MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by fnordpiglet | 2025-09-11 05:12:29+00:00
It’s the other end of the spectrum from migrants from other countries doing the large scale manual labor for little pay by American standards, but high pay by their own. Ultimately everyone benefits.

It’s not about economics. It’s about racism and nationalism through and through. You can’t look at it with a rationalist lens or it can’t make sense. The issue is the dilution of a perceived whiteness of the American identity being threatened by non-white immigration. It doesn’t matter why the Korean workers were here or how tenuous or nonexistent the immigration violation claims were. It matters they weren’t white.

For proof, which hasn’t been particularly hidden, see the extreme efforts to create a false narrative (including the president confronting a foreign leader with photographs from a completely different country) of white persecution in South Africa and a recalibration of refugee program to prioritize white South Africans. It’s the whole “reverse discrimination” malarkey (as if discrimination is structurally one way) playing out with fabrication and lies since they couldn’t find real facts. A rationalist argument can’t be found, because it’s not rational - it’s just racist nationalism.

This is going to be remembered in history globally as one of the embarrassing low points that beggars the question of American moral standing , which is likewise a fallacious tu quoque argument. What’s going on ignores the fact the founding fathers were enlightenment liberal humanists of the extreme degree, and while creatures of their time, endeavored hard to establish a construct in the constitution and bill of rights a system that will eventually and stably arrive at an ideal liberal humanist society. They recognized with pretty clear sightedness their own imperfections in this regard and recognized society changes slowly, but believed the constitution and bill of rights would make the change inexorable. I for one agree after studying it for some time. This means this aberration we see today, which is reminiscent of Sulla’s attack on the Roman republic, was well planned for an accounted for. They knew clearly and better than we do the natural tendency of man, and specifically corrupt ambitious racist theologists as their time was steeped in, and built a system that mean reverts always towards a liberal humanist outcome.

The question to my mind is will I live to see the damage undone and is my daughter equipped to right the ship in her life time.
by dinkumthinkum | 2025-09-11 05:13:20+00:00
But the problem is what you're saying doesn't follow. Charlie Kirk believed that abortion involves murdering a human being, violently, which it does. He believe in the rare circumstance of a pregnancy occurring from rape that the child is still innocent and should not be killed. That is explicitly advocating for life and non-violence, whether you agree with the premise or not. I think the left really has to reckon with something extremely important. As much as the left is pompous and pretends to be so much more "educated" that conservatives, they have a hard time following through positions logically, which is seems quite odd for supposed intellectual superiors.
by jjani | 2025-09-11 05:13:41+00:00
2 Minnesota lawmakers shot in politically motivated killings, governor says (cbc.ca) 102 points by awnird 88 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 19 comments

Interesting to see the 100x(!) attention that this gets on HN, likely representative of similar media reach on more mainstream channels, when it's not even lawmakers in this case.
by tfourb | 2025-09-11 05:14:14+00:00
Why? There are tons of reports of individuals getting stuck in detention for weeks for extremely minor or even no actual immigration offenses. I’ve traveled extensively across africa including some pretty shady countries and I now feel that I have to put the US in the same bucket: avoid, if not absolutely necessary, due to risks outside of my own control.

I mean, there’s literally hundreds of countries, why would I go somewhere with the risk of being arbitrarily detained, if I can help it at all?
by zkmon | 2025-09-11 05:14:44+00:00
The screen culture is forced upon by perception goals. I cringe when I look at large screens all over my office, which are there only to create a perception, with zero information or usefulness. Sort of jewellery for an establishment. A cheap way to look modern. But it consumes power and creates global warming for nothing.

It happens when you give a contract to someone to modernize the place. They throw a bunch of screens and meaningless sculptures (aka artwork), wierd-shaped structures, with random text in large font, around and fulfill the metrics for modern-ness. They just deliver on their customer's wish to see things to be quite different from earlier state. How that difference makes sense, doesn't matter. Delivery done, transaction completed.

We are chasing change. Change is seen as accomplishment. Big bosses keep shuffling their org very often. Not really to optimize, but to show that they did something, and to show their power. Weirdness also qualifies as a good thing, because it is a change. No wonder TV ads and content promote as much weirdness as allowed.
by 14 | 2025-09-11 05:15:35+00:00
I do see there undoubtedly is a lot of crazy policing happening but I also am sure a lot of it is because those types of incidents are what get the views. I know there are countless police interactions where they are kind and chill but that is boring to watch. Not saying the violence should get a pass just that I believe there are many good officers out there that do address issues calmly and are not quick to jump someone.
by k310 | 2025-09-11 05:15:46+00:00
And we all pay for it. I am so damn tired of CAPTCHAS that I could scream. I just don’t go to sites behind the “crosswalk and motorcycle” wall. Sometimes, it’s only the checkmark, but I am not in the least automated to solve these, whereas, many bots may be.

The web is ruined. Sites are passing the buck. Cloudflare seems to be the de-facto internet any more.
by CSMastermind | 2025-09-11 05:16:23+00:00
> Seems like you have to look pretty hard to find it.

Here's a list of the top posts on Reddit in the last 24 hours:

Shooting at a Colorado school (More important than that other thing)

Charlie Kirk has just been shot

Charlie Kirk says gun deaths "unfortunately" worth it

If you preach hate, don’t be surprised when it finds you.

In an attempt to remove Banksy's art, the UK government has created a more iconic symbol of injustice in the UK.

Kirk once said gun violence is “part of liberty.”

Why do you think President Trump ordered all US Flags at half staff for the death of a Political Commentator, but not for the death of actual Legislators?

He died doing what he loved: trying to get other people killed

Bad Bunny Says He Didn’t Include U.S. in Tour Dates Due to Fear of ICE Raids

Ironic he dies in a school shooting.

Senate investigating Peter Thiel’s money ties to Epstein

“I think empathy is a made up New Age term that does a lot of damage” -Charlie Kirk
by orwin | 2025-09-11 05:16:49+00:00
To be clear: Hitler was not put in power by any election. Von Papen and Hindeberg, under advice from industry leaders, gave him power.

In fact, the Nazi party electoral results were down from the previous election. Both the socialist and communist party were up however, and so the men in power chose Hitler to change that. All of those were killed or politically neutered within 6 months, and honestly, they made their bed.
by bccdee | 2025-09-11 05:16:57+00:00
When you purchase a "carbon offset," you are paying someone not to emit carbon that they otherwise would have emitted. You're not getting rid of any actual emissions.

The current marginal cost of offsets is $50/person/year because nobody buys them. But if we all paid each other not to emit any carbon, what would the cars run on? Certainly you couldn't pay a person $50/year to stop using any transportation or power.

Offsets are a dead end.
by dave333 | 2025-09-11 05:17:19+00:00
Fabian Way is an office/industrial area near the major 101 freeway with wide streets and plenty of room for the RVs. Seems entirely reasonable to park RVs there. The surrounding office buildings have acres of empty parking lots. I can see if they stay a long time or are broken down and it becomes a shanty town that would be a problem, but given the problem of stupidly high rents pricing people out of homes, this seems a reasonable solution. City could lease an empty office building and allow cars/RVs in the parking lot with services like security, showers and social services in the office building.
by Woodi | 2025-09-11 05:17:34+00:00
One or two events do not change big system.

And US still needs to protect x86/MS as best NSA source :) There is even "intel" right in the name ! ;) Also business and best and cheap compute cpus. I guess they need a bit of help until some patents go off...

And do not forget foundry with "photonics" tech cooperating with military...

Lack of wild and dumb capitalism is not automatically socialism.

And belive me: socialism is the TRASH - replacing private ownership destroy value and sensibility of any action.
by quinncom | 2025-09-11 05:18:22+00:00
I get this error trying to connect the Mapbox hosted MCP server:

Something went wrong with setting up the connection

In the devtools, the request that failed was to `https://chatgpt.com/backend-api/aip/connectors/links/oauth/c...` which send this reply:

Token exchange failed: 401, message='Unauthorized', url=URL('https://api.mapbox.com/oauth/access_token')
by b0ringdeveloper | 2025-09-11 05:18:49+00:00
Would you say that some car deaths are OK in service of transportation or that we should lower the speed limit until there are 0 deaths from vehicle accidents?

Tradeoffs between rights and safety are always made. I interpret "some gun deaths are ok" as to mean that they are inherently dangerous, and that seeking 0 accidental deaths is too high of a standard for something to be allowed. And we don't hold other parts of daily life to this standard, like vehicles or medicine. If you want to get into degrees, that's fine, but a blanket shutdown on the sentence doesn't do that.
by Zacharias030 | 2025-09-11 05:19:07+00:00
While I get that this is how LLMs work, I think you should think backwards from the user / from what AI as a field is aiming for and recognize that the „naive“ way of the parent to ask for reliable responses no matter what the „context“ is, is exactly what a good AI system should offer.

„The context is the input“ betrays a misunderstanding of what (artificial) intelligence systems are aiming for.
by Ray20 | 2025-09-11 05:19:21+00:00
> Enemy of thy enemy.

Some enemies are more beneficial to left unattended. Realistically, there are almost no scenarios in which it would be advantageous for Korea to enter a war against China.

> We protect Korea from the Kims. We also buy from them and treat them with dignity

Still not worth a war with China.

> Break those pillars and yes, China controls Asia and the Pacific

Still not worth changing sides to China
by ironman1478 | 2025-09-11 05:19:49+00:00
What about if a person can't support their child at that time in their life and they don't have a support system to help them? the government doesn't make it easy to give a kid up for adoption and also doesn't make it easy to adopt kids. The kid will likely not have a good life, especially as the government cuts benefits. Is it really worth bringing a child into this world if you're setting them up to fail? Is that really the correct thing to do? Are you really being kind to the child by kicking it in the teeth from birth?

What if the birth will kill the mother? Is that not okay either?

It's not even political. You just follow the logic and you kind of have to support abortion. There isn't really a logical reason not to.

I actually believe the world is really messy and you have to have solutions that deal with the messiness. Being absolutist in any direction will never be right. Taking the extreme opposite position of mandated abortions is equally stupid and quite frankly as childish. It's surprising anybody on this site would defend something so illogical.

Also read this: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/16/what-actually-happens-w...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770
by prmoustache | 2025-09-11 05:20:05+00:00
"so that people can easily walk from store to store (similar to the experience of shopping inside a indoor mall), "

That is funny to read that, because indoor malls were meant to replicate the experience of shopping in a commercial area in a city, not the opposite.

It actually failed though. I feel terrible, sleepy and only want to get out after more than half an hour in these indoor malls. Probably something that has to do with artificial light and aircons.
by hulitu | 2025-09-11 05:20:12+00:00
> However, while I love the approach of having an immutable distribution, I don't see the attack vector of ransomware handled in a good way

The phylosophy of security in "modern" OSs is to protect the OS from the user. The user is evil and, given so many rights, it will destroy the (holy) OS. And, user data ? What user data ? /s
by _flux | 2025-09-11 05:20:55+00:00
I do have some complaints about the Jira web ui (in particular it seems finding correct issues can be difficult), though maybe nothing too severe.

For me the most useful thing would be a cli tool (not tui) to just add stories. This way I could just write a bunch of stories in a text file (..or an .org file..) with the conveniences of my editor and upload them. Seems jiratui actually comes with some cli tools as well, but it doesn't seem this is yet included, or it's not just documented yet. I'll give a shot to this..

Now I'm doing that by copypasting the entries from the file, one by one, to the fields in the web ui, and not all of the fields can be copy pasted, and then updating also the file to have the correct issue ids so I can use them for finding issues with e.g. grep. Naturally this will only work for my stories, and won't synchronize with changes made in Jira.
by thephyber | 2025-09-11 05:21:21+00:00
Dude, you need to take a pause and read up on this. It’s your civic duty to be informed and you are so very wrong about everything here.

Inciting violence is very different from defamation/libel.

No, lawmakers making false statements is not defamatory nor libelous. In fact, they have complete immunity while on the debate floor.

And defamation/libel have to be knowable false statements of fact which created demonstrable damage. Opinions can’t be defamatory. True statements can’t be defamatory. When Trump’s Chief of Staff, General Kelly, calls Trump a fascist and lists the definition of fascism and saying that he meets each one, that’s neither false nor inciting violence.

Maybe check your priors to see if you are more mad because people aren’t being prosecuted, or because what they are saying has truth to it.
by evermike | 2025-09-11 05:21:39+00:00
Let me try to share my story briefly.

None of my ventures ever came with guarantees. I started out working in an IT company, growing quickly in both salary and career, but I didn’t stay long — I soon decided to start something of my own. I was young, without a family or obligations, not yet used to the comfort of a steady job. It was easy to take risks, and I wanted responsibility.

I founded my first company making calls to clients from my car. Instead of an office, I sat in a small room with rags on the windows instead of curtains, cheap computers, and desks that looked more like school tables. I was the manager and the HTML coder, the recruiter and the cleaner — finding projects, fixing mistakes, talking to clients, and handling all the operations. Looking back now, I smile — but it was completely irrational.

Later, when the company was doing well with outsourcing and even serving a large public client, we made another “irrational” decision. We handed a big, profitable project over to their in-house team and switched to building our own product. People thought we were crazy. But we were burned out. We wanted to create something of our own, even if it meant working harder. There was a certain romance in that, and a belief in ourselves. I still remember how we celebrated our first $50 product sale more than a $50k invoice from an outsourcing client. Strange, right?

The product grew — not quickly, but it did. And when growth stopped, we tried again. Another product, and another. If it was interesting, we continued. If not, we shut it down or simply moved on. Each new start was slower and harder!

But the important nuance is that we always had some buffer. We started our first company while still employed, only leaving once we had our first client (for 1–2 months we worked two jobs). We switched to our product only after it could at least cover the minimum salaries (working in parallel for 6–12 months). We launched new products only when the main one could support us, when we could reinvest profits, and when our personal lives were at least somewhat stable. We worked hard, but we always tried to keep a margin of safety. Living in a car was never on the table — worst case, we could always go back to a job or take another outsourcing project. There is a right time for everything.

I’m not giving advice — just sharing my own path. Even now, when something doesn’t work out, I look for the next idea to keep myself busy and moving. I always try to hedge risks with something new, rather than stagnating in one place.
by kashunstva | 2025-09-11 05:22:40+00:00
> It sounds like more of a loaded question than a problematic answer.

I honestly don’t know what the actual factual answer to the question is. 1? 2? But the question warranted an answer, even if it was “I don’t know.” Given that the answer to many questions about mass shooting, specific or otherwise, is “too many,” the answer he gave offered no factual data. Maybe he was prepared to offer something more fact-based and nuanced. But to me the answer he gave comes off as dismissive, lacking in additional data, and possibly ideologically-motivated.

I imagine the question was posed because many in the community adjacent to Kirk are looking for an excuse to see trans people further isolated and stripped of their rights. Forcing the debate - if we can call it that - into the world of facts doesn’t seem problematic to me.
by defrost | 2025-09-11 05:23:46+00:00
First thoughts, having never been aware of this whole "20 X Vs 1 of Y" Jubilee format before are that;

* this seems highly contrived, and

* "Now Casting 55+ year old Trump supporters for an upcoming SURROUNDED video" (on the home page)

supports that notion.

This isn't the format of Buckley V. Vidal (perhaps the start of the end of intellectual debate in the US) and nor is it a debate in the sense of equal time, three rounds (case, defense, conclusion), etc.

I've moved on to looking at:

The Problem with Jubilee’s Political Debate Videos - https://fhspost.com/10276/forum/the-problem-with-jubilees-po...

The ‘one voice against 20 extremists’ format is designed to monetise hate - https://observer.co.uk/news/opinion-and-ideas/article/the-on...

which at a first rapid skim appear to flesh out many of the initial issues and feelings that I have.

Right now I have hedges to trim and a roof to tin so it'll be many hours before I can watch an hour and half contrived 'battle' and take notes .. but I will give it a shot.

Thanks for the link.
by bitwize | 2025-09-11 05:25:13+00:00
Again. This is a thing the xorg devs have already looked at. Their conclusion? "Nope. Too much work. Just use Wayland."

Once again, every... last... one of the Xorg devs is of the opinion that you should be using Wayland instead. Even if you had changes to propose to Xorg, they will not make it into a release. If you insist on soldiering on with X, your best bet is probably to contribute to Wayback, likely to be the only supported X11 display server in the near future, and see if you can add a protocol to the compositor to allow "overlay" of an HDR image displayed using Wayland "on top of" an X window that wants to do HDR.

But really, consider switching to Wayland.
by thephyber | 2025-09-11 05:25:20+00:00
No, Kirk used the same debate bro tactics about people who were very informed and nuanced about the biological facts. Forest Valkai has explained this ad nauseum.

Kirk was bad faith because he tried to distill a complicated, nuanced argument into TikTok clips.

He ran into plenty of college students who tried the thing you described, but he was equally dismissive of the people who knew more than him on the subject.
by Sohcahtoa82 | 2025-09-11 05:26:31+00:00
I've watched Charlie Kirk debate. He's an absolutely awful debater.

First off, he chooses his opponents. He's going up against college students, often unprepared ones. He never goes up against people with experience.

Secondly, he's the absolute KING of gish galloping [0]. If someone ever actually starts getting an upper-hand, he just resorts to spewing a non-stop tirade of bullshit. He'll ask 10 questions and then interrupt them after they've only answered one, just to go off on more bullshit. The problem is, people who don't know shit about debate thinks that's winning.

So yes, his style hurts the national dialogue.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
by privatelypublic | 2025-09-11 05:26:35+00:00
They aren't "always on." Unless you very disingenuously consider The Clapper to be an "always on microphone system."

Honestly, the largest issue is the false activations having too large a buffer.

Advertising these days is insane. I google mattress firm address on my phone... two weeks later a VM exclusively used for gaming opens a wiki.gg page I left in Steam overly... and promptly shows a Mattress firm ad. On the only browser I have without adblock.
by wewtyflakes | 2025-09-11 05:26:40+00:00
This is not what I was calling out. You made a bad-faith strawman argument, stating something of which I think you knew would be _not_ what the other poster intended (i.e. "I'm glad you agree with me..."). Your point would have been better made if it was posed like "What do you think of redistricting in Illinois and Massachusetts?" That would have stood on its own.
by TFYS | 2025-09-11 05:27:36+00:00
> Wealth inequality isn't great but the existence of wealthy people in successful countries helps fund service for the entire population.

I think it does the opposite. Those services were mostly built during the last century after the war when conditions were just right for people to get those policies implemented. Since then the wealthy have mostly been lobbying against those services, dodging taxes, spreading propaganda justifying the inequality, etc. Now we're seeing the results of this work by the wealthy.

I also think it's wrong to assume the wealthy are the creators of that wealth just because they have it. It can also be the result of using positions of power to get a larger share of a pie baked by a lot of people.
by exodust | 2025-09-11 05:28:28+00:00
My 2 cents from Australia. At the very least he encouraged debate, and motivated others to challenge and vigorously discuss ideas, data, history, politics and perspectives. That's healthy, not dangerous. We're meant to defend the right of such activities.

I didn't agree with his religious convictions that underpin much of his arguments, but that's because I'm not religious. He presented other arguments on various social issues that sounded sensible. He also respected anyone who fronted his events, listening & engaging intellectually in a civil manner.

Apparently his last word spoken was "violence" (unconfirmed). Anyone celebrating his death is an extremist, and if that turns out to be a lot of people, then we have a bigger extremism problem than people care to admit. How to fix that? We need more bipartisan condemnation and unity across the floor - in my country too. Sounds like they couldn't even agree on a moment of silence without a shouting match. The division is fuel for extremism.