MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by poszlem | 2025-09-29 12:30:33+00:00
I disagree. Filming Airsoft is no more intrusive than filming football matches or paintball. It’s a public-facing hobby where documenting the experience is part of the culture, and that’s a big reason the sport grows and attracts new players.

UK law already strikes the right balance: you’re free to record in public or semi-public spaces unless there’s a specific ban, while also having protections against harassment or misuse. That’s a sensible framework we should never dilute with “consent-by-default” rules, which would only stifle creativity and community sharing. If you join a hobby where cameras are standard, it’s fair to expect that presence, not to restrict others’ enjoyment because of hypothetical discomfort.

If you don’t like that, nothing stops you from setting up your own private games with different rules
by bashZorina_09 | 2025-09-29 12:30:38+00:00
Same here, I've noticed that mostly since the point Atmos started becoming mainstream, movies just aren't mixed like standard films from the late 90's to 00's. Sure, we didn't have overhead sound sources or admittedly fantastic imaging for the few films that do it right, but overall, everything sort of feels like a narrow, bland tunnel tuned for soundbars / TVs, for which neither Home Theatre nor Soundbar owners enjoy ironically.

The "Enhance Dialogue / Reduce Loud Sounds" feature on the Apple TV has been amazing for helping to rectify this, but I would prefer to leave the dynamic range of the track alone.
by Taikonerd | 2025-09-29 12:30:47+00:00
I had thought: what's the business model for Arbitrus? Is it going to be a sort of "suggested finding" tool for judges? Or are law firms going to use it to screen cases, so they can pick winners?

It seems like the answer is neither: on their website, Arbitrus.ai says it's for private arbitration. "Arbitrus is a private court system with an AI judge. Why use the public court system or expensive AAA arbitration to settle your disputes, when you can do it faster, cheaper, and better with Arbitrus?"
by adapteva | 2025-09-29 12:31:16+00:00
Yeah, this was a big dilemman You can't compare two different compilers for two different hw targets. That would be like benchmarking GCC compiling to ARM with LLVM compiling to x86.

Thierry's synthesis scripts are really very clever, and the go way beyond our Platypus FPGA arch. We are realistic that until we have seilicon nobody cares about our arch. Releasing the work as open source, we think someone should adapt the code for all of the other targes I Yosys (xilinx, lattice...etc) so that everyone can benefit.

We contribute a lot of code to open source, but as an FPGA vendor we are not going to spend time/money optimizing compilers for our competitors:-)
by freedomben | 2025-09-29 12:31:26+00:00
I strongly don't think they are, because the ability to be invasive to the user with a native app is much higher. There is also a stronger financial incentive to do so since payments are easy.

And that's before we consider the much stronger user control presented by the open web. I can run an extension like uMatrix and take back control of my browser. On mobile now I can't even proxy and inspect the network requests that the apps are making without resorting to insane hackery tricks.

The more these things evolve, The more against native apps I am becoming.
by ToucanLoucan | 2025-09-29 12:31:44+00:00
I think you could make an argument that any hyperscaler that has used it's economy of scale superpower to obliterate as much competition as the giants have (thinking Google, Meta, et al) and have gone to such lengths to become the center-point of their given markets have at least a vague notion of an ethical obligation to like... not be monsters. Which is of course antithetical to the "eat the world" ethos: one would observe that few things once eaten are better for the experience.

Like, maybe it's just me, but if you as a corporate entity are going to subsume all your competition under the weight of your size and ability to lose money on tons of things so you can make even more on the other, I think it's a pretty fair ask in turn for them to not... I dunno, arbitrarily delete a shit ton of useful data for no reason?
by agedclock | 2025-09-29 12:32:19+00:00
I found this frustrating to read. First the other airsoft participates he seems to seem to be okay with people filming. There is clearly no expectation of privacy.

> I occasionally see people saying “well, if you don’t want to be in photos published online, don’t be in public spaces”.

>

> This is nonsense, for a number of reasons. Clearly, one should be able to exist in society, including going outside one’s own home, without needing to accept this kind of thing.

There is no expectation of privacy in any place that is considered public.

I don't like it that things are recorded around the clock or by anyone and be broadcast anywhere, but the ship on this has sailed long ago.

> In any case, here, the issue is somewhat different, since it is a private site, where people engage in private activity (a hobby). > > But then I’ve seen the same at (private) conferences, with people saying “Of course I’m free to take photos of identifiable individuals without their consent and publish them online”.

Again is there an expectation of privacy? Are people told that they are not allowed to use their cameras?

It is whether the is a expectation of privacy. A McDonald's or a Burger King is "private property", but there is no expectation of privacy. I would not expect privacy at an airsoft, paint-balling or any other outdoor activity even if it is on private property.

A public toilet cubical is a public place with an expectation of privacy.

> Publishing someone’s photo online, without their consent, without another strong justification, just because they happen to be in view of one’s camera lens, feels wrong to me

It depends whether there was an expectation of privacy as whether it should feel wrong. If there isn't an expectation of privacy. Then this is nothing else than you "not liking it".

> This isn’t about what is legal (although, in some cases, claims of legality may be poorly conceived), but around my own perceptions of a private life, and a dislike for the fact that, just because one can publish such things, that one should.

How else is this supposed to be tacked if not by what is legally permissible?
by dns_snek | 2025-09-29 12:32:28+00:00
Why? We don't have 2 different terms for "blindness" (or any other condition for that matter), one for people who are intelligent and another for those who aren't.

Hans Asperger was a Nazi collaborator who drew an imaginary line between "less autistic" children, whom he believed could still be valuable to society, and "more autistic" children who were considered to be a threat to their racial purity - so he murdered them. That's the only reason this distinction came to be.

Autism "spectrum" isn't about severity at all - it's a spectrum because every person has a unique presentation and combination of challenges, e.g. sensory processing, communication, relationships, emotional processing, and cognitive rigidity. "Asperger syndrome" was just one specific combination of those that drew a line between people who are worthy of life and those who aren't.
by squishington | 2025-09-29 12:32:54+00:00
For what it's worth, one of my uni lecturers in my final uni year told me that over half the cohort for that year would never work in engineering because there weren't enough jobs. He said the uni didn't want him imparting that information but he thought it was unethical. I'm sure he had a historical perspective that informed that advice. I've worked with older guys who got engineering jobs without degrees and taught themselves FPGA design on the job in the 80s and 90s. There's no chance of that happening now.
by rpastuszak | 2025-09-29 12:33:30+00:00
I like to call this approach MISS (MISS – Make It Stupid, Simple) or better:

Make It Stupid Simple, To Experience Revenue = M.I.S.S.T.E.R.

i.e. keep removing features until the idea fits in your head, the value can be explained concisely to a small group of people to whom it'll just 'click'.

https://untested.sonnet.io/notes/miss-make-it-stupid-simple/
by latexr | 2025-09-29 12:33:55+00:00
> I also find video a bit invasive of privacy in a way that photos aren't.

I’d argue photos can be more invasive. If someone makes a 10 minute video and you’re somewhere in the background for 5 seconds, no one may ever notice. Furthermore, with compression artefacts for motion you may become difficult to recognise.

But if you’re in a photo, people will be looking at it for longer and are thus most likely to notice you and possibly zoom in on you with all the quality the static sensor provides.

Furthermore, photographs have greater potential to create false narratives. A snapshot taken at the wrong millisecond can easily make you look like a creep or weirdo when a video would’ve made it clear you were just turning your head or starting a yawn.
by bashkiddie | 2025-09-29 12:34:07+00:00
> not every single piece of software fucks up something as basic as string sorting

it is neither basic nor simple. Have you ever heard of UTF-8 and locales?

Here is an exercise for the curious reader: Pick any UTF-8 string "a", and another one "b", so that in increasing lexicographical order "a" sorts after "a+b" ("a" concatenated by "b"). ("a" > "a+b")
by MontyCarloHall | 2025-09-29 12:34:26+00:00
Genuinely curious: what concrete negative consequences are there from appearing in the background of other people’s photos/videos, in a full face mask no less?

Is he afraid that someone will be able to identify him as engaging in a hobby that some people might be judgmental about, e.g. a potential employer finding the footage and concluding “this guy spends lots of time and money playing a children’s game; he’s clearly not a serious person.” That I can understand.

But it seems like his position is stronger than this:

>Publishing someone’s photo online, without their consent, without another strong justification, just because they happen to be in view of one’s camera lens, feels wrong to me

So essentially, it’s wrong to publish any photo that happens to include people in the background? If I take an artistic photo at an art museum [0] or a restaurant [1] or a streetscape [2] and there happen to be people in the background, what possible harm could come to the people incidentally captured?

[0] https://500px.com/search?q=the%20Met&type=photos&sort=releva...

[1] https://500px.com/search?q=Busy%20restaurant&type=photos&sor...

[2] https://500px.com/search?q=Times%20Square%20&type=photos&sor...
by CrazyStat | 2025-09-29 12:34:27+00:00
I give Gelman a lot of credit for popularizing hierarchical models, but you give him too much.

Before Stan existed we used BUGS [1] and then JAGS [2]. And most of the work on computation (by Neal and others) was entirely independent of Gelman.

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

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_another_Gibbs_sampler
by insertchatbot | 2025-09-29 12:34:42+00:00
And also, some people could suffer real damages. Imagine if someone is lying to their wife about what they do on the weekend or about who they've gone to a conference with. Or imagine if someone has found themselves with dangerous enemies who discover where they go, what they do and with whom.

At the moment, these things are not the problem of the person taking the video
by mothballed | 2025-09-29 12:35:30+00:00
I wonder what would happen if someone wore a T-shirt with an ITAR restricted weapons blueprint on it or something. Hypothetically it would be legal to display that in public in the US, but illegal to post it publicly facing for foreigners to access on the internet.

Even if it were a gray area, the serious penalties would probably be enough to make someone want to blur it out.
by pjmlp | 2025-09-29 12:35:32+00:00
Modern Windows is already using two VMs as well, or even more if WSL is being used.

Hyper-V is a type 1 hypervisor, when enabled, which is required for many security measures in modern Windows, the first Windows instance is a privileged guest, just like with Xen.

Additionally anyone using WSL 2.0, is running another set of VMs alongside Windows, depending on how many flavours of Linux and containers are configured.
by c2h5oh | 2025-09-29 12:35:48+00:00
Similar three stages are also at every job you have:

- you underperform while onboarding and rapidly learning to cover whatever skill gaps you discover

- you slowly go from doing OK to being overqualified, but it doesn't get reflected in compensation or title enough and your employer has little incentive to help you reach the next stage, because you are currently overperforming compared to your pay

- you are so much past your paygrade you quit and go to a company that will pay you what you will be worth after onboarding and learning to cover skill gaps

With everything that companies provided to earn long term employee loyalty being sacrificed to stock price employee growth through multiple roles in the same company has become more of an exception.
by chuckadams | 2025-09-29 12:36:13+00:00
There's a few that have not, like his stance on rewrites. Apparently, if Joel's guru status had been properly respected, Netscape would be a powerhouse today, running on its Navigator codebase, because "The idea that new code is better than old is patently absurd. Old code has been used. It has been tested. Lots of bugs have been found, and they’ve been fixed. There’s nothing wrong with it."

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-...

There is of course some truth wrapped up in those thick layers of punditry, but even today that article gets trotted out as some kind of Revealed Truth of Software Engineering to be swallowed and digested without qualification.

(Edit: I agree that from-scratch total rewrites are rarely a good idea, and should require blindingly obvious justification at the very least. I still cannot take all the points about Old Code at face value, since rewrites often come about after Lots of Bugs have been found and continue to be found)
by pixl97 | 2025-09-29 12:38:26+00:00
Reasonable demand from whom?

The groups that have the power to demand they do this are the same ones involved in the chaos and have no onus to ensure that google keeps this data around, and as much as the US flip flops in political power it can go from they must keep this data one year to they must get rid of it the next.

No, the only reasonable demand in a world that has already embraced insanity is that you keep the data and share it with others. Why not get together with others of the same mindset and form voluntary entities that keep this data safe.

Trusting the government to keep the audit data on itself won't always work, and the 4th estate of the large media has been bought off by large companies that are much more apt to work in the governments interests to make as much profit as possible at the cost of democracy.
by lapcat | 2025-09-29 12:38:43+00:00
The "vote with your feet" argument was always specious in a duopoly. If consumer rights depend on the whims of giant corporations like Google and Apple, then consumers never had rights. "Just switch to Android if you don't like iOS lockdown" is now becoming a joke.

Consumers desperately need specific legal rights to do what we want with the electronic devices that we've purchased, rights that cannot be overridden by the decisions of any vendor.

Apologists have always said, "Apple has a right to do what it wants with its platform." Well guess what, by that principle, so does Google. Don't worry, though, because you have a "choice" between two collaborating duopolists.
by somenameforme | 2025-09-29 12:39:02+00:00
Their graph is setting off red flags for me. A decent sized sample of data over any sort of remotely normal distribution doesn't look like that where you're seeing a 3% change on the x axis drive a 30% shift on the y, and then back again. Here [1] are some of the data that they probably used. Table 7 in particular.

Here is the percent of women in each income bracket who gave birth in the past year by ascending income per household member (their choice of data, not mine - I would prefer completed fertility):

7.96 7.51 6.39 5.14 4.47 3.78 3.18

Here is the percent by total household income in ascending order of income:

6.27 5.23 5.64 5.88 5.26 5.30 5.26 4.98 4.64 4.75

In both cases there is a practically linear, and sharp, inverse correlation between income and fertility. I have no idea how they derived their graph as that data does not seem to be directly provided, but there's no combination of the lines in their graphs that would yield these data as an average, so I suspect they made a mistake.

I would not dispute that there is a U curved shape to fertility, but it's misleading as the tail end is in extremely high incomes. And in any case, their graphs look more like some sort of messed up sine waves, which is obviously just wrong!

[1] - https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/demo/fertility/women...

----

EDIT: Actually I have a hypothesis. The census tables give an extremely useless datum that's very easy to misinterpret. The column is simply labeled "percent". It waxes and wanes all over the place, very much like their graph does. But it's the percent of all births that came from a given income group. But that is completely meaningless, because what matters is the data I gave (and had to manually calculate - by adding a new column) which is the percent of each group that is having children. Otherwise you're graphing some bastardization of population size at each percentile (a bell curve) multiplied by a pseudo-randomizing linear decreasing factor (fertility). So you get a graph that looks weird and makes no sense.
by keyringlight | 2025-09-29 12:39:52+00:00
I'd say the difficulty now is how online services are integrated as part of being able to function in many tasks we're now asking phones (or mobile computers) to do. If you're only doing local stuff then you can probably get by, but so much of the world prioritizes online and having secure payments if your phone doesn't respond correctly to those services then there's a risk of exclusion or a time/money cost to use them in a less convenient way.
by rafaelbeirigo | 2025-09-29 12:39:55+00:00
Yesterday I spent the entire day working on a lib to create repos in Github from inside Emacs. It was the first time in 3y that I had touched it. When googling, I saw potential candidates that were much better than my simple one. But I kept going, for the pleasure of making my own thing. I learned a lot, and felt very accomplished, even if, at the end, it was messy, and I'll have to go back and reorganize it. It feels like making _my_ thing, even if it is drawing my copy of Monalisa.
by squigz | 2025-09-29 12:40:29+00:00
You're looking for a generic reason, I think, and there isn't and doesn't need to be one other than "people can desire their privacy for various reasons"

Maybe publicizing where someone is every week lets criminals plan their crimes. Maybe it gives away someone's location to an abusive ex or family member or stalker. Maybe people just don't want Google and the like to have even more data about our whereabouts and actions and identity.
by fuzz_junket | 2025-09-29 12:40:34+00:00
Archivist here. Google is not an archive. Neither is Tumblr or Flickr or any other platform that might delete your content at any time. They're companies and it's their job to make money. This is why my profession exists. We don't make money, which is why we're not well funded, but we have a whole lot of training, technical knowledge, and professional ethics around saving information and making it accessible. If you want to preserve your records, talk to an archivist because you can't assume some faceless corporation will do it for you.
by n4r9 | 2025-09-29 12:40:40+00:00
I honestly don't know if that's true or not. But I haven't seen any compelling evidence to support it. The figures being lobbed around by the likes of Tommy Robinson are deeply harmful to the debate because they are both a) completely wrong and b) misleadingly quoted. You can lookt the actual stats here: https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/disclos...

We're talking on the order of a few hundred arrests per year for section 127 of the Communications Act and 1500 per year for the Malicious Communications Act, which includes stuff like racial harassment, domestic abuse, pedophilic grooming, and a whole host of things that I would hope you agree should be illegal.
by jqpabc123 | 2025-09-29 12:41:24+00:00
Sorry to say: Probably another wrong intuition.

I have bought multiple cars in my lifetime. But I have *never* bought one right after another. This is not intuition, it's a fact.

No one is suggesting this can't happen --- but is it likely? Is it the norm?

"Personalized" ads assume it is --- and erroneously so in my case.

Start looking at cars online and you'll be bombarded with car ads for months after you've made a purchase. That ad money was just wasted on me --- and I'm sure on many others as well.

"Context sensitive" ads make no such erroneous assumption --- and they still have you covered in any case. You are shown ads only as long as you continue to express an interest in the subject.
by anilgulecha | 2025-09-29 12:41:46+00:00
What is meant by responsibility? If something happens because of the app - you go to the responsible person. F-droid does not want to be the outreach person/org for any issue on an app.

But per Google policy - they will go to the f-droid if a govt request came in for that apk, as that's what the new policy would have on file. This is hence what f-droid is voicing concern on.
by pseidemann | 2025-09-29 12:42:03+00:00
There are a number of reasons, including:

- I see who sees me, a digital copy breaks this symmetry

- Recordings may be stored indefinitely, searched through, used for things I can't even imagine today

- In a local environment a specific behavior might be normal or accepted while in some other cultures it is not. This conflict is bound to happen

etc.
by Forgeties79 | 2025-09-29 12:42:08+00:00
People like the guy I encountered are basically allergic to discomfort of any kind. Even the slightest inconvenience in their lives is seen as an incredibly personal and intolerable affront to their liberty, and they want to make damn sure we all know about it at every possible opportunity! Hence the behavior.

If I were to compare it to a client relationship, it’s the kind of person who throws the contract in a partner’s/client’s/vendor’s face anytime there is a minor disagreement or discussion about details. Reasonable people know you only start pointing to the contract when things escalate to a certain point as it locks everybody into a defensive posture and now everybody is going to be rigid moving forward.
by alex77456 | 2025-09-29 12:42:11+00:00
Part of the issue is, big portion of the footage being recorded, is not worth recording, let alone publishing. (Except for personal value of the person recording, but that doesn't require public sharing)

With the OP example, people getting recorded are not bystanders catching stray camera focus, they are the subject of the video. Without other participants, there would be little 'content'. Imagine going to an indoor climbing venue, recording someone else, and publishing just that.
by mantas | 2025-09-29 12:42:52+00:00
Nowadays this label is overused so much that it pretty much lost it's meaning. It's not fascism-nazism to be against mass migration. Nor it's fascism-nazism to not fully support whatever letter comes next to join LGBTQAZ+ or whatever it is now.

Just like it's not communism to advocate for better welfare, labor rights, affordable housing and so on.