MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by alephnerd | 2025-10-05 05:24:00+00:00
The US-India relation is still continuing - especially in the defense space - but mutual domestic political interests make it difficult for a deal to go thru.

It also doesn't help that India's ONGC [0] and ExxonMobil [1] are competing for the same oil project in Russia (Sakhalin-1), which is what lead to the US-India tiff over Russian oil.

That said, recent Trump diktats like the 100% tariff on foreign branded pharmaceuticals while excluding generics have been viewed positively within India [2], as it hurts European competitors and makes the India-EFTA (read: Switzerland) FTA even more competitive to bring manufacturing capacity to India. Same with the recent H1B ruling, which while unpopular amongst middle class Indians, is viewed positively by Indian policymakers as forcing a reverse brain drain [3] and incentivizing GCCs [4].

India is also trying to give concessions to ExxonMobil in Indian LNG infra to remove the blocker [5]. This also helps India negotiate the FTA with Qatar [6] because Qatar's LNG is extracted and exported through Qatar-Exxon JVs [7]

That said, Grassley and Iowa republicans remain a blocker [8][9] because they want to export soybean and dairy to India becuase they are now shut out of the Chinese market because of Trump (which has made Iowa's gubernatorial election much more competitive), which is a huge red line for India. Same with dairy in Wisconsin and the Indian market.

[0] - https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/exclusive-indias-ongc-...

[1] - https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/exxon-rosneft-russia...

[2] - https://www.biospectrumindia.com/news/16/26737/will-100-tari...

[3] - https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/india/us-loss-will-be-indi...

[4] - https://www.reuters.com/world/india/trump-visa-curbs-push-us...

[5] - https://www.livemint.com/news/exxonmobil-chevron-lng-india-g...

[6] - https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-likely-finalise-qa...

[7] - https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/locations/qatar/economic-de...

[8] - https://governor.iowa.gov/press-release/2025-09-16/gov-reyno...

[9] - https://www.thegazette.com/agriculture/grassley-iowa-soybean...
by dhruvilmehta26 | 2025-10-05 05:24:47+00:00
Location: Los Angeles, US Remote: Any Willing to relocate: Yes Technologies: Java, JavaScript, TypeScript, C++, Python, Rust, SQL, Next.js, React.js, Node.js, REST API, WebRTC, GraphQL, Git, GitHub, AWS, Docker, Kubernetes, Redis, Nginx, MongoDB, MySQL, PostgreSQL, TimescaleDB Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dxj_wofOZTC9OxvzvdoOu9O9tg0... LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dhruvil-mehta-1348651b6/ Email: dhruvilmehta@csu.fullerton.edu
by locopati | 2025-10-05 05:24:50+00:00
i can't speak for groups, only myself. if we had ever seen police restraint via civilian oversight boards or had ever seen a pattern of behavior that would let us trust police, that would be one thing. but we haven't and they resist oversight.

combine that with a federal government that increasingly says police can do whatever they want and the 1st, 4th, 6th, and 8th amendments don't apply equally anymore.

so, no, i don't think police should have access to incredible levels of surveillance or military-grade hardware.
by imiric | 2025-10-05 05:25:57+00:00
A clickbait, and wrong, title, for an otherwise interesting article. I could do without the cutesy tone and anime, though.

You shouldn't parse HTML with regex. XML and strict XHTML are a different matter, since their structure is more strictly defined. The article even mentions this.

The issue is not that you can't do this. Of course you can. The issue is that any attempt will lead to a false sense of confidence, and an unmaintainable mess. The parsing might work for the specific documents you're testing with, but will inevitably fail when parsing other documents. I.e. a generalized HTML parser with regex alone is a fool's errand. Parsing a subset of HTML from documents you control using regex is certainly possible, and could work in a pinch, as the article proves.

Sidenote: it's a damn shame that XHTML didn't gain traction. Browsers being permissive about parsing broken HTML has caused so much confusion and unexpected behaviour over the years. The web would've been a much better place if it used strict markup. TBL was right, and browser vendors should have listened. It would've made their work much easier anyway, as I can only imagine the ungodly amount of quirks and edge cases a modern HTML parser must support.
by jfil | 2025-10-05 05:27:22+00:00
You will always carve out time for yourself – ego and selfishness are so powerful. That’s why you must force yourself to do something nice with – and for – others.

I feel this acutely as someone who has niche interests and the ability to dive deep into them. I could spend all my time alone, curl up into myself, like some sort of autistic auroborous.

So, quite frequently, I have to interrupt my own work. To turn from the computer and listen to my daughter explain how she got stickers for making it a quarter of the way to “100 books read this year”. To look at the circular rhinestones, glitter hearts, and rhinestone butterflies (!?) arranged around the number twenty five. And to answer the fateful question: “Which one do you like the most?” It feels wrenching – to interrupt the flow, to break the experiment, to sever my line of thought.

I am so goddamned privileged. I have been pushed along by an unbroken line of survivors, smart-alecs and hustlers – and I’m lying there making splashing sounds, saying “Look how far I’ve come! I must be an Olympic swimmer!” My parents spirited me away from two countries that aggressively turning their men into mincemeat and soiling their souls with war crimes. Every day, I have to remind myself that I am a faintly ridiculous man. A man who has not chiseled from rock, or carved wood, or moved a couch under his own strength.

Ironically, the best way to grow as an individual is to tear away from what you want to do – to force yourself to be fully present with friends, family, even strangers. To look beyond your interests and obsessions. And maybe, through grudging practice, to enlarge your soul.

And once you have broken away from your own narrow interests, you’ll be rewarded with a wider field of vision. Insight into others’ worlds and others’ challenges you never knew existed. A world of curiosity.

There’ll always be something more that you can do for yourself. It’s possible to live a whole life that way – believing that you are the protagonist of the whole story. The whole thing! But my oh my, what a circumscribed story that would be…
by scuff3d | 2025-10-05 05:27:35+00:00
Thank you for the thoughtful reply, but I think you missed my point.

I'm not saying Rust isn't substantially safer than C. When people like Greg Kroah-Hartman say that Rust by its design eliminates a lot of the memory bugs he's been fighting for 40 years, I believe him.

My point is that people tend to talk about it as an all or nothing proposition. That Rust is memory safe. Period. And any language that can't put that on the tin is immediately disqualified, that somehow their approach to solving similar problems is invalid.

By the very nature of the system no language that wants to interact with the hardware can be entirely memory safe, not even Rust. It has chosen a specific solution, and a pretty damn interesting one as far as that goes, but it still has to deal with unsafe. And the more directly your program has to deal with the hardware the more unsafe code it's going to have to deal with.

Zig has also chosen an approach to deal with the problem. Their's is one that gives far more direct control to the programmer. Every single memory allocation is explicit in that you have to directly interact with an allocator and you have to free that memory. It's not hidden behind constructors/destructors and controlled via RAII patterns (side note, there are managed data structures that you give an allocator to via an init and free via a deinit, but you still have to pass in the allocator and those are being largely replaced).

If you are only dealing with problems where you can interact with Rust's abstractions I'm sure it is more safe then Zig, but I don't think it's as big a difference as people think. And when you start digging down into systems level programming where the amount of unsafe code you have to write grows, Rusts advantage starts to diminish significantly.

To my point about Rust not wanting you to think about memory, take Vector as an example. You and I know that's doing heap allocations, but I guarantee you a not insignificant number of Rust devs just don't even think about it. And they certainly don't think about all the allocations/deallocations that have to happen to grow and shrink it dynamically.

Compare that to Zigs ArrayList. When you create it you have to explicitly hand it an allocator you created. It could be a general purpose allocator, but it could just as easily be an arena allocator, or even an allocator backed by a buffer you pre-allocated specifically for it. As the programmer you have to directly deal with the fact that thing allocats and deallocates.

Thats what I mean when I say Rust has more in common with GC languages in some ways. When I type "new" in Java I know I'm heap allocating a new object, just Java doesn't want me to think about that because the GC will deal with it. When you create a vector in Rust, it doesn't want you to think about the memory, it just wants you to follow it's borrow checker rules. Which is very different then thinking about allocation/deallocation patterns.
by MarkMarine | 2025-10-05 05:28:12+00:00
I’m dumb about it. I don’t have a scheme, I don’t have a hidden agenda, I don’t have ulterior motives… I’ve got what I think is great engineering (divorced from what the customer or business wants in the short term) and I just diligently try to make that happen. I’ve been doing this a long time and I’ve always got the long term health of the system (and fairness to the workers next to me ) in mind. I say the same thing to everyone, I’m open and honest, and I get wrecked every time I try to execute any strategy that doesn’t accidentally align with something a VP wants.

Ya’ll are so much better at this it’s scary. I can’t really read when I’m being lied to in the moment, I usually naively believe that support I’m getting is because my ideas are good, or that management has the same view of the collective good that I do.

I spent a while in the marines as an enlisted man, lower NCO. There is no politics and people next to you have to trust each other with their lives. I never really made the turn to what the world is outside of that, I’ve always struggled with it.

I learned not to try. Ya’ll can do politics. I’ll write one pagers and wait for my chances to make things better.
by bkettle | 2025-10-05 05:28:21+00:00
Do you mean 500Wh rather than 500kWh? 500 kWh would be around 10 EVs worth, and looks like it costs around 700k [0], but 500Wh seems to be a common size for portable power stations [1]

[0] https://www.backupbatterypower.com/products/516-kwh-industri...

[1] https://www.ankersolix.com/products/535?variant=497024349310...
by timschmidt | 2025-10-05 05:29:33+00:00
> For the same reason your Toyota Camry doesn't have a roll cage.

It does though. It's just been engineered integral to the unibody. And there are crumple zones, airbags, seat belts, ABS, emergency braking systems, collision sensors, and more layered defenses in addition.

No sane engineer would argue that removing these layers of defense would make the car safer.
by SJC_Hacker | 2025-10-05 05:30:44+00:00
I’m not sure what you mean by odds being manipulated. The bookmaker will generally adjust odds to where the money is being placed. Example, in American football if a team opens up as a 7 point favorite and betters put more money on the underdog than the favorite, the line gets smaller so more will take the favorite. Generally the opening line is what the book will think half the betters are willing to place on the favorite, and half on the underdog. Doesn’t always work out that way which is why you see lines move.

Also not sure what you mean by winners
by sprior | 2025-10-05 05:30:50+00:00
It came slightly after the IBM Portable PC (5155) which was released in 1984. That was a real luggable very similar to the Compaq. So I'd say the 5140 (which I've seen but never owned, I did think I was getting one once from a contest) was thought of as a luggable, but an improvement over what came before it.
by foxylad | 2025-10-05 05:31:00+00:00
This will kill open source. Anything of value will be derived and re-derived and re-re-derived by bad players until no-one knows which package or library to trust.

The fatal flaw of the open internet is that bad players can exploit with impunity. It happened with email, it happened with websites, it happened with search, and now it's happening with code. Greedy people spoil good things.
by Hamuko | 2025-10-05 05:31:27+00:00
You don’t need to even win to get banned (limited from making bets larger than a couple of dollars). You just need to make bets that look too smart and might result you winning in the future.

https://youtu.be/XZvXWVztJoY?t=667

Sports betting is just looking for chumps that have little to no chance of winning.
by colesantiago | 2025-10-05 05:31:55+00:00
> What about monetization?

> You certainly can try to find ways to monetize through platforms like Substack, it's truly up to you. The key is building a network of people who want to talk together!

Hmm. This is one of the reasons why this won't take off unless the blog is on Substack and people are making money out of it.

But then again power laws are brutal, which is why Substack has got good discovery, ordinary wordpress/ghost/jekyll/ssg websites and blogs with RSS don't.

There needs to be a way to gate web / RSS content + discoverability behind hit for those who don't want to go onto Substack, especially now with AI crawlers scraping blog content from authors for free.

Otherwise the only way to make money from your writing would be to use Substack.
by akoboldfrying | 2025-10-05 05:32:49+00:00
> You have no ability to "normalize" anything.

Normalisation isn't something that one person by themselves can achieve. It only happens when public opinion is swayed. How is it swayed? By people deliberately trying to sway it, like GP here.

If you are instead arguing that normalisation is not really a thing at all: What do you call the change in attitudes to people who are left-handed, disabled, or homosexual?
by colesantiago | 2025-10-05 05:34:56+00:00
Exactly.

You're more likely to get discovered if your content is on a centralised platform than a decentralised one.

RSS alone doesn't cut it and you cannot know if anyone is reading your content on RSS as there are no interactions or anything.

It feels like this 'solution' is written by someone who just like the 'tech' of RSS and blogs.
by Projectiboga | 2025-10-05 05:34:57+00:00
Yep, I did one of my two majors in Econ, and from that my politics moved left. Single payer is more about better results for less money than "giving something away". The income multiplier, the additional circulation to money for the 12 months after it was received. For the bottom 60 % the money gets spent quickly and locally. Give extra to a multimillionaire they will be in much less of a hurry to spend it, and they often just buy and sell ecpensive things amongst their own class.
by commandersaki | 2025-10-05 05:35:06+00:00
It's really clear why people would want a non-hybrid code point.

To me it really isn't. TLS has no need for it. But let's focus the context for some US government organisations that want this for their FIPS maturity level they're aiming for. Why would these organisations want a weaker algorithm for TLS than what is standardised; more importantly how does it benefit deployment except save a tiny bit of computation and eliminate some ECC code. I'm not going to jump the shark and say it is nefarious, but I will throw in my 2 cents and say it doesn't help security and is unnecessary.
by c6400sc | 2025-10-05 05:35:34+00:00
Listen to season 4 of Michael Lewis' podcast. He covers the downsides in detail.

https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/against-the-rules

I think this is the ep that gets into the most detail, but I haven't read the transcript.

https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/against-the-rules/vegas-spor...

IIRC, if you're too professional or too lucky, the betting apps will restrict you and then lock you out. They only want the dumb money playing.
by fnordpiglet | 2025-10-05 05:38:37+00:00
LLMs display a form of abductive reasoning which is not the same as judgement. The only thing in the universe we know that can display judgement is a human. However many tasks we presume to require human judgement do not and abductive reasoning will perform as well as a human. This in theory acts as a filter if used right reducing the tasks of human judgement to those that can’t be automated with similar or better precision and recall. The trick then is using LLMs and other techniques to reduce the problem space for the human to the kernel of quandary that requires human judgement and to isolate the salient information to reduce the cognitive load as much as possible. Many many mundane tasks can be automated in this way, and many complex tasks can be facilitated to greatly magnify the effectiveness of the human in the middle’s time.
by bruce511 | 2025-10-05 05:39:03+00:00
Is it bad for society? It's certainly bad for individuals, and by extension their families. I guess if it scales up such that a serious chunk of society is affected, then yes its bad for society.

Let's start with the obvious- in all forms of gambling the gamblers make a net loss. The games are hosted by very sophisticated companies, that have better mathematicians, and make money.

$x is pumped into the system by the punters, $y is extracted, $z is returned. The 'house' is the only winner.

All those TV ads you see? Funded by losers.

Is it light entertainment? Similar to the cost of a ticket to the game? For some sure. But we understand the chemistry of gambling- it's addictive and compulsive.

If we agree it's generally bad, then what? Lots of things are known to be bad, but are still allowed (smoking and drinking spring to mind, nevermind sugar.)

It could be banned. Would that stop it? Probably not. Perhaps ban advertising? Perhaps tax gambling companies way higher (like we do with booze and smokes.) Perhaps treat it as a serious issue?

All of which is unlikely in the US. Business rules, and sports gambling us really good business.
by georgemcbay | 2025-10-05 05:40:09+00:00
I'm a leftist who has been a Bill Burr fan, and who is wildly disappointed he did a show in Saudi Arabia because of the naked hypocrisy of it.

Listen to his own past comments (starting at 30 seconds in):

https://youtu.be/1Jp4Ce8yStA?si=wThUQtlRJo07Qn1Y&t=30

He did exactly what past him was (rightfully) calling someone else out for. So, yeah, I think its fair game to call him out for it.

Voicing your displeasure that someone did something is not "cancelling" them (whatever that even means anymore).
by monero-xmr | 2025-10-05 05:41:03+00:00
Alternatively, all middle class jobs do not require a college degree. Perhaps a college degree is primarily a signalling mechanism for adherence to a bygone era of societal norms. But the price is far too high to justify it, and the market will create alternative proof of societal norms, at a far cheaper price. Which is happening as we debate.

My concern now is a large number of under-employed college graduates who are indebted to worthless degrees, feeling pinched because the debt far surpasses their market value. This has been the case for a long time, but has now reached the upper-echelons of academia where even Ivy league grads cannot get employment. You need to re-calibrate your ire to the correct target
by jacquesm | 2025-10-05 05:41:21+00:00
That's always an interesting thing. Where does autonomy end and the right of the government to intrude into your private life begin. The bottom line, that something is bad for you seems to be so logical. But when you think about it a bit longer you see that there are so many things that are bad for you that it would be next to impossible to regulate all of them. Ok, so you only do it for the things that are really harmful. But then you're still left with smoking, alcohol, obesity, the state's lottery and casinos (always legal, for some weird reason, but just as bad as other forms of gambling), parachute jumping, social media, free climbing and a whole raft of other items that have the potential to massively ruin your (or even someone else's) life. And then there are the things you could do but that are illegal, such as speeding and drinking and then getting into the driver's seat of a vehicle.

I find this one of the most difficult to answer questions about how you should run a society. In practice, we aim to curb the excesses and treat them as if they are illnesses but even that does not stop the damage. In the end it is an education problem. People are not taught to deal with a massive menu of options for addiction and oblivion, while at the same time their lives are structurally manipulated to select them for that addiction.

In the UK for instance, where sports betting is legal (and in some other EU countries as well) it is a real problem. But the parties that make money of it (and who prey mostly on the poor) are so wealthy and politically connected that even if the bulk of the people would be against it I doubt something could be done about it. If it were made illegal it would still continue, but underground. It's really just another tax on the poor.

Sports betting is problematic for the sports too. It causes people to throw matches for money and it exposes athletes to danger and claims of purposefully throwing matches when that might not be the case. This isn't a new thing ( https://apnews.com/article/sports-betting-scandals-1a59b8bee... ), it is essentially as old as the sports themselves.
by angarg12 | 2025-10-05 05:43:22+00:00
I left my home country over 10 years ago, and ever since I've travelled back once every 1 or 2 years.

Since 4-5 years ago I started to notice these betting houses cropping up where my family and friends live. They are impossible to miss, with big pictures of different sports and no windows.

The most important thing to notice is where these place are and are not. They proliferate in working class and less well off neighborhoods, while they tend to be absent from more affluent ones.

These places get a lot of foot traffic, all the locals barely making ends meet, blowing a few tens of euros here and there, with the eventual payoff. It's not difficult to hear stories of people getting into the deep end and developing a real addiction with devastating consequences.

And it's not only the business itself, but what they attract. All sort of sketchy characters frequent these places, and tend to attract drugs, violence...

Legal or not these places make the communities they inhabit worse, not better. I personally would be very happy if family didn't have to live exposed to them.
by tokioyoyo | 2025-10-05 05:46:03+00:00
> It could be banned. Would that stop it? Probably not.

Was not that big of a thing 15 years ago. The goal of a ban is not to reduce the consumption to 0, but try to lower it a significant amount. Although, since people are generally aware of it and participated in it, it might not be that easy to go back to beforetimes.
by staplers | 2025-10-05 05:46:39+00:00
doable but not easy, for business ideas

That requires a lot of human psychology and advanced hard economic theory (not the fluffy academic kind). With human controlled monetary supply and most high-level business requiring illegal and immoral exploitation of law and humans in general, it's not a path machines can realistically go down or even want machines treading down.

Think scams and pure resource extraction. They won't consider many impacts outside of bottom line.