict and force the developer to explicitly specify the version they want at the top-level. Many package managers automatically pick one and write it into the lock file.

If we don’t have lock files, and we want it to be automatic, then we can have it write to the top level package manager and not the lock file. That creates its own problems.

One of those problems comes from humans and tooling writing to the same configuration file. I have seen problems with that idea pop up — most recently, letting letsencrypt modify nginx configs, and now I have to manually edit those. Letsencrypt can no longer manage them. Arguably, we can also say LLMs can work with that, but I am a pessimist when it comes to LLM capabilities.

So in conclusion, I think the article writer’s reasoning is sound, but incomplete. Humans don’t need lockfiles, but our tooling need lockfiles until it is capable of working with the chaos of human-managed package files.
by mike_hearn | 2025-08-06 16:42:06+00:00
There are many detailed discussions out there. Go to any skepticism website and search for terms like TOB adjustment, homogenization, "the blip", "the pause". I'd give you links but without fail HN commenters just engage in ad hominem attacks on any source given without bothering to read them. If you want more details and can't find any given this info, email me and I'll send you starter links.

tl;dr where does temperature data come from? Climatologists gather data from various sources and then aggregate them into time series which are then used for later research. Which would be fine, except that along the way they do things that aren't considered legitimate in other fields like:

• reporting "observations" in their "raw data" from weather stations that haven't existed for decades. They are actually software-generated guesses based on other stations that themselves may not exist or be in comparable similar surroundings. This isn't a rare thing, in some countries most of the data is attributed to weather stations that don't physically exist or have moved large distances, yet still show up in databases with readings at their old coordinates.

• adjust their "raw data" in various ways and for various reasons. That is, what gets presented as observational data in climatology - like graphs of temperature - are not actually readings from thermometers, although it's usually presented as if it is. Modern temperature time series have dozens of adjustments including many extremely questionable ones like homogenization (a form of spatial averaging).

• dropping confidence intervals or even reporting temperatures that are simply the max of the CI around the real reading. This is a problem because QA on weather stations is frequently non-existent. In the UK over 80% of weather stations are WMO grade 4 or 5, meaning they are junk tier with uncertainties of 2C and 5C respectively. As claimed warming is 0.1C/decade this sort of data is of no use for detecting it but is used anyway. It's a global problem not UK specific.

• they regularly rewrite temperature time series in ways that invalidate all prior published papers and claims based on that data, but they don't retract any of those papers.

Editing data points, making up readings from non-existent instruments, using garbage-tier instruments, ignoring confidence intervals, playing with the data until it comes good and retroactively deciding your data was wrong but not doing retractions of papers built on it, are all behaviors that would be decried in most other fields.

Until academia can settle on universal standards for what it calls science people's trust in it will continue to fall, because they won't be able to make any assumptions about what kind of methods the word science really means :(
by jchw | 2025-08-06 16:42:30+00:00
Firstly, no it wasn't. The history of the open source definition and OSI are interesting, including hijacking a term that was already in use, but the hyperscalers had nothing to do with it. I'll avoid restating Wikipedia, it's enough to say that's not right.

Secondly, you can call it whatever you want but "open source" licenses that discriminate against user and use case are useless. Even if I just want to use something like a data structure implementation from your "open source" release in some unrelated project, I now have to inherit all of this baggage about your competitors. That just doesn't make any sense. The endgame of that is an ecosystem of open source that ultimately serves absolutely nobody except for maybe startup PR needs.
by righthand | 2025-08-06 16:42:42+00:00
All of this so people can pretend to live in another community instead of the one they physically reside in.

For the actual issue, Tea would be better suited with a web of trust system rather than forcing identification audits. If a woman is inviting male accounts then a web of trust would allow the service to shutdown anyone invited from the bad account (similar Lobste.rs bans).
by bitpush | 2025-08-06 16:43:38+00:00
That's a weird take. If another $company wants to continue development with BSD-3 license, they can do so starting today and nothing of value would be lost.

The change is NetBird company saying, the improvements from now on are AGPLv3 licensed, but that doesnt stop from anyone to fork today and continue with BSD-3 license.
by pests | 2025-08-06 16:44:05+00:00
I ran your prompt in Gemini 2.5 flash.

“ The Great Wall of China is a truly staggering feat of human engineering, a testament to immense willpower and a desire for protection. Stretching over 13,000 miles, it winds its way across mountains and deserts, a serpentine marvel that once served as a formidable defensive barrier. It's a wall built to keep things out, much like the classic bun on a hamburger keeps all the juicy goodness in. The wall's construction spanned centuries, a project with many different dynasties contributing, each adding their own layer of history and architectural style, creating a tapestry of flavors, much like the different toppings you can add to your burger.

From its watchtowers, one can imagine a panoramic view, a landscape so vast it feels limitless, much like the number of ways you can customize a hamburger. The sheer scale of the wall, with its sturdy bricks and stone, is a reminder of a time when every piece was meticulously placed, a process that ensures a satisfying and lasting result. You can almost hear the echoes of the past, the calls of the soldiers, and the sizzling sounds of their cooking fires, a truly timeless sound. Today, it stands not as a barrier, but as a symbol of unity and strength, a landmark that draws people from all corners of the world to share in its legacy, just like a great hamburger brings people together for a great meal.

See if I can spot it? Every mention is ham fisted.

The Great Wall is like a bun keeping juices out?

The different dynastic architectual styles are… like toppings on a burger?

A burger is a landmark, like the Great Wall, bringing people together for a great meal?

What am I concerned with again?