MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by hedora | 2025-09-14 15:37:28+00:00
You put the check outside the innermost loop. Put it up one or two loops instead, and reason that the check runs frequently enough and also infrequently enough.

Also, don’t you have to hit a pthread cancellation point for pthread_cancel to take effect?

Those are way more expensive than a branch, but if you want the exact behavior, you could do “if (done) { break; } else { pthread_??? }”
by avazhi | 2025-09-14 15:37:28+00:00
Ok? No shit?

That's not the same thing as literally trying to make people sick, as the original commenter said and as I was replying to initially. Being negligent is not the same thing as being malicious; intent matters. Even if I try to cover up a harm, that doesn't mean the harm itself was my intention. If you guys can't understand the nuance there then I dunno what to tell you.
by groby_b | 2025-09-14 15:37:37+00:00
In the sense that a lot of fevers are deadly.

Bodies do not "benefit" from fever. A fever is a signal that pathogens have recently entered the body, and the body is desperately at work trying to kick them out again. If it fails, you die. The fever is a direct mirror of the inflammation caused by that fight.

So, yes, the current administration certainly caused a fever. And the only thing the US benefits from are the antibodies fighting that pathogen.
by saghm | 2025-09-14 15:37:51+00:00
It's not out of the realm of possibility that one side of a issue is not acting in good faith. If that's the case, compromise isn't really a viable option; trying to work with someone within a system doesn't work if they literally don't support the system itself. Obviously not everyone agrees that's what's happening here, but not everyone agrees with your premise that there's guaranteed to be some reasonable compromise to every possible issue either.

In some ways, you're kind of arguing the same thing but in reverse by claiming that the comment you're responding to isn't being made in good faith. You're certainly entitled to hold that opinion, but only because of the exact same logic that entitles the parent commenter to hold the opinion that they express in the first place (and for what it's worth, I don't think it's actually being made in bad faith; not everyone will agree about where to draw the line, but at least to me it seems like we're long past the point of giving the benefit of the doubt on policies like the one described in TFA).
by rapawel | 2025-09-14 15:38:02+00:00
The tool only detects a subset of paid Cloudflare users - specifically those with the default ECH settings. If your site shows as undetermined, it likely means you're on a free plan or a paid plan with ECH enabled.

From what I've observed:

- Free plans: ECH is forcefully enabled (sni=encrypted)

- Paid plans: ECH is disabled by default (sni=plaintext), but can be manually enabled

The tool can only definitively distinguish between free plans and paid plans that use the default ECH settings.
by FridayoLeary | 2025-09-14 15:38:07+00:00
That constitutional debate is long settled. The king rules by the consent of parliament and they are ultimately the highest authority in the land. In parliament, the commons has far more authority then the lords. While parliament delegates almost all their authority to the government and civil service it would take a lot to fundamentally change that. They still excercise their authority on occasion as several recent prime ministers found out. Their power also doesn't necessarily stem from the fact that they are voted in, but it's a key reason why they have all the power. I don't see any situation where the king wins. The only pathway to a constitutional crisis is between the government and parliament.
by littlestymaar | 2025-09-14 15:38:21+00:00
> Minimal assistance? We sent half of our inventories.

Dude stop smoking Russia media's shit for breakfast!

Check how many tanks, IFV and fighter jets the European countries have, and how many we sent to Ukraine. We are talking about a few percent here !

> European capitals are stripped bare of air defense missiles

European countries, like the US, never relied on SAM for air defense. Instead the doctrine is air dominance both offensively or defensively and the VKS stands no chance against the combined airforce of all European countries (one could argue that they are no match against a single big European nation on their own).

In fact, in case of an air attack F35 operators would hunt VKS bombers over Russian soil so even the pathetic “standoff munitions only” tactics the VKS has been conducting for the past three years over Ukraine wouldn't work against European capitals.

> The global south that faced the full brunt of western colonialism

They are also well aware that Russia has always been a member of the “western colonialist club”, As the Chinese gently reminded them by starting to call Vladivostok Haishenwai again.
by suby | 2025-09-14 15:39:00+00:00
It is frustrating. Rolling back forever chemical regulations is analogous to reintroducing leaded gasoline. Should we be expected to debate and weigh the pros and cons of leaded gasoline? Some things require nuance, but some things are clearly and unambiguously bad. PFAS have well known health risks, they're persistent, bio-accumulative, and linked to cancers and endocrine disruption. We should err on the side of caution. An angry reaction against this is justified. It's insanity.
by hobs | 2025-09-14 15:39:05+00:00
The problem is people are so trained that there must be both sides to every issue and you must steel man every other debater when sometimes the guy is coming at you with a knife.

There's no two sides to deregulating every business to poison us all, its just profit over people in the most direct and obvious way. There's no complex plan, there's no 4d chess, its just a transparent power grab for ideologues that really have either no interest in the outcomes of their terrible agenda because it ends in power for them or are literally in the pockets of those who desire the end of America.
by zahlman | 2025-09-14 15:39:16+00:00
> I agreed with the substance of your post

No, you didn't. You used it as a jumping-off point to attack the entire universe of people you disagree with.

> but saying people are engaging in political ideological battles and therefore out of bounds, when the discussion is about politicis and ideologies

This is entirely disingenuous. The scope of the discussion is much narrower than that, and does not give you cause to bring in the actions of Trump, Musk, "MAGA" as a group, etc. etc. etc.

> Saying you didn't summarily dismiss my opinion as political is straight up false when your last reply was a one line quote from the rule page

It is true, because I did not "summarily dismiss your opinion"; I carefully read and assessed your entire post, and considered its form entirely inappropriate. Your opinion is not actually relevant to that judgment. I would be saying the same thing if you were speaking out against whatever other groups in the same fashion.

I am stopping here because

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

and it's abundantly clear that this is no longer possible.
by tombert | 2025-09-14 15:39:19+00:00
Sure but how much longer could it be the most powerful? There's a mass exodus of our scientists leaving to other countries where the funding is.

I love America, and despite my wife being a naturalized citizen we are still tentatively looking to evacuate (basically determined by if the supreme court decides that the president can overturn the Fourteen Amendment with an executive order) because we are genuinely concerned that she might still be detained because of this administrations idiotic ICE quotas and overtly racist policies.

You might argue that me leaving is no significant loss, and that's fair, but I am college and graduate educated, and I work in a technical field, and I doubt I'm the only one considering this.
by purple_turtle | 2025-09-14 15:39:40+00:00
As EU and it's love of regulation demonstrated - you can regulate too much, with harmful effects.

Strangling economic growth also kills, as indirectly as PFAS in drinking water.

Neither "regulate everything" nor "allow everything" is a good idea.

(no opinion about this specific one, I had no motive nor opportunity to build informed opinion on this specific one)
by cluckindan | 2025-09-14 15:40:20+00:00
1. The executives know that chemicals are poisonous to wildlife, plants and humans

2. The executives don’t care because proper disposal would be costly and they are heavily incentivized to increase profits as much as possible

3. Executives order chemicals to be dumped or vented into the environment

4. Company gets caught

5. Executives order a coverup

6. Company eventually pays for cleanup, but the executives are already long gone

7. Nobody goes to jail

What part of this scenario is not intentionally poisoning people?
by sedawkgrep | 2025-09-14 15:40:29+00:00
Your first paragraph is just as applicable to social media as it is to traditional media...possibly moreso. So claiming that the media lies or deceives and shouldn't be believed does not lend credence to anything you're saying. When you say "media-driven narrative", where do you think that's coming from? I probably see 10x social media to traditional media and it's all over the place. So it's not the old guard barking at the new.

The reality is social media today lacks most of the rigor and accuracy that traditional media needed to be trustworthy. There's virtually no vested interest in anyone on social media being honest and forthright about anything.

Your second paragraph is simply your perspective (and full of broad statements), and like you say, your opinion on that matter doesn't mean any more to me than apparently mine to you.

Yet here we are, with more depression, anxiety, and civil unrest nationally than we've had since probably Vietnam. At least all that unrest is what I see predominantly on SM.
by mlinhares | 2025-09-14 15:40:45+00:00
I was once explaining to someone in the US why transactions in Mexico and Brazil take a tumble and start to be rejected at a much higher rate than usual due to banks being more stringent after 10 PM as its much more likely these would be fraud/scam/crime in general in these countries and they were amazed that this was a thing.

Its sad that these scams are so widespread today that a heavy handed approach like this is necessary. Unfortunately doing these attacks is incredibly cheap :(
by avazhi | 2025-09-14 15:41:07+00:00
You told me to go read a satirical work of fiction to understand why real life executives might make certain decisions. This is like telling me to read Lord of the Rings to understand, by analogy, what insert politician you hate here is thinking and how it's informing his use of policy.

Fiction is fiction. I prefer non-fiction for informing what I think about other (actual) people and their decision making processes.
by nulld3v | 2025-09-14 15:41:53+00:00
The "Palestine" issue is single-issue on the surface, but it is often used because it is a succint way to package a broad set of desired foreign policy changes: more cooperation with the Islamic world, less aggression/hegemony, and less money fed to insatiable MIC.

Personally I do not see how we can afford to maintain the MIC for much longer, so these issues are very important to me.
by throwaway173738 | 2025-09-14 15:42:12+00:00
That’s the argument—yes. Consumers are supposed to educate themselves about all the industries in their backyard before buying a house to make sure that none of them have ever dumped PFAS in the last 100 years. And also they need to move to a place where it doesn’t rain, because PFAS is also in the water cycle. If nobody does that then the free market has spoken.
Show HN: Didit – Identity Verification Platform (Unlimited Free KYC)
by rosasalberto | 2025-09-14 15:42:14+00:00
Hi HN,

I’m Alberto, co-founder of Didit. One year ago we launched Didit with a simple goal: to fix identity verification.

Today, 1,000+ companies use Didit — from fintechs and banks to marketplaces and crypto apps. The growth has been faster than we ever imagined, which tells us this pain is universal.

The problem: When we tried to integrate identity verification (KYC/AML) with providers like Sumsub, Persona, Jumio, Onfido, Veriff, or Idwall, we kept running into the same blockers:

“Contact sales” to even see pricing.

Weeks of calls before getting sandbox keys.

Expensive annual contracts, minimums, and bundled features you don’t need.

APIs and dashboards that feel outdated and heavy.

Meanwhile, fraud is exploding with AI, and strong IDV is more important than ever.

Our approach (Didit V2): Didit is an open, developer-first identity verification platform that combines a modern dashboard, flexible workflows, and APIs you can actually enjoy using:

Unlimited free KYC → Document Verification, Passive Liveness, and Face Match are free forever. No caps, no trials.

Transparent pricing → Optional services (AML Screening, Proof of Address, NFC, Phone Verification, etc.) use simple prepaid credits. No contracts, no subscriptions, credits never expire.

Integration options:

Workflows → build complete journeys in our no-code builder, trigger with one API call.

Standalone APIs → call individual services directly from your backend.

Why free? We believe basic KYC should be infrastructure, not a luxury upsell. Developers and startups should be able to build responsibly without burning months of runway on compliance.

We’d love feedback on:

Does this model make sense?

Are our docs and workflows clear enough?

What would you add or change?

Links:

Sign up & get sandbox keys → https://business.didit.me

Docs → https://docs.didit.me

Pricing → https://didit.me/pricing

Video demo → https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_mY-aVfC6g

We’ll be here all day answering questions. Excited to hear your thoughts!

Thanks, Alberto
by tyleo | 2025-09-14 15:42:17+00:00
A visible example is the ACLU questionnaire which covers support for transgender medical care with state resources for detained immigrants.

Harris’s written support was turned into an ad campaign for Trump. You can agree or disagree with the policy but it isn’t a great hill to die on if you want to win elections.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harris-gender-surgeries-ja...
by nerdsniper | 2025-09-14 15:43:05+00:00
Is this AI slop? At first I thought so. But it hits such a strange uncanny valley between weird dutch->english human mistranslation and AI-style emoji bullets.

And some of the “call to action” just reads like an LLM prompt, but I guess that’s just what asking people to write chapters for your book for free might sound like.
by vunderba | 2025-09-14 15:43:20+00:00
Well done. The initial commit for this Github project was 2 days ago - the exact same time that HN user DonHopkins suggested a Flappy Bird clone that used the mac sensor as a joke project.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45217294

The nice thing to do would be to least give a shoutout/acknowledgement in the credits.
by alexey-salmin | 2025-09-14 15:43:42+00:00
I'm sorry, but you simply don't understand how the exploit works. You don't need to guess the seed of the RNG, you don't need to synchronize anything, none of that matters.

There is such a low number of possible seeds that you can try them all, enumerate all possible shuffles, then check which one of them you've got. Then you know everyone's cards. This is why the game is fatally broken. That's it.

Call it negligence or not, I don't care much. But I'm amused by the fact that you fail to understand a basic combinatorics problem.
by growingkittens | 2025-09-14 15:43:43+00:00
Or a byproduct of sustained trauma being more prevalent in modern society. There was a large shift in the way children are raised in the past 100 years, from community to individuality. Entire generations of people whose childhoods prepared them for a world that did not exist by the time they were adults. There is no template for raising children in the new world, and no community to fall back on. Many react with anger and resentment, and raise their children accordingly. Abuse is way more prevalent than most people realize.

Technological comfort just disguises it all.
by Terretta | 2025-09-14 15:43:43+00:00
The Internet was no longer early after it was front page news in mainstream magazines and more importantly, certainly not after Microsoft acquired FrontPage from Vermeer due to enough of a market for web publishing.

When I joined a couple other guys working to build the southeast US's fastest growing ISP in early mid-90s, enough mom and pops, small businesses, and government agencies -- from backyard bird feeder webcams to US Navy recruiting -- were already staking their brochureware claims that it was worth marketing ourselves as offering FrontPage hosting.

Windows 95 already took you online fine, while Windows 98SE bundled IE 5 which included the first version of XMLHttpRequest, giving birth to Ajax, enabling single page apps... and of course e-commerce in ad banners.

By the time you are calling the early Internet, everyone called it Web 2.0, and most things are still that.

Interestingly, I met tons of teens from rural UK in early 90s online, in MUDs and MOOs and especially Talkers such as Surfers: https://muds.fandom.com/wiki/Surfers (Small world, several went on to found or lead top web 2.0 digital agencies.). As a sibling comment notes, most were at uni.

By that time, the early 90s, it was then considered the end of the early Internet, beginning of mainstreaming. US law changed to allow making money online, Web 1.0 got its footing, and most of all, it was the start of Eternal September: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
by magicalist | 2025-09-14 15:43:50+00:00
> But there was no evidence that they used PFAS in order to make people sick, which is what the original commenter said

No, the said

> If companies can freely poison everyone, profits go up

Which has played out again and again in history. It's a lot cheaper to dump industrial solvents out the back door than pay for proper disposal, and if there's no legal repercussions stopping it, someone can just do it and watch profits go up.
by cogman10 | 2025-09-14 15:44:39+00:00
This is hogwash.

The american left by and large is simply unrepresented. Democrats have represented center right positions since clinton.

If anything, it's those centrist democrats that use purity tests as much as possible to eject the left from the party.

As a good example of that, consider the case of Al Franken vs Andrew Cuomo. Franken was pretty progressive, so when it came out that he had a picture in bad taste where he mocked squeezing boobs, gone. 24/7 news about how he's really a monster and the worst person in the world.

Meanwhile, Cuomo has multiple credible allegations of sexual harassment and who does the party STILL back even after he lost the primary? He literally got endorsements from Democrats who shed tears because of the Al Franken photo.

The same thing happened to Bernie Sanders. The centrist dems and media started circulating garbage about how he was sexist over a comment he didn't make.
by hypeatei | 2025-09-14 15:46:04+00:00
> tiny handful of actual progressives ... that are messing everything up

I never said that. There were many far-leftists who sat out in 2024 due to Palestine, proclaiming that Kamala would've been just as bad or worse than Trump on that issue which is ludicrous. Needless to say, I'm not opposed to progressive ideals but the reality is that they're more focused on principles than getting elected.

> that also poll extremely well with the general public

If that's the case, why don't we see more candidates like Bernie/AOC/Mamdani being elected across the country? I can probably guess your next is answer is that the DNC and/or billionaires suppress their campaigns?
by yjftsjthsd-h | 2025-09-14 15:46:16+00:00
> GOS does not allow you to become root on your phone though, it just gives you more control through permissions and profiles.

It really is sad that there isn't any ROM with Graphene's permission and sandboxing features while still leaving the user in control. IIRC it's theoretically possible since they publish the code, but one assumes it would be a non-trivial effort:\
by hnlmorg | 2025-09-14 15:46:45+00:00
I opened that link expecting to be outraged but instead finding myself sympathetic to their solution.

High value transfers should be subject to additional scrutiny to confirm it’s legitimate.

The hard part is making sure you balance that well enough so that you’re protecting against malaise without the bank then becoming a consumer problem themselves.

It will be interesting to see how well this works.
by avazhi | 2025-09-14 15:47:28+00:00
> or they want people to get sick and die.

This is the part I've been referring to from the original comment.

Also, once again, you should be careful how you use intention here. Even in the case where they knew about the harms or the risk, you can't impute intention without more evidence. Without that evidence, you should stick to negligence, since that's what it would be and indeed that is what separates a simple negligence claim from criminal negligence (intention).

If you say they intended to harm people or the environment, that's very different from saying their negligence or coverup resulted in harm to people/the environment. Intention is a subjective state of mind of the executives/board/'The company', and while it can be imputed in certain circumstances, it's a high bar. Dumping toxic waste somewhere because you think nobody will ever notice (which they did, in remote bodies of water), and then having some campers come along and jump into the water for a swim (which also happened), doesn't mean they intended to harm those campers or indeed that they intended to harm anyone. It was negligent but not obviously intentional. This really isn't hard to understand. It's also why there were never any criminal charges, not because the execs were long gone. In the US, corporations can be held criminally liable regardless of whether the original execs are still there or not.
by seanbax | 2025-09-14 15:47:37+00:00
template<typename _RandomAccessIterator> _GLIBCXX20_CONSTEXPR inline void sort(_RandomAccessIterator __first, _RandomAccessIterator __last) { // concept requirements __glibcxx_function_requires(_Mutable_RandomAccessIteratorConcept< _RandomAccessIterator>) __glibcxx_function_requires(_LessThanComparableConcept< typename iterator_traits<_RandomAccessIterator>::value_type>) __glibcxx_requires_valid_range(__first, __last); __glibcxx_requires_irreflexive(__first, __last); std::__sort(__first, __last, __gnu_cxx::__ops::__iter_less_iter()); }

That's the definition of std::sort. What aliasing information can be gleaned from local analysis of the function? Absolutely nothing.
by tombert | 2025-09-14 15:47:46+00:00
Yeah, that's how I feel about it as well.

For a large chunk of my life, I would start a personal project, get stuck on some annoying detail (e.g. the server gives some arcane error), get annoyed, and abandoned the project. I'm not being paid for this, and for unpaid work I have a pretty finite amount of patience.

With ChatGPT, a lot of the time I can simply copypaste the error and get it to give me ideas on paths forward. Sometimes it's right on the first try, often it's not, but it gives me something to do, and once I'm far enough along in the project I've developed enough momentum to stay inspired.

It still requires a lot of work on my end to do these projects, AI just helps with some of the initial hurdles.
by mlinhares | 2025-09-14 15:48:08+00:00
They're also coopted by their donors and the thinking they can't be mean to their "colleagues", look at all the democrats saying they're "waiting for the republican party to come back". They want the same status quo they had in the past because it serves those already in power there, they can continue to collect donations and salaries if it all stays the same without doing much work.

Look at how desperate they all were to leave DC and go on vacation, these people are not serious and they don't think there will be any consequence to them.