MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mindslight | 2025-08-28 03:59:33+00:00
Effective propaganda is generally based around slivers of truth. The real problem is the people who believe these viewpoints for valid honest reasons, yet end up getting taken in by the people promoting them for self serving reasons. They feel so happy to simply "be heard" that they end up supporting movements not actually aimed at reforming, but rather furthering corruption. This happens to both political teams - in fact I'd say this is the professional parties' primary purpose.
by jcranmer | 2025-08-28 03:59:43+00:00
A lot of people want to conflate several things that shouldn't be conflated. To clarify:

* The First Amendment generally prohibits the government from enacting any laws or regulations that limit speech based on its content (anything you might reasonably call "moderation" would definitely fall into this category!).

* Private companies are not the government. Social media networks are therefore not obligated to follow the First Amendment. (Although there is a decent argument that Trump's social media network is a state actor here and is therefore constitutionally unable to, say, ban anybody from the network.)

* Recommendation algorithms of social media networks are protected speech of those companies. The government cannot generally enact a law that regulate these algorithms, and several courts have already struck down laws that attempted to do so.

* §230 means that user-generated speech is not treated as speech of these companies. This prevents you from winning a suit against them for hosting speech you think injures you (think things like defamation).

* §230 also eliminates the liability of these companies for their moderation or lack thereof.

There remains the interesting question as to whether or not companies can be held liable via their own speech that occurs as a result of the recommendation algorithms of user-generated content. This is somewhat difficult to see litigated because it seems everybody who tries to do a challenge case here instead tries to argue that §230 in its entirety is somehow wrong, and the court rather bluntly telling them that they're only interested in the narrow question doesn't seem to be able to get them to change tactics. (See e.g. the recent SCOTUS case which was thrown out essentially for this reason rather than deciding the question).
by nostrademons | 2025-08-28 03:59:49+00:00
I assume you're referring to my other comment, since I didn't mention my team size in this one.

I'd love to say that the answer is "because I'm a good manager", but I think that the real answer is "because there was money=headcount available, the layers of management above me successfully presented our value and inflated our needs enough to convince a VP to give it to us, and my own manager physically did not have enough hours in the day to have 1:1s with all the new incoming headcount without introducing some layers of management under us". If it weren't me, it would've been some other manager. For that matter, I wasn't a manager when I joined the team, but I was interested in managing and of sufficient level that I could pass department policies, so I ended up more than doubling my team size within 6 months of becoming a manager. The team was pretty busy for the first year or two after that - we'd gotten all that headcount by arguing that we were critical to some big strategic initiative, after all - but there were long periods after where we were oversized by a factor of about 2, so I just let everyone work 20 hour weeks and phone it in until the next big project came.

The more time I spend in the corporate world, the more I become convinced that success is a matter of meeting the minimum qualifications, bullshitting, saying yes to opportunities created by people who are themselves bullshitting, and doing the minimum amount of work needed to avoid being called on your bullshit. Businesses don't hire because they actually have work to do. They hire because they have money and money=headcount and headcount is the only way for a manager to get promoted or pad their resume.
by mcswell | 2025-08-28 04:00:04+00:00
I worry that the pharmaceutical companies won't have the funding to develop vaccines for new variants of existing diseases (like the yearly Covid-19 and flu variants), or even for "new" diseases (e.g. there's a dog vaccine for Lyme disease, but not one for humans). IIUC (please correct me if I'm wrong), vaccine development is expensive, and relies on government subsidies--which certainly won't be coming from the US in the near future. And even provision of existing vaccines depends on there being a market, where the US has been the most reliable such market--again, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm hoping I am!).
by itake | 2025-08-28 04:00:21+00:00
I'm probably going to be down voted... but if an organization (business or government) is full of people that refuse to sing the same song, how can such an organization accomplish anything?

In politics, we saw what happens when the republicans can't agree with each other and failed to elect a majority leader. We also designate 1 person to control a significant part of our government, not a committee people with opposite view points.

Inconsistent messaging from leadership creates distrust amount the workers/population and prevents people from accomplishing anything.
by k310 | 2025-08-28 04:01:04+00:00
I have always believed that for the insane customer soaking that ISP's do, a little of that Fort Knox could go to quality content creators. Devil's in the details, of course.

The idea is to let customers choose which content creators they want to reward, and not have to set up 100 potentially hackable accounts with small creators without payment processing.

User gets to choose, from a vast array of creators, not just inane "bundles" and from excess ISP profits.

Unlike the internet for decades, quality gets a chance versus quantity.

Mom and Pop thank you.
by HaZeust | 2025-08-28 04:01:32+00:00
You’re basically right. It wasn’t a one-off trick so much as a playbook: take a niche label and stretch it into a catch-all (CRT -> DEI/antiracism) [1], flood the zone so it feels way bigger than it is [2], wrap it in “silent majority” vibes so supporters feel counter-culture [3, 4].

1 - https://x.com/realchrisrufo/status/1396961964190961665

2 - https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-news-obsession-cri...

3 - https://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/nixon-silent-majority-spee...

4 - https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/05/19/americans-an...
by ivape | 2025-08-28 04:02:06+00:00
It’s the top valued company so its floor is being #1 ($1 ahead of #2). That’s what the market is saying. No one is able to tell its real value because comparatively there is nothing beyond it. The market is only saying that it’s at the very least $1 more than #2.

As unreal as it sounds, it could truly be worth trillions more, it’s just that the market is unwilling to say so atm. There’s nothing normal going on because almost any stock you ever looked at is surrounded by hundreds of other stocks to compare to.

People missed this stock pre-split, then at 90, 120, 140 … And they will miss it again.
by crooked-v | 2025-08-28 04:02:47+00:00
If the Trump administration follows through and makes modern vaccines difficult to get, the simplest option for US citizens will be to take a brief trip over the border to Canada or Mexico and pay out of pocket for a dose. Generally vaccines are cheap enough, even the fancy ones, that the per-dose cost is negligible compared to the travel. You can even make it a short vacation and time the shot at the end, so the full impact and recovery time kicks in once you're back home.

There's some intense irony here that "vaccine tourism" used to be an active economic boost for the US (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/covid-shot-tourism-latin...), and now it's going to be very much the other way around.
by 0xbadcafebee | 2025-08-28 04:03:57+00:00
> It’s part of an effort to have dedicated managers and dedicated engineers instead of hybrid roles.

The hybrid role idea has always been ridiculous. It's two different jobs, like being a mechanic and an accountant. Do you need a mechanic? Cool, hire a mechanic. Do you only need a mechanic part-time? Cool, hire a part-time mechanic. But I don't want my mechanic stopping and starting the work on my engine 3 times a day because somebody has tax questions.

The whole point behind the division of labor is to specialize, and get really good at your specialization. Picking up multiple very different jobs and trying to do both is the opposite of efficiency. People knew this 250 years ago.
by dragonwriter | 2025-08-28 04:04:23+00:00
> So they are not the speaker for the purposes of liability, but they are the speaker for the purposes of first ammendment protections?

People who are not “the speaker or publisher” for liability purposes have Constitutional first amendment free speech rights in their decision to interact with content, this includes distributors, consumers, people who otherwise have all the characteristics of a “speaker of publisher” but are statutorily relieved of liability as one so as to enable them to make certain editorial decisions over use generated content without instantly becoming fully liable for every bit of that content, etc., yeah.

And arguing the alternative is you making the exact inversion of statute and Constitution I predicted and which you denied, that is, thinking Section 230 could remove First Amendment coverage from something it would have covered without that enactment.
by t0md4n | 2025-08-28 04:05:07+00:00
One of the ways I like to look at it is, humans have the unique ability to look into the past, and into the future. With this ability and the help of language, we are able to replay past experiences (good and bad) and make predictions on the future (plan forward, avoid things that hurt us before etc). This can cause “stress” or “pain” on the brain/person when those thoughts are negative. As things normally do, this “stress” can vary from person to person, depending on their makeup, life experiences, habits etc.
by braiamp | 2025-08-28 04:05:18+00:00
All external injuries (mostly traumas, but also burns, poison, frostbite, etc.) that result in deaths, no matter their intention (murder, accident, suicide) have 2 chapters dedicated in the International Classification of Diseases 10 (also 11). Yes, tracking what harms and kills people is kinda important from the public health standpoint, so that there are resources to deal with the injuries and educate in case of prevention. It also happens to be interested in work related injuries too!

https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en#/XIX

https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en#/XX
by idrathernot | 2025-08-28 04:05:36+00:00
I think the main counter example to this in the case of Intel is Global Foundries success after splitting from AMD. However GF had to find their own niche downmarket to the cutting edge nodes that AMD requires. So in the case of RR, it’d be like if the turbine segment gave up on SOTA aero engines and instead transitioned into electricity generation turbines (or some less sexy end market).

My personal bias is that in the long term, keeping the different divisions as one whole makes both sides less fragile in the long run.

The other problem I think you’re getting at that being on the cutting edge of a market that is extremely capital intensive is a tough sell to the banks & financiers. I feel like every industry outside of finance is increasingly squeezed out like humanity can survive on securities arbitrage alone.
by realityfactchex | 2025-08-28 04:06:25+00:00
First, the ISP would need fat stacks of not-mismanaged cash and decide to invest those in huge amounts of hardware that will atrophy in value from before the moment the check clears.

Next, the ISP would need the technical chops to set up that hosting themselves (or be able to afford outsourcing the setup and maintenance).

All the while, the ISP would need to withstand moving outside their area of expertise and primary business focus and core competence, that being delivering network connectivity (at the lowest possible cost and, most often, at the highest possible price).

And finally, if the ISP can do all that, they would need to decide it would be a solid business decision; that the investment would pay off continually, that the customers not only exist but with sufficient quantity and spending capacity to make it worthwhile.

And before all that, they need to think of this idea, convince management, executive, board, shareholder, and/or lobbyist levels that it's a good idea and not too risky.

*And then* they need to successfully execute the project to bring it to market (including successfully getting their hands on that hardware, which might be tricky in and of itself).

All in all, an outfit provisioning AI as a service needs fat stacks of (potentially funny) money, the knowledge and guts to pull it off, and, to have thought of the idea in the first place. And to have convinced the money people that it should be done.

Now, make a business leasing these appliances to the ISPs and managing them as a service. That could be a business.
by TGower | 2025-08-28 04:06:57+00:00
In the context of "Law requires age verification for social media sites" and "This is an example of the kinds of onerous regulations physical business owners have to comply with being forced on website operators", I took your comment that "Websites aren't necessarily businesses; they're speech." to mean that operating a social media website wasn't like operating a business because it's a form of speech.
by BrenBarn | 2025-08-28 04:07:00+00:00
Our legal system is a shambles that is clearly not prepared to handle this kind of thing, even setting aside the situation with the supreme court. It's become clear that the "shadow law" of simply passing unconstitutional statutes, filing frivilous lawsuits, etc., is operating independently of the real legal system moves too slowly and does not have adequate mechanisms to prevent what is essentially a DDoS attack. All justice is delayed and so all justice is denied.
by DrewADesign | 2025-08-28 04:07:06+00:00
It’s much easier to judge a person’s confidence while speaking, or even informally writing, and it’s much easier to evaluate random blogs and articles as sources. Who wrote it? Was it a developer writing a navel gazing blog post about chocolate on their lunch break, or was it a food scientist, or was it a chocolatier writing for a trade publication? How old is it? How many other posts are on that blog and does the site look abandoned? Do any other blog posts or articles concur? Is it published by an organization that would hold the author accountable for publishing false information?

The chatbot completely removes any of those beneficial context clues and replaces them with a confident, professional-sounding sheen. It’s safest to use for topics you know enough about to recognize bullshit, but probably least likely to be used like that.

If you’re selling a product as a magic answer generating machine with nearly infinite knowledge— and that’s exactly what they’ve being sold as— and everything is presented with the confidence of Encyclopedia Britannica, individual non-experts are not an appropriate baseline to judge against. This isn’t an indictment of the software — it is what it is, and very impressive— but an indictment of how it’s presented to nontechnical users. It’s being presented in a way that makes it extremely unlikely that average users will even know it is significantly fallible, let alone how fallible, let alone how they can mitigate that.
Show HN: Stop paying for analytics. I built a Bring-Your-Own database platform
by lakshikag | 2025-08-28 04:08:08+00:00
I'm an indie hacker with a bad habit: I have way too many side projects. Some are thriving and some are just a few lines of code and for a long time, all of them were costing me money.

The first thing I do when I start a new side project is add analytics. I want to see how people use it, if they're even using it at all. But I couldn't stomach another monthly subscription.

The worst part of analytics platform was that even the free plans had a catch. They'd limit me to a few thousand events a month, or they'd just delete all my data after 30 days. It was useless for tracking long-term growth. And the paid plans weren't much better. They'd cap you at a few sites and even then, your data retention was only a few years. If I had to track a dozen side projects, the costs would balloon to an amount that just didn't make sense for me.

I knew there had to be a better way, so I decided to build my own. I wanted a solution where I didn't have to pay per site and where I actually owned my data.

That’s how berrylog.app was born.

The core idea is simple: you bring your own database. Every single log, every event, and every page view from all of your projects is saved directly to your Supabase database. You are the sole owner of your data. You get an unlimited, historical record of your analytics for all your projects without paying a recurring fee to some company just to access your own information.

I honestly just made it for myself because I was tired of paying a fortune for something so essential. But after using it for a while, I realized it was too useful to keep to myself. This wasn't just my problem; it's a shared pain point for every indie hacker.

So, I’m sharing it with the community. I've built an analytics platform that truly respects the indie hacker's wallet and sanity. It’s a one-time payment for unlimited websites and unlimited events. No more paying a subscription for a project that might never get off the ground.

Berrylog.app is my contribution back to this community. I would love for you to give it a try and let me know if you have any suggestions.
by SirGiggles | 2025-08-28 04:08:27+00:00
In the context of Incus, they are the same.

Incus and LXC internally use umoci to manipulate the OCI tarball to conform to how LXC runs containers.

See: - https://umo.ci/ - https://github.com/lxc/lxc/blob/lxc-4.0.2/templates/lxc-oci....
by dcrazy | 2025-08-28 04:08:33+00:00
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can enter and leave an open system. When I lift a 10kg box 1 meter in the air, I don’t raise its temperature at all, and I only raise mine a tiny bit, yet I have still done work on the box and therefore have imparted it energy. The energy came from food I ate earlier, and was ultimately stored in the box as gravipotential energy.

Is this not analogous to storing energy in the EM fields within the CPU?
by krapp | 2025-08-28 04:08:46+00:00
I think you're overestimating how influential Hacker News is on the discourse of society at large.

Many people here were (and still are) solidly anti-vaccine but in the grand scheme Hacker News was just one of innumerable maelstroms on the internet, and far from the biggest. More realistically, Hacker news is just full of people who aren't any more immune to propaganda than anyone else.
by pfooti | 2025-08-28 04:09:32+00:00
I was a TL and then a TLM in my org, and am now an EM. I'm actually pretty happy about it, personally. I am organizing an eng summit tomorrow between my team and a sibling team (which is onsite and visiting from elsewhere) in my org, and I noticed that about 18 months ago, I would have been the person to give 4 out of the 5 main talks at the summit (as the expert / TL on that system). Now it's five different eng. This tells me I've been able to nurture / elevate the other engineers on the team, get them all into technical leadership roles, and then have them reach out and be ready to talk about their work to other teams.

Overall: this is a good thing. By taking up less room on the technical side, I've replaced one of me with four strong engineers. Previously, I was split between TL work and EM work and as a result, did a half job of each, leaving too much un-done.

The other thing I'll note is that engineers are basically the only role with this distinction. Product Managers, Program Managers, Sales, Marketing, all those roles seem to combine management with seniority. Only on the engineering side do we have both a TL and Manager hierarchy (while typically the TLs for a team report to the same manager that the line manager for the team does, they exert authority differently). This works out okay on the eng side when there is a strong alliance between the TLs and the EMs, but that doesn't always happen.
by nativeit | 2025-08-28 04:09:45+00:00
I'm very pro-vax and less than healthy, having multiple sclerosis, which is famously not great when immune system production spikes as novel new viruses appear on the scene. My best case scenario for proactive management of my disease involves staying current and getting routine vaccines for seasonal flu and COVID-19.

I could literally scream until my lungs bled over the credulousness and willful ignorance of the broader populace. I understand there will always be esoteric areas of science and technology that no layperson should be expected to meaningfully comprehend, but why doesn't that still induce the natural response of "Ask my doctor,"? The lack apparent lack of critical thinking skills is frankly appalling.
by jibal | 2025-08-28 04:10:21+00:00
> is only a fallacy when it involves changing your definitions after counterexamples are presented

That is false.

Edit: The fact is that we have the counterexample: the piece of code written by a zig developer who somehow isn't actually a zig developer. Where the counterexample comes from, who presents it, and when isn't relevant to whether this is a fallacy. The Wikipedia article overstresses the order of things, but that is never an issue with a fallacy. There are thousands upon thousands of examples where, e.g., someone claims that people aren't Christians because they don't follow Christ's teachings and that claim is called out as a No True Scotsman fallacy--it implicitly redefines what "Christian" is for the sake of denying that a Christian actually is a Christian, in order to preserve some claim of some virtue of Christianity in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.
by ivape | 2025-08-28 04:10:55+00:00
Stop comparing to dotcom. There’s a big difference between the internet then and the internet now. Ignoring the astounding nature of the AI tech (dotcom isn’t even in the same ballpark), you also have to consider these two things:

1) We didn’t make the world digital native in that era

2) We didn’t connect the whole world to the internet
by joquarky | 2025-08-28 04:11:23+00:00
In my experience, it seems like most people believe that they are their thoughts.

This is especially terrible for people with OCD, which seems to be common in this industry. I think it would be a valuable boost to mental health for them to at least explore some of the basic concepts in Vedanta and/or zen.

What amuses me is how much my thoughts seem like a completion LLM while I'm meditating.
by tczMUFlmoNk | 2025-08-28 04:12:54+00:00
> And eventually, after we provide alternatives for all of those and some others, we've talked about changing `as` to be shorthand for `.into()`.

Whoa, that could be awesome. It's always felt a bit unfortunate that you can't write `val.into::<SomeExplicitType>::()`—because the type parameter is on the trait, not the method. Of course, `SomeExplicitType::from` works, but sometimes that slightly upsets the flow of code.

Having just `val as SomeExplicitType` might be really nice for that common case. I do wonder if it'd feel too magic… but I'm optimistic to see what the lang team comes up with.
by bongodongobob | 2025-08-28 04:13:23+00:00
It's crazy to me that you are ruling out a power surge frying a board. Same thing could happen to the 80s model as well. You have not root caused it and are making up a failure mode that fits your point. Hell, the hall sensor could be fried and that's pretty damn mechanical. Again, your microwave isn't a demon core. Inverse square law applies. Don't put any limbs inside when it's on, and it really isn't that dangerous, so I'm not shocked they didn't apply aircraft safety design rules.