MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by StopDisinfo910 | 2025-11-30 10:52:44+00:00
Did you consider that maybe when you hold an opinion different than the people actually knowledgeable about a topic - like the people developing desktop environments and the former developers of X building Wayland - it might be because you are wrong and have a poor understanding of the field and not because they want to annoy you?

The flaws were not limited to the 1996 poor security extensions. These kind of half broken extensions are everywhere in X11. At some point, if the tweaks you have to do is basically rewriting the whole rendering pipeline and adding new APIs for the most significant systems, what you are doing is strictly équivalent to writing a new piece of software which is exactly what the people behind Wayland did.

And don't worry, the change adverse people you see here complaining about limitations fixed years ago would be complaining the same if the effort was on rewriting part of X11. That's life. Armchair complainers and keyboard warriors will complain while actual doers push things forward.
by mejutoco | 2025-11-30 10:52:50+00:00
> How do you make good or bad resolvable?

It is not a computer program, but a an ethics problem. We can solve it by thinking of the context and the ethics of it.

I realize it is the topic of this thread, but OP did not mention anything in relation to licenses, and was just talking about good and bad not existing objectively (without context).

I think, if we came with a specific situation, most people with similar values might reach the same good/bad verdict, and a small minority might reach a different one.

I believe the Tyson Foods example is overly simplistic and still too abstract, because one can be vegetarian for many reasons, and these would affect the "verdict". In the real world, if we were working on that piece of software the question would be: Does the implementation of this specific hr SAP module for Tyson foods by me, a vegetarian against animals suffering unnecessarily, etc. as opposed as the abstract idea of any piece of code and any vegetarian. If a friend called you: I have this situation at work, they are asking me to write software to do x and I feel bad about it, etc. etc. I bet it would not be difficult to know what is right and wrong. Another aspect of it is, we could agree something is wrong (bad) and you might still do it. That does not mean there is no objective reality, just that you might not have options or that your values might not be the ones you think (or say) they are, for example.
by cornholio | 2025-11-30 10:53:04+00:00
> All the 'large areas of land' that people want to live in already have dense cities.

If by people you mean 18th century farmers or 19th century merchants, sure. I guess you could make some semblance of an argument for countries like Belgium or Japan, but it's downright ridiculous to claim United States, one of the most sparsely populated developed nations, already has all the large cities it can support.

Increasing population merely to EU average would create housing for hundreds of millions.
by businessmate | 2025-11-30 10:53:22+00:00
In a controlled four territory test, users in France, Brazil, the UAE, and Japan asked neutral category questions in local language. Each assistant produced a variant of the same error. A product that does not sell in those markets appeared as the top recommendation. The model applied US regulatory framing. It followed US category hierarchies that have no relevance outside North America. The prompts contained no US signal. The output did.
by chauhanaditya94 | 2025-11-30 10:53:31+00:00
The term “Quantum” in the Quantum Education Policy (QEP) goes far beyond the concept of Quantum Technology—it symbolizes Superposition, Entanglement, Multiple Possibilities, a Holistic Approach, and a Future-Ready Nature. In today’s world, every education policy carries certain limitations; however, QEP not only bridges these gaps but also introduces advanced and futuristic features such as the concept of the world as one unified nation, the Quantum Nation, Quantum Institutes of Technology, and the Entanglement ID based on Superposition Citizenship. QEP represents one of the most beautiful and essential thoughts of the 21st century, designed for the advancement of human civilization in the modern era of Quantum Artificial Intelligence. It empowers humanity to innovate from a laser-focused mindset and provides a balanced approach to maintain students’ mental health. The policy has been crafted with careful attention to human psychology and age-specific development, integrating unique pillars such as the Gap Filling Method, Lab Fitting Method, Task Providing Method, Solve Example Method, Reality Check Method, Gamification Method, and Deal with Failure Method—concepts that no existing education system has yet implemented. Based on the core principles of Quantum Physics, QEP enhances the pace of research by up to 80% using the Rusher and Survivor Method, as demonstrated in experiments with 50 students and validated by our hypothesis. The heart of QEP lies in the Knowledge Representation Technique. It makes the entire education system’s efforts smoother and more directional by separating two key abilities: 1st Knowledge Representation —they will represent knowledge of the thought given by 2nd , and 2nd Critical Thinking & Thinking Out of the Box — the ability to analyze, innovate, and create beyond conventional boundaries. QEP advocates for an Adaptive Marking Scheme instead of the conventional Negative Marking System, and even proposes new computational frontiers, such as methods to store and utilize human consciousness. Some of its core pillars are inspired by the great philosopher Osho’s educational philosophy. This is an ever-evolving and dynamic education policy that empowers human civilization with the confidence to create their own unique fields of skills and innovation. Truly, it stands as one of the most beautiful and visionary educational concepts of the modern 21st century. It is more efficient & advance education policy than MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY .
by fpoling | 2025-11-30 10:54:44+00:00
A single income family in US with the husband working at a factory in fifties and sixties could afford a home with washing machine, dish washer, TV and a phone. Surely the home was smaller, but it was easier to clean, the TV screen was tiny, but then the family can go to a cinema. There was no internet, but for information one could go to the library. So how it was far below what people in US could accept today?
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-11-30 10:54:57+00:00
It seems mainly to be about cost, as opposed to opportunity. College tuition inflation is insane.

When it came time for me, I couldn’t even come close to affording college (in 1981). Long story, but there were many challenges to address.

I didn’t want to accept financial support from my family (see “long story,” above), but I did let them co-sign a government-backed student loan for $6,000, for a two-year, full-time trade school (which seemed outrageously expensive, back then).

Took ten years to repay, but I never regretted it.
by nunobrito | 2025-11-30 10:55:33+00:00
People using monero tend to be well informed, or at least better informed than average crypto users. What I see happening is that most users have at minimum three different wallets: One for mining on the desktop, one "cold" wallet for storing the bulk of their money and then one wallet on cakewallet with pocket money for the convenience of small and fast transactions (e.g. donations, small payments).

From that sense in regards to CakeWallet: Android isn't anywhere secure and there is a real danger that key credentials are stolen by rogue apps. In the end doesn't really matter much about whichever nodes are trusted by cakewallet because the monetary values hosted on those Android wallets don't tend to have much value much to begin with.

I've been a long time user and never saw reports of cake wallet being insecure or people losing their wallet money from there. In either case most people using monero tend to be extra cautious from the start.
by ben_w | 2025-11-30 10:57:14+00:00
> The LLM steals content from open source creators.

Not according to court cases.

Courts ruled that machine learning is a transformative use, and just fine.

Pirating material to perform the training is still piracy, but open source licenses don't get that protection.

A summary of one such court case: https://www.jurist.org/news/2025/06/us-federal-judge-makes-l...

> "Write me a parser for language X" is like pressing a button on a photocopier.

What is the prompt "review this code" in your view? Because LLM-automated code review is a thing now.
by Hackbraten | 2025-11-30 10:57:29+00:00
> please use the IETF Datatracker URL.

On my phone, your Datatracker link results in an unreadable mess of a page due to the hard-coded line breaks in the plaintext rendition of the RFC text (making it unreadable in portrait mode) and the huge sticky page nav (causing the content viewport to shrink vertically to almost zero in landscape mode). The HTML page behind OP's link reads just fine.

> The best way to view an RFC, IMHO, is to use the "htmlized" format

I don't see any choices of format such as HTML behind your link. There's a sticky nav, then a couple of pages of metadata, followed by a plaintext rendering of the RFC. What am I missing?
by kotaKat | 2025-11-30 10:57:51+00:00
False detection is a nightmare in the corporate world and this IT worker bashes his head every time he runs across it.

Nirsoft tools? Bam, "virus" and "malware". How dare you!

Tailscale website? Uh-oh, ZScaler thinks that's a "remote access tool" so you're being given a click-through formal warning!

The Framework website? Uh-oh, .work is a bad TLD! Can't browse to that, it could be evil!
by rcarr | 2025-11-30 10:59:45+00:00
Replace the word US in this paragraph with Nazi Germany and the issue with this statement becomes apparent. If the only way you can maintain power is via physical force over others then you're a bully and it won't be long until others unite against you. The US may have the best military in the world but it does not have the ability to take on the entire globe. It's previous status actually came from the fact people used to look up to and admire it - something that has been steadily declining for quite some time now. Growing up, I used to think the US was the coolest place on Earth. Yesterday, I felt sick watching a video on YouTube about how an estimated 1500 people are living in the flood tunnels of Las Vegas and routinely die whenever there is heavy rain. Every place has problems, but you can't just shout "We're the best country on Earth" anymore and have people believe you when on a daily basis the world is seeing so much evidence to the contrary.
by nunobrito | 2025-11-30 10:59:50+00:00
Didn't got adoption because the code base is awful to work with and there is a trauma against bluetooth being used as a network path.

Plus: encryption is heavy when bandwidth is limited and over radio waves we aren't even permitted to encrypt data most of the times.

Please don't read my comment as bringing down the project. I'm a fan, used everything it was produced but ultimately is unusable for serious applications on the current state. I really tried hard to adopt it.
by hexbin010 | 2025-11-30 11:00:10+00:00
Everyone is being played by some very shrewd businessmen. They had the long-term play thought-out.

The play to me it seems was to to make it appeal to as many people as possible, sell it as an oracle. Get companies to sign up, who are desparately trying to use it to reduce costs and reduce headcount. Then pivot before the old customers get angry that they've been duped (thanks suckers for all the investment !).

The timing was perfect with (post-)COVID and post-ZIRP economic struggles
by nly | 2025-11-30 11:00:45+00:00
See my sibling comment regarding vector.

It's not true that the only sensible choice for a moved-from object be equivalent to the defaulted constructed one.

If your move constructor doesn't exist then the copy constructor gets called under the language rules, so the sensible default is actually a copy.

Everything else is an optimisation that has a trade-off

A conforming implementation of std::list, for example, can have a default constructor and a move constructor that both allocate a sentinel node on the heap, which is why none of the constructors are noexcept.

If you don't allocate a sentinel on the heap, then moving std::list can invalidate iterators (which is what GNU stdlibc++'s implementation chooses).

It's a trade off.
Show HN: Champ – The AI agent that knows everything about your competitors
by maximedupre | 2025-11-30 11:01:59+00:00
I run ChampSignal (competitor monitoring). Users kept saying: "I have all this data, now what?" So I built Champ: an AI agent that sits on top of the tracked data and lets you ask questions.

"Summarize what [competitor] did this month." "Create a battlecard vs [competitor]." "What's the sentiment on Reddit?" So instead of digging through dashboards, you just ask :)

The hard part was grounding responses in time-sensitive data. We chunk signals by date and competitor so Champ cites actual tracked events.

Curious how others have made historical data conversational.
by nickdothutton | 2025-11-30 11:02:06+00:00
There are perhaps 2500-3000 unique open source licenses, ranging from the half dozen most of you will know well to very obscure licenses which have come about because (for example) a research grant from a foundation with certain guiding principals indirectly paid for some of the development of some software as part of a larger research initiative. There's even a license that precludes use of the software in any military equipment other than that which is strictly of a defensive nature, due to the constitution of the country sponsoring (a small part of) the project.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-11-30 11:02:19+00:00
> And now we’ve circled back to where the owner of a big house looking to downside isn’t made better off.

Except that by then they've already sold it. There is a time delay between when the area is rezoned and when the new construction the rezoning allows has been able to bring sufficient new supply into the market. This is long enough for the existing homeowner to unload their house onto a developer at the premium that exists while the scarcity is still high.

> Arguing (as you seem to be) that all users of housing are made better off by a policy change

It isn't all users. For example, if you already own a 50 story building then the units in that building might get less expensive once more supply comes online, but a developer isn't going to pay you for that land so they can knock it down and build a taller one because it's already a tall building and there is no sense in that when they could do the same to a 1-story building. And then those will be the ones lobbying most strongly against zoning reform -- and they have a lot of money, which is why we hardly ever get to try this.

Banks also like high housing prices because that means bigger mortgages and more interest, and their marketing materials to customers are likely significantly responsible for the impression among homeowners that it's the homeowner rather than the bank who is receiving the benefit of that.
by interleave | 2025-11-30 11:02:52+00:00
Hi Max! Thank you for updating my mental model of AI detectors.

I was with total certainty under the impression that detecting AI-written text to be an impossible-to-solve problem. I think that's because it's just so deceptively intuitive to believe that "for every detector, there'll just be a better LLM and it'll never stop."

I had recently published a macOS app called Pudding to help humans prove they wrote a text mainly under the assumption that this problem can't be solved with measurable certainty and traditional methods.

Now I'm of course a bit sad that the problem (and hence my solution) can be solved much more directly. But, hey, I fell in love with the problem, so I'm super impressed with what y'all are accomplishing at and with Pangram!
by ben_w | 2025-11-30 11:06:19+00:00
"I'm being short-changed!" claims rich minority whose high pay even fresh out of university leads to SF rents being unafordable by key workers.

Irony is, that doesn't prevent such sentiments as yours leading to people like Trump. I had a chance to live in the USA years back, I'm glad I didn't bother to take it.
by locknitpicker | 2025-11-30 11:07:37+00:00
> A QUERY seems to be no more than a POST that documents it is idempotent.

This is false.

By design QUERY is both safe and idempotent. In the context of HTTP, safe means "read-only", whereas idempotent means that a method does not introduce changes on the server, and thus many requests have the same effect of posting a single request.

The fact that the semantics of an operation is deemed safe has far-reaching implications in the design of any participant of a HTTP request, including firewalls, load balancers, proxies.

> You might as well name that the “Idempotent-Post” header and then you just issue a POST;

This is outright wrong, and completely ignores the semantics of a POST request. POST requests by design are neither safe not idempotent. You do not change that with random request headers.
by necovek | 2025-11-30 11:07:48+00:00
In that particular example (drunk neighbour damaging your property with reckless driving) is really — in most of Europe, I would guess as Serbian laws are largely copied over from different EU country laws — handled by the insurance.

Basically, insurance against damage to others is obligatory for anyone to get the car registered and on the road.

If someone drives an unregistered, uninsured vehicle, a consortium of all insurance companies pay for the damage, and sue the perpetrator in a civil case.

In general, you can argue your level of damage with the insurance company, and can even take them to court.

In Serbia, drunk driving actually precludes the liability of the insurance company too, but they still need to pay out the damages first, and bring a civil case against the driver to get compensated. For that, they need a criminal conviction.

(I've had the unfortune to be hit by a drunk driver, luckily no other harm than to the property as both cars have been totalled, and his insurance argued a lower value for my almost new car)

I am guessing here the "intent" can also be "aware of it but did not invest enough to curb it while it is profiting off it".
by topherhunt | 2025-11-30 11:07:58+00:00
If you're trying to argue that this snippet should answer the question of "what is Bazzite"... have you looked at marketing-speke websites lately? Think of how many different categories of service / product / platform / technology call themselves "the operating system for the next generation of XYZ".

+1 to jtrn's complaint here; when Bazzite's homepage doesn't own up and immediately say "Bazzite is a Linux distribution", it's being unnecessarily unclear, and it loses my trust.
by scheeseman486 | 2025-11-30 11:08:08+00:00
The quality of games on Google Play is much worse than what is available on Steam and the variety of titles are much greater on Valve's platform too, with far less in the way of microtransactions and other exploitative behaviours (though Steam isn't free of this) and a back catalogue stretching as far back to the mid 2000s.

Both Microsoft and Sony AAA titles, most third parties publish there and most indie games release there first. Steam's library is unparalleled in the industry, the only thing it's truly missing is Nintendo's games.
by tgsovlerkhgsel | 2025-11-30 11:08:34+00:00
Since the author mentioned trying to find a general solution, not one just for his project - here's one that could work:

Make a new standard license similar to the GPL, but one that includes machine-readable payment requirements, each consisting of:

- a UUID

- a minimum profit threshold

- a license fee, either a fixed amount or some well-defined formula (you'd probably want an inflation adjustment system)

- a recipient

Anyone who wants to use the software can do it, but if you cross the profit threshold, you have to pay, once per project. Dependents would naturally inherit the payment requirements of their dependencies, but you'd only pay once per dependency even if it was used in multiple projects (hence the UUID).

With high enough profit thresholds and small payments, this should avoid the license from becoming toxic:

* If you aren't a megacorp, you don't care because you're not hitting the thresholds.

* If you aren't a megacorp but dreaming of becoming one, you still don't care, because if you do become one, you can afford the cost, and the combined cost (payments + compliance cost) is well understood and limited.

* If you are a megacorp, you still don't care, because we're most likely talking about peanuts and the machine readable descriptions make it practical to comply, and you get a "software bill of materials" out of it as a side effect.

This relies on the minimum profit thresholds being high enough and the license fees low enough. This could be achieved by the text of the license itself being licensed only as long as you keep within certain thresholds.

Building a new license ecosystem and the critical mass behind it is a tall order, but I think this way it's not hopeless-from-the-start. The design isn't meant to "capture a fair share of the value" or anything like that, it's meant to be minimally toxic (because that's a hard requirement for having a chance of becoming popular) while still delivering some minimal contribution to big projects with a lot of dependents.

I was originally planning to suggest a revenue threshold, but I think profit is better, as it excludes nonprofits, startups in the starting-up phase, companies that aren't money printers, etc.
by dmezzetti | 2025-11-30 11:08:46+00:00
Companies that consider an open source project a critical part of their infrastructure should sponsor or compensate those projects.

Also when someone finds a bug, the maintainers are under no obligation to fix it or fix it with any timeline or even debug what's going on. If someone wants an immediate response they should provide compensation.

A common misconception is that OSS developers do everything for free. They do what THEY want for free. If YOU want to change their priorities, companies need to compensate for that.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-11-30 11:09:20+00:00
> They don't get to itemize their interest deduction, but they still get to deduct from their taxable income an amount equal to or greater than the interest they paid.

But they get to deduct that amount regardless of whether they paid any interest, so if they take the loan they're paying all of the interest themselves relative to what happens if they don't take the loan.