MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by shevy-java | 2025-10-06 16:12:19+00:00
Agreed. There is a lot of conflation of statements that are not directly connected.

The whole DHH argument, for instance, as well as some people having a vendetta about him, is not, or not directly, related to the hostile take-over of rubygems.org. There is a slight partial overlap, but it is a separate discussion (even if DHH was involved with the take-over via Shopify because he does not like Arko or Shopify wanting more power-control to bully the independent developers at rubygems.org with more corporate rules and restrictions; and, by the way, DHH never mentions Arko's name, but even this is a separate discussion still. For instance I specifically do not care about rails nor DHH really, but the hostile take-over was a complete no-go. Ruby Central really pissed off too many people here and unfortunately there are still many open questions that ruby-core has to think about. I am not necessarily saying all came with malicious intent, because I think there is an english language barrier too in regards to Hiroshi Shibata, but even then it may be better to have someone with better knowledge about the english language in charge of gems; there seems to be some strange disconnect or translation going on between english, into japanese and japanese culture, and it is super-confusing.)
by swatson741 | 2025-10-06 16:12:41+00:00
You're right `virtmach` only works on things that are output from `compile` and maintaining the invariant that virtmach lisp uses those pointers isn't difficult to do in with how the evaluator is presented.

It gives virtmach lisp and scheme different ontology, but I can't think of any practical reason why that would matter other than it makes things a little bit more complicated. But, then again if I'm thinking practically scheme should be using hashed identifiers, and then there's no reason for them to have different ontology and conceptually we're right back where we started with virtmach lisp and scheme using identifiers as objects.
by nomdep | 2025-10-06 16:13:14+00:00
> When Ruby Together first launched in 2015, the website suggested donations went to pay "our team" (...) This resulted in a nonzero number of donors believing they were funding the work of people like Steve Klabnik, Aaron Patterson, and Sarah Mei, when in fact only Andre was being paid at the time.

This a fact. By this alone I don't think Andre Arko is an honest person.
by jerf | 2025-10-06 16:13:16+00:00
You have put your finger on the AI bubble's biggest problem right now. Companies are making promises that they are currently completely incapable of fulfilling, in the hopes that someday they can, and the stock market are valuating these promises as done deals.

Predicting the end of bubbles is well known to be a fool's errand, but if this AI bubble is still going in a year I can only imagine how casually these companies will have to be throwing around multi-trillion dollar promises to each other to keep the stocks pumped up.
by gjsman-1000 | 2025-10-06 16:13:16+00:00
I get that opinion, but it's the same utopian view that if Apple doesn't ban the app, it will somehow allow us to defy the government.

This is delusional - the government can easily attack the server, and arrest the people who operate it, using any obscure law from 1790 that does the job. They did it to Silk Road, they did it to The Pirate Bay, they can do it to ICEBlock. Removing it from Apple is just the asking nicely method that doesn't require putting the creator behind bars on a technicality.

The power dynamics for technical solutions are "you can resist the government insofar as the government allows," here and everywhere, and always will be. The solution is not better technical solutions, better band-aids on a severed limb, but better government.

> If Apple didn't have such a closed walled-gardrn, they'd be unable to do it even if they wanted to; even if an authotarian regime demanded it.

If we truly lived under an authoritarian regime, 90% of phones could be open source, and they would still have no qualms about kicking you off the cellular network until you purchased an approved device. No technological solution can truly resist a determined authoritarian regime. Control the infrastructure, control the border letting hardware in, control the manufacturing processes, and who cares about the devices subject to it?
by ajross | 2025-10-06 16:13:25+00:00
> Are they limiting their raids to be within 'blue' states / districts to minimise the collateral damage their reputation may receive from those sympathetic to this cause?

As of right now, it's pure agitation. They're pointing the guns into protest zones (not "blue states" really, though that's obviously where they concentrate) hoping things get out of control. At that stage, it becomes easier to paint political enemies as military ones. And you'll start seeing the use of state power against sitting legislators and judges, etc...

You can't dismantle democracy all at once. The military[1] won't follow those orders[2]. But if you create a culture where "antifa" or whoever is actually shooting stuff and blowing things up, the moral calculus becomes an easier sell. They aren't "doing a coup" by ejecting the governor of Washington State (or whatever), they're just defending America.

[1] At the end of the day, remember that authoritarianism is always executed by the military. The figurehead may come from somewhere else originally (like New York real estate development in this case), but when the regime is based on the use of force it is always run, ultimately, by the users of force.

[2] Because the military aren't MAGA, not yet. They're career officers who built careers in an existing bureaucracy and, all other things being equal, see value in that bureaucracy and don't want to tear it down.
by madeofpalk | 2025-10-06 16:13:51+00:00
> that also argues to neuter government power

The article states that the government did not have this power to begin with!

> Apple insists that it is only complying with lawful orders, which is patently untrue. Pam Bondi has no authority to order the censorship of this legal speech tool, which is likely why she didn't seek a court order and instead merely rage-tweeted about it. This was sufficient to get Apple CEO Tim Cook [...] to cave in.
by bko | 2025-10-06 16:14:03+00:00
> One person said the device would be “always on” rather than triggered by a word or prompt. The device’s sensors would gather data throughout the day that would help to build its virtual assistant’s “memory.”

That sounds like a terrible idea.

It's hard to say, but I like to think that something like the iPhone always sounded like a good idea. Basically, the entire web in your pocket. Check football scores while you're on the john, text someone instead of calling, GPS, etc. There were some unknowns, like can we get touch screen to work well enough, will people pay $600 for a phone when typical phones cost $100-200 at the time. But the product itself was obviously good.

But this is some puck that records everything and periodically chimes in? Sounds awful. What problem is this trying to solve? iPhone solved the problem of camera, entertainment and phone in one device. Is anyone walking around thinking gee I wish I had some AI talk to me right now but I don't want to press a button?
by jonahx | 2025-10-06 16:14:14+00:00
Agree the phenomenon you describe is pervasive, though I don't see it as mutually exclusive with social cooling.

I see them working together. If everyone is privately living in different fiefdoms of homogenous thought, you never know what crazy true believer you're going to run into. Every "normal" belief might be hated by someone, somewhere. The risk-averse strategy is to stop sharing everything but the anodyne.
by hobs | 2025-10-06 16:14:24+00:00
Try running it with JS disabled, - here's the actual header:

JavaScript is currently disabled.Please enable it for a better experience of Jumi. JavaScript is currently disabled.Please enable it for a better experience of Jumi. JavaScript is currently disabled.Please enable it for a better experience of Jumi. JavaScript is currently disabled.Please enable it for a better experience of Jumi. JavaScript is currently disabled.Please enable it for a better experience of Jumi. JavaScript is currently disabled.Please enable it for a better experience of Jumi. JavaScript is currently disabled.Please enable it for a better experience of Jumi. JavaScript is currently disabled.Please enable it for a better experience of Jumi. Annonsera ⏚ Utgivningsplan ⏚ Månadsmagasinet ⏚ Prenumerera⏚ Konsultguide ⏚ Om oss ⏚ About / Advertise JavaScript is currently disabled.Please enable it for a better experience of Jumi.
by smileysteve | 2025-10-06 16:14:29+00:00
Only from a refueling (and battery heat) perspective though...

The majority of the lemans (or any endurance race) challenge is not from the electric drivetrain (or regenerative braking) but from the ice drivetrain and friction braking. This is reinforced by the ease that WEC and IMSA have had in implementing electric hybrid drivetrains with relative ease over the last 10 years (by most measurements making the endurance more achievable).
by LunaSea | 2025-10-06 16:14:40+00:00
Iceland has massive volcanoes and a small population.

Norway has lots of hydropower and a a small population.

Not super familiar with Albania but they seem to be in the same situation as Norway.

France already implemented hydropower wherever it was possible years ago, so that's not an option.

Also France seems to have pretty much the same CO2 / kWh than Norway.
by Herring | 2025-10-06 16:15:04+00:00
I don't like putting the blame on a "plan". Democracy is about a kind of equality among people, and the US has had a strong anti-democratic strain since slavery. Probably even feudalism before that. Once you see it, you see it everywhere and can't unsee it. There's a reason Trump's best polling issue is immigration

https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-sil...
by 1-more | 2025-10-06 16:15:16+00:00
Jorge Luis Borges would agree with you, as he articulates in this interview with fellow native Spanish speaker William F. Buckley (starts at about 17:15 in case the timestamp disappears)

https://youtu.be/bNxzQSheCkc?si=LK_ZyRpBQjTvx7Av&t=1035
by bigyabai | 2025-10-06 16:15:24+00:00
We, the people, cannot regulate NSA activities we never knew about. We couldn't protest Apple and Google's warrantless Push Notification system until Wyden blew the whistle on it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...

You cannot ever expect any company to have a backbone, but you also can't expect the government to be perfectly honest. The real culprit is our software habits, and companies are the main driver in neutering your software freedom.
by johnnyanmac | 2025-10-06 16:15:28+00:00
>and if local or state police weren't effective enough, they would welcome federal police.

I don't think anyone wants a timeline where tanks are patrolling the roads. There's a reason our military outside the national guard doesn't focus on domestic action unless there's a dire emergency.

>They see some dude with a criminal record and face tattoos and think "this person probably shouldn't be in our country". You could disagree but this is the normie take.

The US doesn't exile people. Pretty sure that's illegal and it makes no sense anyway. Who's going to take in a legal US Citizen who does not want to leave the country? People's feelings do not supercede the law of the land.

>A lot of people in a big city just see filth and people sleeping on the street and are annoyed that things have gotten like this.

clearly not annoyed enough to figure out why things got like this as they keep pushing for zoning laws and defunding shelters.
by andrewclunn | 2025-10-06 16:15:31+00:00
I used to think we could argue that, "If we allow our team to do this, then what happens when the other team has power" But at this point I think there's an agreed view that the "other team" is going to abuse and grab for power regardless, so it's only hurting your own agenda / values / team not to when you are in charge. There's no restraint anymore, and most people raging against authoritarianism do so in partisan selective ways. Guess I should just laugh and enjoy the decline. Either way, technology can be used to force decentralization, but tech companies? Not anymore (if ever).
by lapcat | 2025-10-06 16:15:53+00:00
Or:

4. Apple is simply lying.

The reality is that Apple has a corrupt financial relationship with the administration, involving both carrots and sticks. Billions of dollars are at stake. Trump can offer Apple exemption from tariffs, protection from regulation and regulatory action (for example, labor laws), threats to the EU to protect Apple from DMA fines, massive corporate tax cuts, etc. Trump can also punish Apple in various ways that we've seen him punish others.

The underlying issue has nothing specifically to do with ICEBlock. The administration wanted to get rid of the app, and Apple did them a favor, helping to preserve Apple's overall financial interests.
by mindcrime | 2025-10-06 16:16:06+00:00
The early history of AI/cybernetics seems poorly documented.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "documented". If you're talking about a historical retrospective, written after the fact by a documentarian / historian, then you're probably correct.

But in terms of primary sources, I'd say it's fairly well documented. A lot of the original documents related to the earlier days of AI are readily available[1]. And there are at least a few books from years ago that provide a sort of overview of the field at that moment in time. In aggregate, they provide at least a moderate coverage of the history of the field.

Consider also that the term "History of Artificial Inteligence" has its own Wikipedia page[2] which strikes me as reasonably comprehensive.

[1]: Here I refer to things like MIT CSAIL "AI Memo series"[3] and related[4][5], the Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on AI[6], the CMU AI Repository[7], etc.

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_artificial_intellig...

[3]: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/5460/browse?type=dateis...

[4]: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/39813

[5]: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/5461

[6]: https://www.ijcai.org/all_proceedings

[7]: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/rep_info/intro.html
by johnmaguire | 2025-10-06 16:16:10+00:00
> My initial argument stands: the fury over the Zarutska case was about the perceived attempt to downplay a narrative that made "their side" look bad. The media's visible selectivity is precisely why people are driven to "untrustworthy" sources in the first place.

Your initial argument was actually:

> Another alternative could be similar to what happened in the US with Iryna Zarutska: whereby because it might inflame racial tensions and divisions it is intentionally downplayed.

> Iryna Zarutska’s murder was objectively newsworthy for reasons that go beyond the sheer volume of U.S. homicides

I agree with your new argument - that was indeed what the fury was over ("the perceived attempt to downplay a narrative".) The disagreement was over whether there was an actual (coordinated?) attempt to downplay a narrative.
by belZaah | 2025-10-06 16:16:11+00:00
True, AI moves the problem somewhere else. But I’m not sure the new problems are actually easier to solve in the long run.

I’m a reasonable developer with 30+ years of experience. Recently I worked on an API design project and had to generate a mock implementation based on a full openapi spec. Exactly what Copilot would be good at. No amount of prompting could make it generate a fully functional spring-boot project doing both the mock api and present the spec at a url at the same time. Yet it did a very neat job at just the mock for a simpler version of the same api a few weeks prior. Go figure.
by bawolff | 2025-10-06 16:16:48+00:00
> Last time I tried this I couldn’t even find an iOS client that supported reactions. Hate on the complexity of Matrix all you like, but at least when you ask your family to use it, they get a modern experience and don’t feel like they’re giving up everything vs every other messenger they are used to.

Now if only it actually worked consistently and reliably.

I'm not being snarky, the app is flakey as hell. Reactions are nice and all but pointless if they don't have the send a message part down.
by ajross | 2025-10-06 16:16:49+00:00
Once more, the claim to which I responded was that kids today are consensus-bound/risk-averse because of the threat of surveillance. Saying that they "love" the party doing the surveillance isn't responsive (if anything it argues against the point).

Once more: kids are assholes. More so now than they used to be. Threatening to surveil them, via TikTok or not, does nothing but piss them off.

The kids are fine, basically. The point is just wrong.
by daveguy | 2025-10-06 16:17:00+00:00
Just for reference. Here is the full list of completed and in-progress commands from the toybox website:

https://landley.net/toybox/status.html

And here is the list of the Linux standard core commands (toybox covers more than this):

https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Core-gene...
by sporkland | 2025-10-06 16:17:10+00:00
As someone that has influenced company politics as an independent contributor (non-manager) repeatedly, I find you have to go through a lifecycle: 1. When you first join you need to show you can actually accomplish things, likely through code contributions / launching something. 2. After you do that you start becoming part of conversations and can start influencing directly. The key here is problem identification and bringing useful independent data. Whether we like it or not managers have built in leadership authority, IC's have to establish it by above, so usually the leadership group is dominated by managers, but if you can bring useful technical data / solutions and become a "voice of the people" if you will that lets managers not have to dig in and solve every problem you will start influencing politics.

Where I see a lot of folks fall down:

1. Focus on problems that aren't attached to either important issues: tabs vs spaces isn't gonna sink the company. If you start getting triggered about a technical thing and can't explain the impact in terms of availability, cost, productivity you'll quickly get tuned out. That isn't to say the work isn't important, it's just not workable at the political level, you just gotta fix it through influence with other IC's.

2. Inability to explain how the problem is attached to important issues: Similar to above, even if it's a real problem the ability to craft a narrative so the managers and other leaders can connect it up to real value that they'll see.

3. Discomfort with taking risks: No important problem / political problem is without risks / gaps, either in terms of timeline, impact, decision paralysis (as there are truly multiple ways to skin a cat). If you need 100% certainty to kick into gear it'll be hard to influence at the top levels as it often requires taking decisions and the inherent risks involved in signing up for those outcomes.
by 0points | 2025-10-06 16:17:34+00:00
Daniel Stenberg has been vocal about AI generated patches in the past, and it's interesting to see him changing course here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38845878

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43907376

https://media.ccc.de/v/froscon2025-3407-ai_slop_attacks_on_t...
by shevy-java | 2025-10-06 16:17:50+00:00
I could be wrong but it may be that some have an additional agenda to try to make e. g. competition to Ruby Central fail. You can see this on ruby-reddit, e. g. by u/f9ae8221b - either way I think the by far best strategy for gem.coop is to address all concerns and statements made, including the wrong ones. Simply be better than rubygems.org - everywhere. (Also, u/f9ae8221b is super-impatient; why can't he wait for a while? Rome was not built in a day, it is strange how he thinks to know the future. I don't know the future - let's wait and see. In the worst case gem.coop will fail; in the best case it'll fix numerous issues, including, by the way, gem/bundler not having had the same functionality. And namespacing too; and inactive accounts, and so on, and so forth. There is a ton of things to do.)
by SCHiM | 2025-10-06 16:18:39+00:00
> Your company can scream to anyone that listens that all the competition is AI SLOP, but when hundreds of companies are pitching the same solution, your one voice will get lost.

If you cannot out compete "AI SLOP" on merit over time (uptime? accuracy? dataloss?), then the AI SLOP is not actually sloppy...

If your runway runs out before you can prove your merit over that timeframe, but you are convinced that the AI is slop, then you should ship the slop first and pivot onec you get $$ but before you get overwhelmed with tech depth.

Personally, I love that I can finally out compete companies with reams of developer teams. Unlike many posters here, I was limited by the time (and mental space) it takes to do the actual writing.
by spwa4 | 2025-10-06 16:19:19+00:00
What about the secondary effects of AI? I mean, now large-scale data gathering on your company simply by recording glasses + having AI transcribe the whole thing is possible. Hell, with modern cell phones you could do it live.

And the first product that lets a cell phone control keyboard and mouse sending camera to ChatGPT, having ChatGPT do all the work is not far off either.

Presumably both of these would violate your ... policies something awful. I should say will violate all your policies, because we both know this is going to happen.

You have no way of preventing both of these from occurring with IT policy.
by amflare | 2025-10-06 16:21:14+00:00
I suspect that they are trying to recreate the experience of bumping into someone they know. Since the destruction of third-spaces, it is increasingly unlikely that you'll serendipitously interact with someone in an unplanned, but welcome, social environment. Leaving your location on for friends and family in this way signals something close to "If you see me, say hi". Whereas announcing "I will be at X for Y time" is a bit more heavy handed. And just knowing that isn't sufficient to actually act on the information, you still have to reach out and plan something unless you are an granular as the actual building you are in, which feels weird. It feels a little intrusive to constantly be announcing my location. Like "Hey! Hey! obk0943t! I'm gonna be in NYC just so you know!" If I just left my location on, then /if/ you care, you can find out. But if you don't, you are not interrupted with the information. Finally, posting leaves a record, whereas location sharing is always "right now". Sure, someone can use that to construct a timeline, but that takes effort on their part (and possibly malice).