MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dhosek | 2025-11-09 04:07:23+00:00
Umm, you’re confusing things here. When you said “several of the standard grapheme clustering algorithms” that indicated the first element of confusion. There is one grapheme clustering algorithm in Unicode.¹ Ligature combinations, whether encoded in Unicode or not are independent of the concept of graphemes and are very much font-dependent, as is whether or not a grapheme cluster is displayed as multiple characters or a single character (any two consecutive regional indicators are considered a single grapheme, whether they map to a national flag or not and the set of national flags and whether those flags are even displayed or the output is just the regional indicator symbol is up to the font). Normalization does not play a role in grapheme clustering at all, which is why á and a+acute accent are both considered single graphemes.

I’m puzzled about the assertion of EBCDIC having Latin ligatures because I never encountered them in my IBM mainframe days and a casual search didn’t turn any up. The only 8-bit encoding that I was aware of that included any ligatures was Mac extended ASCII which included fi and fl (well, putting aside TeX’s 7-bit encoding which was only used by TeX and because of its using x20 to hold the acute accent was unusable by other applications which expected a blank character in that spot).

The question about dealing with ligatures for non-Latin scripts generally came down to compatibility with existing systems more than anything else. This is why, for example, the Devanagari and Thai encodings which both have vowel markings which can occur before, after or around a consonant handle the sequence of input differently. Assembly of jambo into characters in Hangul is another case where theoretically, one could have all the displayed characters handled through ligatures and not encode the syllables directly (which is, in fact, how most modern Korean is encoded as evidenced by Korean wikipedia), but because the original Korean font encoding has all the syllables encoded in it² those syllables are part of Unicode as well.

But the bottom line here, is that you seem to be confusing terminology a lot here. You can very much do grapheme clustering without paying attention to ligatures, and rules for things like normalized composition/decomposition are entirely independent of grapheme clustering (the K-forms of both, manage transitions like ¹ to 1 or ﬁ to fi and represent a one way transition).

⸻

1. I wrote a Rust library implementing this and I’ve been following Unicode since it was a proposal from Microsoft and Apple in the 90s, so I know a little about this.

2. I think the more accurate term would be “most” of the syllables as I’ve seen additional syllables added to Unicode over time.
by kelnos | 2025-11-09 04:09:10+00:00
> That doesn't mean they won't/shouldn't do their best to do so by themselves.

If I were a UK citizen or resident, I'd probably be pretty pissed off that Ofcom was wasting money and resources on battles they are going to lose. Well, I suppose, since Ofcom is funded in large part by the UK-based businesses it regulates, if I were an officer, employee, or shareholder of one of those companies, I'd be pissed that they're wasting money paid by my company to fund them.

And even though Ofcom is not directly a UK government agency, there are certainly political costs to tilting at windmills for the UK government.
by Pet_Ant | 2025-11-09 04:09:28+00:00
> What happens when the US decides that that shouldn't be happening anymore?

Like the US did with Swiss banks?

“…the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept.” — Thucydides, 5.89 (trans. Rex Warner, Penguin Classics edition)

(half-remembered quote found using AI)

original source https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_the_Peloponnesian_...

Book 5, end of paragraph 89
by bee_rider | 2025-11-09 04:09:59+00:00
He says on his site that he wants the US to pass a “shield law,” I guess the idea must be to pass a law that explicitly says we don’t extradite for this, pass along the fines, or whatever.

It seems like inside the US, this must be constitutionally protected speech anyway. I’m not 100% sure, but it would seem quite weird if the US could enter a treaty that requires us to enforce the laws of other countries in a way that is against our constitution. Of course the constitution doesn’t apply to the UK (something people just love to point out in these discussions), but it does apply to the US, which would be the one actually doing the enforcing, right?

Anyway, bumping something all the way up to the Supreme Court is a pain in the ass, so it may make sense to just pass a law to make it explicit.
by fragmede | 2025-11-09 04:10:49+00:00
at Cloudflare scale, absolutely. But today? Find a friend that lives in a different legal jusrisdiction that you trust. Install Tailscale on a raspberry pi Zero. Configure it all up. Send it to your friend. Get it on their wifi. Set up the corresponding app on your phone. Connect to it and use it as your exit node.

Voila, VPN!
by Danjoe4 | 2025-11-09 04:11:16+00:00
That's the current status quo. The UK can't sue you, extradite you, or really do anything. Assuming that your service providers are US based and you follow US law, they can pound sand. In practice, the US is the only country powerful enough to enforce its laws extraterritoriality. The UK trying to enforce its internet laws on me? An American citizen? Funny joke
by inkyoto | 2025-11-09 04:12:20+00:00
Regrettably, the list in question offers limited operational value, as it omits the so-called «exit» CIDR's utilised by major cloud service providers – a glaring omission that renders the dataset largely superficial.

Let's, for analytical clarity, set aside the UK and examine Germany as an isolated datapoint.

AWS, for instance, possesses and operates the entirety of the 3.0.0.0/9 address space – a range distributed across numerous jurisdictions and continents. Notably, significant CIDR allocations from 3.0.0.0/9 reside within German territory, yet remain absent from the RIPE registry. Such inadvertent obfuscation undermines efforts at precise geolocation.

One may, through inference and correlation – specifically via https://ip-ranges.amazonaws.com/ip-ranges.json – arrive at a reasonably accurate estimation of the German CIDR's by aggregating address ranges tied to a designate AWS region they are associated with. Such inference is only feasible due to the vendor’s decision to publish such data. I would reasonably conjecture that other cloud providers engage in a comparable practice.

Thus, whilst it is not altogether impossible to ascertain the geolocation of a given IP address, the exercise remains contingent upon the discretionary transparency of global infrastructure operators and multiple indirect information sources – a rather fragile foundation upon which to build certainty.
by Springtime | 2025-11-09 04:12:49+00:00
And also:

> If I had to guess, it’s that some NGO found some UK-based IP addresses which weren’t captured by the block because they weren’t properly geolocated.

Ofcom's clarified contention is that the geoblock is unreliable, while the lawyer seems to be rebutting the original statements that they interpreted Ofcom as claiming no geoblocking was active ('remains accessible to UK users', 'was directly available to people with UK IP addresses (with and without a VPN)').
by proc0 | 2025-11-09 04:13:20+00:00
Let's clarify, this isn't about whether the models are capable. They are very capable and impressive. This is more about whether we can use the same type of metric we use for humans to compare and conclude if they are "intelligent".

It's not just semantics, the metrics are supposed to tell us the potential of the model. If they can solve extremely hard PhD problems, it should be the case that we're already in the singularity, and they should be solving absolutely everything in whatever field they were trained in, because it's not just PhD level, it's a machine that has a ton of memory, compute and never sleeps. However, once you use these models extensively, it becomes apparent they are just synthesizing data, and not as much understanding it in a way that would allow them to extrapolate into anything else as humans do.

I think this point is a little hard to explain. I'll just emphasize, these are smart systems, and they can do a lot, but there is still a disconnect between, let's say, a PhD level model and a human with a PhD, in the "quality" of what we would call "intelligence" of both entities (human and machine).
by sleepybrett | 2025-11-09 04:13:40+00:00
We have treaties with other contries to cover most of these cases and customs to cover many others.

What the UK is doing is claiming, without having dealt with this via treaty that I am somehow responsible for keeping their citizens off my website. This is not something they can actually do. Now if they made a deal with my country that said that I had to in some way we'd be in a different universe. But currently they do not.

As I, and probably many others, see it. If they don't want UK citizens visiting 4chan or whereever they should control the flow of data through their borders better and punish their citizens for data smuggling if they vpn their way around it. It's no different than prohibited goods like automatic weapons. If I send someone in the UK a fully automatic ak-47 (which is legal in my juristiction) then I suspect UK customs will catch it at the border and possibly jail, or at least have a stern talking to the recipient.
by mike_hearn | 2025-11-09 04:13:40+00:00
Yes, but she is now allied with a party that has committed to repealing it. This seems to be the result of pure political calculation by all involved. Dorries is unfortunately quite popular with certain demographics that aren't natural Reform supporters (i.e. the sort who love the OSA), so bringing her in probably does help them. But they know they can't absorb too many former Tories without undermining the justification for their own existence.
by Mockapapella | 2025-11-09 04:15:41+00:00
OK can someone smarter than me educate me?

A couple weeks ago I was curious what the strictest programming language was. ChatGPT listed a couple, and it kicked off a short discussion where I began asking it about the capabilities of stricter programming languages at low levels. Funny enough at the end it mentioned that SPARK/Ada was the strictest you could get at the lowest levels, same as Ironclad.

At one point while asking it about drivers, it said "ACL2’s logic is [...] side‑effect‑free definitions with termination proofs when admitted to the logic. That is misaligned with effectful, interrupt‑driven kernel code.

I'm not an OS or kernel dev, most of my work has been in Web Dev, ML, and a little bit of embedded. How accurate is the information that was presented to me? Here is the link to the discussion: https://chatgpt.com/share/691012a7-a06c-800f-9cc9-54a7c2c8b6...

I don't know SPARK or Ada, but it just bothers me to think that we can't...I guess...prove everything about our software before we run it (yes yes, I'm familiar with halting problem shenanigans, but other than that).
by chasil | 2025-11-09 04:17:03+00:00
I get that you yourself have not researched this problem.

These are worthless?

Notice this section: "Carry with you evidence of lawful entry or current lawful status in the United States if you have it."

https://www.nilc.org/resources/know-your-rights-expedited-re...

Edit: I went to Medellín, Colombia recently, and going through immigration, I said that I was there for my birthday. The officer then asked me, "That was May xxth?" I responded, "No, my birthday is August yyth." She handed it back and waived me through.

Anyone making a mistake with details will see greater scrutiny.
by Kim_Bruning | 2025-11-09 04:18:59+00:00
On paper, free speech in the US appears sacrosanct. But in practice, top gear once did this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKcJ-0bAHB4

Maybe played up slightly for TV? But the impression is given that -in practice- they could not exercise their free speech in person in the US, but were fine broadcasting it in the UK.
by mickelsen | 2025-11-09 04:20:12+00:00
I’ve picked up a few boards from the Waveshare and Spotpear storefronts on AliExpress:

https://wvshare.aliexpress.com/

https://spotpear.aliexpress.com/

There you can find the latest launches and different versions depending on your use case. Also, checkout the Luckfox Pico.
by SahAssar | 2025-11-09 04:21:30+00:00
> Any government can get RCE on any OS with the change in their couch.

Do you really believe that? That seems extremely implausible based on just simple observations like all governments using COTS OS for military/intelligence work or standard OS:es being used for critical infrastructure like power/water/finance/transportation.

If your statement was even remotely true then why is this not used in conflicts to devastating effect?
by mlhpdx | 2025-11-09 04:21:38+00:00
In a word, probably (but without documented speed runs who knows?).

Circumnavigation is a longer voyage than those craft would travel in one go, and the stops would increase their transit time. Even without that it would be a close competition with the latest class of racing sailboats that are able able to maintain very similar speeds, and the next generation will be decidedly faster.

Things have changed.
by bgwalter | 2025-11-09 04:21:39+00:00
Certainly!

Thinking ...

- The user is asking about the connection between CPU bugs and price dumping in order to capture market share.

- The user appears to miss the original thread starter that mentions cutting corners in models after the subsidy phase is over.

- The mention of CPUs, AirBnB and Uber appear to be examples where certain quality standards were usually kept even after the subsidy phase.

Generating response ...
by kelnos | 2025-11-09 04:22:47+00:00
The UK -- and many other countries -- assert that their laws do bind people outside their borders, regardless of the absurdity (in most cases) of attempting to enforce that law elsewhere.

I think it's important to fight these sort of things even in cases where they can't actually enforce it. For one thing, say one of the site operators in question have a need or desire to visit the UK at some point in the future, but can't, because there's some sort of legal judgment against them because of this. That would be a shitty situation.

On top of that, ignoring these sorts of things also ignores possible efforts by the UK to convince other governments (like the US) to adopt similar laws, or at least agree to some level of extra-territorial enforcement. Fighting these cases sends a signal to everyone involved. You mention the UK acting like a petulant bully: yes, sometimes a good way to counteract a bully is to ignore them, but other times it's good to fight back, even when the current bullying wouldn't be effective... because future kinds of bullying might be.
by speff | 2025-11-09 04:22:52+00:00
So there aren't any stats for illegal immigrants voting then I take it.

I would expect they don't check for citizenship when becoming a police officer. I do expect them to check when a voter is registered. Frankly, given the amount of hubbub about illegals voting, I would expect there to at least be a notable amount of it happening that can be pointed to.

Please do not make these sorts of claims based on vibes. They have wider consequences on the amount of hate towards foreigners - illegal or not - that is completely undeserved.
by jacquesm | 2025-11-09 04:24:06+00:00
You'd think that after more than half a year of outright destruction of your country you'd stop digging. Indeed, elections have consequences, so why are you so upset with the democrats? Aren't you going to fix things now? This is your finest hour, and it will be remembered for a long time, how you acted and what drove you to keep on digging that hole when it was abundantly clear that the path chosen wasn't working at all.

Just one thing: don't tell me afterwards that you didn't know.
by dreamcompiler | 2025-11-09 04:25:54+00:00
As long as you don't set foot on British soil you'll be fine. But that's less simple than it sounds. Don't book a flight that connects in the UK, sure. But what if your NYC-to-Munich flight has engine trouble and needs to make an emergency landing in London? You are screwed: You'll be pulled off the plane and taken to jail.

Will the US embassy get involved? Of course. Will they get you released? Maybe, but it's not guaranteed. And you are in for a bad time regardless.
by mike_hearn | 2025-11-09 04:26:56+00:00
The people who are most responsive to NGO campaigning aren't overlapping much with people who read The Sun. Sorry but Murdoch can't be blamed for this one.

The OSA is mostly supported by people who read The Guardian or The Times and watch the BBC. It was originally the work of academics (not big tabloid readers usually) like Lorna Woods, who is supposedly a professor of "internet law", a guy who is the founder of Ofcom, and Baroness Beeban Kidron. If you search Google News for their names you will find lots of left leaning broadsheets and not tabloids.

https://news.google.com/search?q=Beeban%20Kidron&hl=en-GB&gl...

The first five news sites for that search are: Financial Times, The Guardian, BBC, The Times, The Guardian again. Zero tabloids.
by ofalkaed | 2025-11-09 04:27:16+00:00
If hit just right it would destroy the boat but that is a one in a million hit. The shape of displacement hulls and their need to part and push the water aside so they can move through the water will almost always mean that small boats will be pushed aside and damaged but not sunk. An open boat (which a small number of 30' sailboats are) would be a different story, the hit would almost certainly heel them enough to flood and sink them, but I think it is obvious that I am not talking about open boats but boats with a deck and a cabin that you can live in. I could be wrong in that assumption, many do not know the difference between an open and a decked boat and I could have been more clear there.
by kibwen | 2025-11-09 04:27:42+00:00
If exceptions count as hidden control flow because suddenly a function call can jump to a `catch` block, then defer absolutely counts as hidden control flow because suddenly the end of your function jumps to a `defer` block defined at an arbitrary point higher up. If Zig wanted to be consistent with its own philosophy, it would require some sort of keyword at the end of every scope to indicate that a defer was happening (and require multiple uses of the keyword to indicate multiple defers).
by rkomorn | 2025-11-09 04:27:42+00:00
I have the same experience. I assumed it was a mix of (as you say) not wanting to deal with EU rules, but also not wanting to deal with licensing concerns (eg "do I have the right to show this media in this country").

Part of why I assumed the latter is that sports, in particular, had a high occurrence of "this content isn't available where you are" blocks.
by pilingual | 2025-11-09 04:27:54+00:00
The basis for the current litigation Schmidt v. City of Norfolk[0] is the 2018 Supreme Court decision Carpenter v. United States.[1]

The ruling in Carpenter is essentially that you can't have prolonged surveillance without a warrant.

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf

[0] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69288422/schmidt-v-city...
by adamddev1 | 2025-11-09 04:28:28+00:00
Great explanation. Also, if I understand things correctly, type-checking is where things get really interesting. Runtime errors occur in #3. Type checkers identify these errors (to varying degrees) and they show the errors in the compile phase. If we think of parsing and type-checking as a unit together, then type-checking sort of pushes the line of syntax further into semantic territory. The stronger the type-checker, the more you can make semantic errors look like syntax errors.

This is similar to what Chomsky did in "Aspects of the Theory of Syntax" when he tried to show how we can build more thorough systems to evaluate semantics of (human) language, like what kinds of nouns can go with what kinds of verbs. He pushes the line of syntax further into the semantic territory and tries to create more comprehensive sets of rules that better guarantee the generation of syntactically and semantically correct sentences. I think this is perfectly analogous to the type-checking enterprise.
by jeswin | 2025-11-09 04:28:36+00:00
What's your definition of interesting?

I'm half way through writing a typescript to native code translator (via .Net) compiling a large enough subset of current code with a lot of help from GPT5 and Codex CLI. It has completely blown me away.

I'd like to give you a concrete example which stood out (from by now, dozens). I wanted d.ts files from the .Net Standard Libs. One immediately obvious problem is that .Net would allow classes/interfaces to be redefined if the generic type arity is different. For example, there can be SomeClass<int> and SomeClass<int, int> which are completely separate. TypeScript of course, wouldn't allow this - you can have one with all types defined, but it'd obviously be a mess.

I was stuck with (quite ugly): const users = new List_1<User>(...); instead of const users = new List<User>(...);

So GPT comes up with this:

declare const __unspecified: unique symbol; type __ = typeof __unspecified; // Your arity-anchored delegates exist elsewhere: // import("internal/System").Action_0 // import("internal/System").Action_1<T1> // import("internal/System").Action_2<T1, T2> // import("internal/System").Action_3<T1, T2, T3> // ... up to 17 export type Action< T1 = __, T2 = __, T3 = __, // ... continue through T17 = __ > = [T1] extends [__] ? import("internal/System").Action_0 : [T2] extends [__] ? import("internal/System").Action_1<T1> : [T3] extends [__] ? import("internal/System").Action_2<T1, T2> : /* next lines follow the same pattern … */ import("internal/System").Action_3<T1, T2, T3>;

This lets me write:

const a: Action<number> = (n) => {}; // OK (void) const f: Func<number, string> = (s) => 20; // OK (string -> number)

A human could come up with this, of course. But doing this at scale (there are many such problems which crop up), would take a lot of effort. Btw I'm using Claude for the grunt work (because its faster), but GPT5 is doing all the architecture/thinking/planning/review.
by gusgus01 | 2025-11-09 04:30:31+00:00
It comes down to the individual agreements that those private-contract cameras have with Flock, which unfortunately means it might be a case by case basis to understand if any one has conditions that allow sharing with law enforcement. IT was recently discovered that local police departments that had Flock contracts that limited the police department's access did not restrict general access, so Flock could still use it how they wanted and let federal agencies (ICE) use it: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachus...
by pinnochio | 2025-11-09 04:30:53+00:00
You're quoting two different people here.

- Google actively is working to, and has reduced, conflict cobalt from the supply chain.

That's good, but doesn't change the fact that the supply chain for tech exemplifies "the hub exploiting the periphery".

- No one I know in Silicon Valley "cleaves to Hobbesian myths" to "justify" their grip on anything. Everyone I know shows up to work to provide for their family, grow professionally, or self-actualize.

"Like much of the oligarchic class, the boy-gods of Silicon Valley" is likely referring to the CEO/founder/VC class.

- People who "dream of Singularity and interplanetary civilization" isn't a thing, no one dreams of this fantasy.

That's patently untrue. A bunch of them post here.