MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ImPostingOnHN | 2025-10-24 15:35:47+00:00
An "appeal to hypocrisy" is always invalid because that term is essentially synonymous with whataboutism and 'tu quoque' fallacies

The underlying failure of all of them, and why they are fallacies, is because the guilt of one side of an issue has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of the other. Thus, trying to pivot from the former to the latter is a distraction, rather than a genuine attempt to discuss the topic (which is the former).

> Which would hold more weight with me if the side saying it never made appeals to hypocrisy of their own.

"The side"? Dude, I'm a person, not a side, and you barely know anything about me, much less what I've done and do. The accusations of whataboutism weren't made by nebulous, ethereal concepts, they were made by people.

You can't pick and choose different behaviors of different people and lump them together as if they are the same person, then claim that the differing behaviors indicate some sort of hypocrisy or other conflict. What you're describing is diversity of thought among different people.

Even if you could, it's not even a good discussion, because then others could respond that your meta-criticism is itself hypocritical in the same way that you're responding to criticism by claiming that it is hypocritical. So you keep adding layers until the actual topic (the original criticism) is long forgotten. In fact, that is why whataboutism is used: its users don't want to focus on the original criticism.
by hrimfaxi | 2025-10-24 15:36:18+00:00
It's clear you're not that familiar with the law if you got a fundamental aspect about it incorrect, so why is this bad on its face? Ending enforcement of laws is not de facto bad.

In this case, FCPA hinders American companies from competing in foreign locales where greasing the local wheels is a requirement for getting things done. Like it or not, this is the world we live in but an argument could be made that dropping enforcement is pragmatic.
by freedomben | 2025-10-24 15:36:31+00:00
I personally think this is a reasonable argument in theory, though in practice it's not a free market when governments and large mandatory institutions (like banks) put in place things that force your hand (Digital ID on your attested device, banking apps that require attestation, etc). It also falls down when you realize the barriers of entry are absolutely enormous. Even Amazon and Microsoft couldn't get through them, so what chance do new entrants have?
by asdfasvea | 2025-10-24 15:37:15+00:00
How could more cheating avenues not equal a more likelihood of being caught?

Car analogy--I never had to take my 1976 Olds Cutlass in because the key fob got out of sync or because the touchscreen got fried or the electronic power steering module shorted or... or .. or

More points of failure = more failure.
by rdiddly | 2025-10-24 15:37:28+00:00
The quantities are what changed. Taking a photo used to be relatively difficult and rare, so it was mainly reserved for relatively meaningful subjects. Which meant that having your picture taken was also relatively rare, and was something of a validation that you were interesting enough to merit being photographed. For that photograph to be published, even more so. Now cameras are plentiful and cheap, "publishing" opportunities are plentiful and cheap, and being photographed is commonplace and not appreciated as much. You can read all the meanings into my choice of the word cheap, by the way - as a price (increased supply made the price go down) or as a value (there's an abundance, so it becomes meaningless), or even as an implication about quality (low stakes means not as much attention or care for composing a shot).
by floxy | 2025-10-24 15:37:50+00:00
Since momentum is conserved, why not just have a 2 of the 1 g probes strapped to each other with a spring in between. When you need a course correction at 100 AU out (or whatever). The probes calculate how much of a correction is needed, adjusts a screw that tightens or loosens tension on the spring, reorients itself appropriately with a reaction wheel, then the two probes are released from each other, begin pushed apart with the spring. One probe gets the trajectory correction it needs, and the other gets further off course. Maybe with some gravity assists with nearby objects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist

also:

Roundtrip Interstellar Travel Using Laser-Pushed Lightsails

https://ia800108.us.archive.org/view_archive.php?archive=/24...
by rconti | 2025-10-24 15:37:54+00:00
I'm not even sure how to calculate our deg! Same, 2018 3 long range. I think they advertised it as 305mi but some time later increased the capacity of the car to 315mi; I max charged it to 314 once but never quite saw that 315. I think we're around 273 as max now so 89.5% of the original quoted life, 87% of the "updated" life. Car has 115k miles, ~ 185,000km.
by PaulHoule | 2025-10-24 15:38:20+00:00
A lot of people never use the debugger.

Back when I was in the Linux culture until 2006 or so it was constant that visual debuggers like DDD "just didn't work" but you could use gdb or jdb.

I got into the Windows world with visual debuggers that worked and came to the conclusion that I'd use the debugger because with the debugger I can debug the code without touching the source code so I never accidentally check in a console.log() or other hack into the code that shouldn't go into production.

People advocate using languages like Python in the REPL but you can get a similar interactive experience in a language like Java by writing a unit test that sets up something you want to "test" and playing around with it in the debugger. The stuff the Python developer types into the REPL scrolls away, but you can check in your unit test and make something permanent.
by R_D_Olivaw | 2025-10-24 15:38:55+00:00
While I can't speak to these substances, regarding the temporariness of it:

Irrespective of whether or not the effect, or lasting effects, dwindle and can thus be considered "temporary", there's something too be said about the act of the reset itself.

That is, whether or not the effects feel like they're fading, the memory of what it was like when it was new is still a massive data point and can be recalled.

In short, you can still remember that feeling of the reset and recall a time when your brain felt new and refreshed.
by colechristensen | 2025-10-24 15:40:36+00:00
Not really, it goes so fast through the CPU that the disk speed is at worst the same and the CPU overhead is tiny (in other words it's not fast while saturating the CPU, it's fast while consuming a couple percent of the CPU)

technically sure you're correct but the actual overhead of lz4 was more or less at the noise floor of other things going on on the system to the extent that I think lz4 without thought or analysis is the best advice always.

Unless you have a really specialized use case the additional compression from other algorithms isn't at all worth the performance penalty in my opinion.
by notepad0x90 | 2025-10-24 15:41:58+00:00
I don't think any other competitor makes hardware of a similar class in terms of quality.

Framework is great, but it doesn't even come close in terms of quality. Specs are one thing, how the product looks, feels, attention to detail, and most importantly: long term viability! even if you take away everything else, macbooks are though. I've used a couple for over a decade with no hardware repair (except when I broke a screen). Most mac users have similar experiences, so it's not survivor's bias.

If all you care about is specs or open hardware, obviously Apple hardware is not for you.

I don't want framework or system76 to move to ARM, a lot of people like me still _need_ x86 hardware.
by immibis | 2025-10-24 15:42:14+00:00
Using stuff like HTTP signals a lack of understanding of the whole stack. IMO it's important for programmers to understand computers. You can write programs without understanding computers, but it's best if you go and learn about computers first. You can use abstractions but you should also understand the abstractions.

There are two ways I've noticed to design an application.

Some people grab some tools out of their toolbox that look like they fit - I need a client/server, I know web clients/servers, so I'll use a web client/server.

Other people think about what the computer actually has to do and then write code to achieve that: Computer A has to send a block of data to computer B, and this has to work on Linux (which means no bit-banging - you can only go as low as raw sockets). This type of person may still take shortcuts, but it's by intention, not because it's the only thing they know: if HTTP is only one function call in Python, it makes sense to use HTTP, not because it's the only thing you know but because it's good enough, you know it works well enough for this problem, and you can change it later if it becomes a bottleneck.

Websockets are an odd choice because they're sort of the worst of both worlds: they're barely more convenient as raw sockets (there's framing, but framing is easy), but they also add a bunch of performance and complexity overhead over raw sockets, and more things that can go wrong. So it doesn't seem to win on the convenience/laziness front nor the performance/security/robustness front. If your client had to be a web browser, or could sometimes be a web browser, or if you wanted to pass the connections through an HTTP reverse proxy, those would be good reasons to choose websockets, but none of them are the case here.
by temp0826 | 2025-10-24 15:42:19+00:00
I was recently at a lan party for a friend's 40th birthday (something I don't think any of us had done since highschool or so!), most of them are way more into gaming than me and have been consistently since childhood. I was pretty shocked at one point when they went on a loot box binge and I witnessed them drop hundreds on loot boxes etc (I don't know what it's called, the keys or whatever). Definitely didn't seem like the first time. These are adults with children of their own. There is a demographic out there of people I wasn't aware of, not necessarily whales, that have a ton of disposable income for this fluff. And valve has their hooks in them for whatever reason.
by eric_krismer | 2025-10-24 15:42:56+00:00
Thanks jazzejeff1! I cant reply directly to your post - new account. Right now the license is a one-time purchase, not a subscription. The product is proprietary, so I don’t provide full source access, but I actively maintain and update it — if bugs appear, I’ll fix them. For customers who need long-term assurance, I’m open to providing source access under NDA or escrow if I ever stop maintaining the app, so you’re never left without a working version.
by seanhunter | 2025-10-24 15:43:35+00:00
Yup to both of you. But all of this is to say, running shellscripts as root (in particular) needs to be done with extreme care, because if people forget those precautions when writing C, they sure as heck don’t trouble themselves to do it when they’re writing shell.

I remember the time (around 2001-2002) when just about every binary was discovered to have some variant on this exact exploit. I happened to be linux sysadmin for a very large, high-profile set of linux boxes at the time. Happy times.
by giobox | 2025-10-24 15:43:45+00:00
> The 30% specifically applies to buying digital goods and services through iOS apps

This is not correct at all and grossly misrepresents how Apple collects revenues on the store - the 30% applied to the list price of any paid app as well.

Prior to 2020, if your app had a price tag on the app store, you paid 30% of said price to apple on every sale. There is no ifs, no buts, no lower rate for smaller players like today. You had a price tag, you paid 30%, whether you sold 100m copies or 5.

The decision taken by the CAT here concerns the fee for paid apps (what they call the distribution charge) as well as in app fees, the latter of which had some exemptions for specific transaction types from the likes of Amazon, Uber etc (but famously not Spotify or Epic Games, or the Amazon Kindle app etc etc...). The "distribution charge" did not.
by ACCount37 | 2025-10-24 15:43:48+00:00
Some simpler cases like various RLE-type encodings can be figured out with that pattern recognizing brain - by staring at them really really hard.

For harder cases? You take the binaries that read or write your compressed files, load them in your tool (typically Ghidra nowadays), and track down the code that does it.

Then you either recognize what that code does (by staring at it really really hard), or try to re-implement it by hand while reading up on various popular compression algos in hope that doing this enlightens you.

Third option now: feed the decompiled or reimplemented code to the best LLM you have access to, and ask it. Those things are downright superhuman at pattern matching known algorithms, so use them, no such thing as "cheating" in RE.

The "hard mode" is compression implemented in hardware, with neither a software encoder or a software decoder available. In which case you better be ready for a lot of "feed data to the magic registers, see results, pray they give you a useful hint" type of blind hardware debugging. Sucks ass.

The "impossible" is when you have just the compressed binaries, with no encoder or decoder or plaintext data available to you at all. Better hope it's something common or simple enough or it's fucking hopeless. Solving that kind of thing is cryptoanalysis level of mind fuck and I am neither qualified enough nor insane enough to advise on that.

Another thing. For practical RE? ALWAYS CHECK PRIOR WORK FIRST. You finding an open source reimplementation? Good job, that's what you SHOULD be doing, no irony, that's what you should be doing ALWAYS. Always check whether someone has been there and done that! Always! Check whether someone has worked on this thing, or the older version of it, or another game in the same engine - anything at all. Can save you literal months of banging your head against the wall.
by Sharlin | 2025-10-24 15:43:58+00:00
This is probably old news to people interested in nonstandard methods of computation, but it just occurred to me that the fluid-based analogy to transistors is straightforward to construct:

S | | -------| | G \/\/|##| | -------| | | | D

This is essentially a pressure regulator, except that the pressure is controlled by an independent signal. Pressure in G pushes a spring-loaded piston to block flow from S to D (a slightly different construction instead allows flow when G has pressure). Modulating the pressure in G can also used to modulate the flow, based on F = -kx. This simple construction has some issues, such as the fact that the pressure needed to move the piston depends on the pressure in S-D.
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-10-24 15:44:05+00:00
> Your comments are false due to your total ignorance of reality, and your malicious lying about my statements indicates that you don't care that they're false - you'll say anything plausible, regardless of truth, to advance whatever agenda you have.

They seem to live in this bubble where steam is extremely bad or something.

Nothing is as good or as bad as it seems.

I think valve is still decent but I prefer Gog-games more if I can be honest, valve has drm but I appreciate their customer service from what I know and the amount of good games it produced like portal and the steam marketplace is still a very nice thing imo.

I don't think steam is rent-seeking at all and I agree with your statement on it.

Now I still believe that CS-GO's lootboxes are still an issue tho, maybe I am not understanding the significance of change so much

Steam still does nothing to prevent gambling for children and people selling the skins on the other websites, I am not understanding how this change changes that, I read some other comment in here which said that you can have contracts which convert the rare to extremely rare Only in steam marketplace so maybe they stopped the other shady websites/the youtubers they sponsor by limiting their influence....

I don't understand :/ I still feel like Steam had turned a blind eye to child gambling for a long time and Coffeezilla had made a video about it which I can refer to.

> There's the Epic Games Store, GOG, the EA App, Battle.net, the Xbox one/Windows Store, and more. And you know what the most popular one is, by a large margin, because it provides value to both devs and players? Steam. That's the market at work.

The same is true for linux/Windows as well. You could say that windows has the market at work but the point becomes moot.

It isn't as if there aren't better options (GOG) but that its rather good enough

Like I said nothing is as good or as bad as it seems, my opinion on steam is barely good enough partially because of its previous responses on turning a blind eye to the whole situation but maybe this is changing with this thing they did right now but I am still not sure how.
by runjake | 2025-10-24 15:44:46+00:00
Because Passkeys are considered more secure. They had a rough, confusing start but seem to be taking off.

I don't know your level of technical knowledge, but Passkeys replace passwords by using public key cryptography instead of shared secrets (passwords).

They consist of a key pair (public and private) and are based on the FIDO2/WebAuthn standard. Like other public key systems (PGP, SSH keys, or SSL certificates), the public key is shared while the private key remains secret.

There are two main types of Passkeys: device-bound and synced. Both types are significantly more secure than passwords and resistant to phishing, but they have different trade-offs between security and convenience.

Device-Bound Passkeys:

With device-bound Passkeys, the private key is stored in a Secure Enclave or a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) on your device. The Secure Enclave and TPM are hardware-isolated, preventing even your operating system from directly accessing them. Instead, you use a special authentication API to make calls. There is no direct memory access to these keys unless an exploit is discovered.

Think of a Secure Enclave and Trusted Platform Modules as a little, isolated computer inside your device -- because that's what they are! They have their own processor and operating system, and they are completely isolated from the rest of the device. They only release signatures and never release secrets (and aren't even capable of doing so, under normal cases). The device can only talk to the Secure Enclave/TPM via special authentication APIs.

Synced Passkeys:

Synced Passkeys store the private key in encrypted form within a password manager or platform keychain (like iCloud Keychain, Google Password Manager, or 1Password. These passkeys are designed to be backed up and synchronized across your devices for convenience. While the keys are encrypted during storage and transit, they're not permanently bound to a single hardware chip.

This makes them more flexible and user-friendly, though they rely on the security of your account and the encryption used by the syncing service rather than hardware isolation.

Here's how the flow works as I understand it:

1. You visit a website and try to login.

2. The server sends a randomized challenge string.

3. Your device's authenticator signs that challenge using the private key.

4. That signature gets sent back to the server.

5. The server verifies the signature using the public key it has on file.

Why Passkeys are cool:

- No shared secrets, so there's nothing on the server that's useful to steal.

- They're phishing resistant, the browser or whatever ensures the origin matches before allowing auth.

- No replay attacks because the server issues a new randomized challenge string every time.

- No cred stuffing because each passkey is unique to the service it's generated for.

This should all be correct to the best of my unexpert knowledge.

---

Edit: Corrected some serious errors and forgot to explain device-bound vs. synced passkeys -- a major oversight!

Disclaimer: Yes, I'm a human and I use --. This comment is self-written but I did use AI for grammar correction.
by alienbaby | 2025-10-24 15:45:07+00:00
Nice. I wrote something exactly like this to simulate a CPU with an instruction set and registers that were extended beyond general purpose instructions to include op codes to read board state and generate moves for a game of go. That then became the core of a system setup to use genetic algorithms to try and 'breed' go playing programs.

It didn't produce anything close to a competent go playing program, but it did get to the point it would play legal moves, which considering I started it with a purely randomly generated population of programs, it had zero built in knowledge of the rules of go, and had it playing against a well known open source go playing program to assess fitness of a given pop, I was quite pleased with it.

This was around 10+ years ago, just as Google made alphago.
by walkabout | 2025-10-24 15:46:24+00:00
Voter behavior and motivation (and knowledge of the issues, and of basic facts about their own government...) is well-studied and has been for decades. Political scientists studied it really heavily for quite a while because early results were fucking alarming (and proved to be accurate, and also not just a temporary aberration) if you're starting from a firm belief in liberal democracy and a broad franchise.

Voters, to a great extent, aren't motivated by what one might either expect or hope, nor 1/10th as well informed about the operation of their own government or the issues at stake as one might hope. It's a shit-show, so much so that it's practically miraculous that voting produces functioning governments ever, at all, and the whole thing's terribly fragile (after convincing themselves the data weren't wrong, the next step was a few decades of trying to figure out some mechanism by which this whole thing wasn't as worrisome as it seemed, which effort turned out to be based mostly on "copium", to use a modern term, and was eventually regarded as having more-or-less failed)
by ImPostingOnHN | 2025-10-24 15:47:02+00:00
Perhaps folks think that is not a "valid point" here because it is off topic, seeking to distract from the topic of whether this particular guilty person should be punished.

Saying "so and so did it too and nothing happened" may be correct, but doesn't address the topic. If you're saying that, how does it apply to the topic (the Binance founder)?

Are you saying that you're ok with the other people getting away with it, and thus you're ok with this guy also getting away with it via this purchased pardon?

Or are you saying those other people should have been punished, and thus this pardon was wrong to sell?
by upofadown | 2025-10-24 15:47:22+00:00
The FHS ultimately belongs to the users collectively, not those maintaining it. I am old enough to remember the horror that existed before the influence of the FHS. It exists in the fact that it is to some extent respected, not because there is a file somewhere that says it is the FHS standard. If you want changes, then sure, do the politics required to develop support for those changes. You can't just declare a new standard and then do whatever you want.

Developers have this thing where they will think of a standard as a specification. Instead it is a statement of political will. Saying that a standard is "abandoned" due to lack of "maintenance" seems like an example of thinking of a standard as the instantation of a specification; an actual program.
by hocuspocus | 2025-10-24 15:47:24+00:00
Right, by European standards even if you live in a detached house with a backyard, any location is probably going to be too close, as you probably don't want to be bothered when you eat outside or have people over for a barbecue.

Obviously if you live on a farm, it might be different, especially if you have fruit trees, which should keep them busy.