MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by DANmode | 2025-12-28 15:00:51+00:00
> nicotine is significantly more harmful than caffeine

“Significantly” is an opinion.

It’s more toxic by weight, yes.

Messes with vascular more than caffeine.

Both are an excellent way to screw up heart health.

> let’s not get started on the CFS stuff, treatments for functional disorders are often placebo-resembling.

Personally haven’t needed or wanted to use nicotine, but I have recovered from an array of chronic illnesses; I’ll get started on anything I please, thanks,

especially seeing how many of my peers are hopelessly exhausted and existing on abusive amounts of caffeine/prescription stimulants to get by.
by UniverseHacker | 2025-12-28 15:00:52+00:00
You're gatekeeping being mad about a system that is asking me to decide between breaking a law/social contract, and wasting hours of my life every week while watching other people break it the whole time?

No, I'm not mad about the Wrangler 4xe, it's really great that plug in hybrid tech is moving into a wider range of vehicles useful for things like rough terrain. A small battery is still plenty for the vast majority of driving people actually do.
by echelon | 2025-12-28 15:00:58+00:00
Atlanta is frequently referred to as "the 404" due to it being one of our area codes for calling.

April 4th is an informal city holiday, "404 day".

Lots of artists and companies make "404" branded stuff, and you generally see the number all over the city:

https://mondaynightbrewing.com/beer/404-atlanta-lager/

https://sneakernews.com/2025/03/21/adidas-superstar-404-day-...

https://x.com/kodakk6000/status/1775929898390978721
by talkingtab | 2025-12-28 15:01:21+00:00
I think it is time that open source => community source. Where community is NOT corporations making tons of money without royalties. And where community is NOT AI.

As someone said these are fair uses of Open source. But it would not be fair use of Community Open Source.

Many people will reject such an effort for good reason. Open Source is something of great value. But should only Corporations profit from it. Why not the developers, maintainers, etc?

So the question is whether there is some way to retain the benefits and goodness of Open Source while expelling the "Embrace, extend, extinguish" corporations?
by kentonv | 2025-12-28 15:02:04+00:00
> In Java, Python, JavaScript, and C# an exception thrown from a finally block overwrites the original exception, and the original exception is lost.

Pet peeve of mine: all these languages got it wrong. (And C++ got it extra-wrong.)

The error you want to log or report to the user is almost certainly the original exception, not the one from the finally block. The error from the finally block is probably a side effect of the original exception. Reporting the finally exception obscures information about the root cause, making it harder to debug the problem.

Many of these languages do attach the original exception to the new exception in some way, so you can get at it if you need to, but whatever actually catches and logs the exception later has to go out of its way to make sure to log the root cause rather than some stupid side effect. The hierarchy should be reversed: the exception thrown by `finally` should be added as an attachment to the original exception, perhaps placed in a list of "secondary" errors. Or you could even just throw it away, honestly the original exception is almost always all you care about anyway.

(C++ of course did much worse by just crashing in this scenario. I imagine this to be the outcome of some debate in the committee where they couldn't decide which exception should take priority. And now everyone has internalized this terrible decision by saying "well, destructors shouldn't throw" without seeming to understand that this is equivalent to saying "destructors shouldn't have bugs". WELL OF COURSE THEY SHOULDN'T BUT GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.)
by carrychains | 2025-12-28 15:03:10+00:00
This article is garbage. I was half expecting or hoping for a nuanced analysis of regressions manifested in a specific leading model as a result of purported "upgrades" but instead found an idiot who doesn't understand how LLMs work or seem to even care, really.

Idiots like this seem to want a robot that does things for them instead of a raw tool that builds sometimes useful context, and the LLM peddlers are destroying their creations to oblige this insatiable contingent.
by brookst | 2025-12-28 15:03:17+00:00
Sweeney isn’t anti-monopoly, he’s pro-Sweeney. He sees an opportunity to let others do the work and investment to build platforms, then selectively swoop in to compete once the risk and investment pay off.

It’s not a bad business model if he can get the courts on his side: let others spend billions and take risks, then cherry pick the successful platforms and compete with their distribution using a cost basis that doesn’t have those up-front costs and risks.
by infecto | 2025-12-28 15:03:33+00:00
Completely agree.

I do think there is room for more these "New Urbanist" style developments which I have seen a few of in Texas. w the builder puts retail buildings centralized in the development. Lots of real parks and other type of shared resources for the community. Something where you still have a house with a yard but you can walk to the coffee shop in your neighborhood.
by crimsoneer | 2025-12-28 15:03:44+00:00
I'm really confused as to why the Good Law Project thinks this is their fight.

NHS gives contract for cloud database to US cloud software company. This is not that shocking. I'm not clear what they outcome they're looking for .... Using Databricks instead and getting slightly shittier health outcomes so we can be smug we're not connected to Peter Thiel?
by Wowfunhappy | 2025-12-28 15:03:57+00:00
Of course, if the code wasn't available in the first place, the AI wouldn't be able to read it.

It wouldn't qualify as "open source", but I wonder if OP could have some sort of EULA (or maybe it would be considered an NDA). Something to the effect of "by reading this source code, you agree not to use it as training data for any AI system or model."

And then something to make it viral. "You further agree not to allow others to read or redistribute this source code unless they agree to the same terms."
by hkt | 2025-12-28 15:04:31+00:00
I think some variation of the Hippocratic License will probably work for you. See:

https://firstdonoharm.dev/

There isn't an explicitly anti-AI element for this yet but I'd wager they're working on it. If not, see their contribute page where they explicitly say this:

> Our incubator program also supports the development of other ethical source licenses that prioritize specific areas of justice and equity in open source.
by LightBug1 | 2025-12-28 15:04:45+00:00
>>Anything that is core to the function and well being of a state, being owned by a foreign nation poses a national security risk.

You mean like water? ... I believe we're the only 'developed' country in the world to have sold off / privatised it's water.

It's all we do. Sell our country down the river for the benefit of a few wankers.

I signed up to the link in the original post, but don't have that much hope. We'll sell our grandma if it'll mean we get a 50p voucher or save 2 more minutes of our day.
by Aurornis | 2025-12-28 15:04:50+00:00
Not really. If a company were to manufacture a substantially large number of shares out of nothing (no additional investment money or other value entering the company) then the market cap would not go up. It would stay the same and per-share value would go down.

The market is mostly reasonable about who can and will sell their shares. If a big mover does sell a lot of their shares at once, the price will fall. Most big holders will slowly sell off shares for this reason.

In the other direction, it’s also understood that the cost to acquire all shares of a company is more than the market cap of a company. This is why you see acquisition prices being significantly higher than the last funding round valuation, or public shares popping on announcement of an acquisition attempt.
by teleforce | 2025-12-28 15:05:03+00:00
>Big Monopolies have managed to convince people that they need one account on each platform. This was done, on purpose, for purely unethical reasons in order to keep users captive.

>That brainwash/marketing is so deeply entrenched that most people cannot see an alternative anymore. It looks like a natural law: you need an account on a platform to communicate with someone on that platform.

Easily the best post on HN so far this year 2025, thanks.

Very messy situations that we're at the moment for our communications platform but sadly it's true.
Show HN: Monopipe (Alpha), read blogs from terminal using piping-server
by Imustaskforhelp | 2025-12-28 15:06:10+00:00
Hello HN, I had this project created a long time ago but I recently recreated it and deployed it and basically, you can create your own blog in it.

Simply git clone https://github.com/SerJaimeLannister/monopipe

python3 -m http.server (or any http server)

Just change the data inside editor.content() to be your article and then done :)

Now what I have added is also a button at the top with a piping-server. Basically if any of you want to read content written with monopipe, you can just click the button and then curl link where the link is the piping-server link in that input box

There are a lot of features that I wish to add, mainly the ability that right now it gives html to the terminal iirc so I need to integrate an markdown editor to it so that it gives markdown

Vanilla JS aspect of things was the most hard thing to grasp building this project by hand.

https://github.com/SerJaimeLannister/monopipe

What are some things you are interested about it?

Any suggestions, let me know and as always I hope y'all have a nice day
by testdelacc1 | 2025-12-28 15:07:44+00:00
Open source except for people who have downvoted any of my comments.

I agree with you though. I get sad when I see people abuse the Commons that everyone contributes to, and I understand that some people want to stop contributing to the Commons when they see that. I just disagree - we benefit more from a flourishing Commons, even if there are free loaders, even if there are exploiters etc.
by hkt | 2025-12-28 15:08:33+00:00
I've linked elsewhere to the Hippocratic License, which freely refers to itself as open source while specifically being built around refusing licensing based on ethical considerations. OSI don't own the term open source, and the simple and plain meaning of the term is clear to see. Otherwise, we wouldn't consider GPL software to be open source, because it attaches conditions on usage. That even applies to non-copyleft licenses like MIT which demand author attribution. The term open source is best read literally unless someone says "I want an OSI approved license".
by evanelias | 2025-12-28 15:09:24+00:00
> it’s not a random initiative

Arguably it is, in the sense that they didn't actually invent the term; there are many documented pre-OSI uses (including by high-profile folks like Bill Joy) saying "open source" to just mean "source available". And OSI's attempt to trademark the term was rejected.

> if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source

That isn't even part of the OSI's definition, so what are you basing this on?
by bigstrat2003 | 2025-12-28 15:09:31+00:00
> Saying "we already have a definition" when it's not clear whether it's been considered whether that definition would interact with something which is new, is... I don't even know what word to use. Square? Stupid?

The word you're looking for is "correct". The definition doesn't change just because circumstances do. If you want a term to refer to "open source unless it's for AI use", then coin one, don't misuse an existing term to mean something it doesn't.
by scaramanga | 2025-12-28 15:10:01+00:00
Actually yes, that would be an ideal intervention of state into computing infrastructure.

It could even be revenue generating as, once developed, it could be sold out to the private sector, instead of essentially being taxed by foreign corporations for such basic digital infrastructure as hypervisors and key/value stores.

It could also act as a buffer and wage-stabiliser for people like us, who work in tech, by providing guaranteed employment when the private sector implements layoffs.

I don't know why anyone in our position wouldn't support that.
by sidequest25 | 2025-12-28 15:10:16+00:00
We built this because we kept seeing founders (including ourselves) move fast on ideas—only to realize too late that pricing, costs, or revenue assumptions didn’t really make sense. Our goal is simple: help founders get clarity faster, before spending months building the wrong thing.

Why is it free?
We believe in adding real value before asking for anything. No signup walls, no tricks. Just use it, pressure-test your idea, and move forward with more confidence.

Why we think it’s valuable:
SaaS Estimator lets you play with realistic pricing, subscriber counts, or one-time lifetime customers to see how your first year could actually look. It helps you understand whether you need upfront cash or can grow through MRR—and what that means for your business.
by iwanttocomment | 2025-12-28 15:10:31+00:00
Had ISDN in the mid-90s back when I worked for an ISP. Wasn't expensive from my telco, 40 1996 dollars a month and the cost of a Motorola BitSURFR Pro. Got dial-up bonding working on the ISP side. It could "ring through" one of the B-channels when a call came in and stay connected on the other. A wonderful time.
by kstrauser | 2025-12-28 15:10:45+00:00
It’s an interesting idea, but not open source, and IMO not particularly useful. It says the software can’t be used to harm humans. Folks, this is why philosophy is a required course. What does it mean to harm someone? Is using it to help someone get an abortion harmful? Is using it to make a self-defense weapon harmful? Is using it to automate a beer brewery harmful? Yes, if you’re anti-abortion, a pacifist, or a tea-totaler. No, if you’re not.
by hyperman1 | 2025-12-28 15:10:57+00:00
I can't agree with this interpretation. A human, somewhere in the bigco, decided laid you off. That specific person decided to take advantage of you, and is responsible for that action. Bigco may have an incentive structure that pushes for this behaviour, but a human looked at incentives and morals and decided. Don't let them off the hook by pointing at the bigco.
by bob1029 | 2025-12-28 15:11:28+00:00
It might be more useful to probe into specifically why you do not want your code to be used to train AI.

I don't have any good answers for the ideological hard lines, but others here might. That said, anything in the bucket of concerns that can be largely reduced to economic factors is fairly trivial to sort out in my mind.

For example, if your concern is that the AI will take your IP and make it economically infeasible for you to capitalize upon it, consider that most enteprises aren't interested in managing a fork of some rando's OSS project. They want contracts and support guarantees. You could offer enterprise products + services on top of your OSS project. Many large corporations actively reject in-house development. They would be more than happy to pay you to handle housekeeping for them. Whether or not ChatGPT has vacuumed up all your IP is ~irrelevant in this scenario. It probably helps more than it hurts in terms of making your offering visible to potential customers.
by limagnolia | 2025-12-28 15:11:36+00:00
1) Software licenses are generally about copyright, though sometimes contain patent licensing provisions. Right now, there is significant legal debate on if training LLMs violates copyright or is fair use.

2) Most OSS licenses require attributeion, something LLM code generation does not really do.

So IF training an LLM is restrctable by copyright, most OSS licenses practically speaking are incompatible with LLM training.

Adding some text that specifically limits LLM training would likely run afould of the open source definitions freedom from discrimination principle.
by xphos | 2025-12-28 15:11:37+00:00
I mean i would never dispute that India was enslaved, but I think characterizing it as they were enslaved and all there ideas were stolen is a stretch. If they were so innovative and advanced how were they enslaved? Western institutions were a major advancement, things like the caste system held back India and did not come from the west. Those systems were certainty perpetuated by the west but also be Indian leadership as well the same way slavery held the US back but still was spurred on by southern leadership.

Adopting western institutions is a large reason Japan become the dominant Asian force leading up to ww2.

I think your probably correct they will become the 3rd largest economy but they also have the second largest economy that makes a huge difference. What makes Americas economy insane is they have been about 25-50% of world GDP for the last 100 years despite being less than 5% of the population. In terms of an efficient economy they are a large way to go still but I think they will become very wealth because I agree the country is full of smart people
by UniverseHacker | 2025-12-28 15:12:05+00:00
This is fascinating and sounds really promising.

However, this article also seems to imply that frequent cold exposure that converts your own white fat cells into beige fat cells could be effective at both treating and preventing cancer.

They state without explanation that cold therapy cannot be done by cancer patients, but I don’t see why not. I take an ice bath every morning as it helps with my mental health, and its really not that shocking or difficult when you’re used to it as the very adaptation they’re talking about here eventually makes it easy to tolerate cold- your body adapts to be able to keep you warm. I can and do still do it when I’m sick, fatigued, or slept poorly.

Moreover, before modern climate controlled environments and low cost warm clothing humans naturally experienced cold a lot more often and were probably already cold adapted, even in warm climates. Could modern heating systems be predisposing us to cancer by making our metabolism work abnormally?
by Avamander | 2025-12-28 15:12:54+00:00
They are also correct, but that's indeed not what the person you replied to said.

> then why haven't alternatives ^W replacements been produced for decades?

Actually we do have alternatives for it.

For example Git supports S/MIME and could absolutely be used to sign commits and tags. Even just using self-signed certificates wouldn't be far off from what PGP offers. However if people used their digital IDs like many countries offer, mission-critical code could have signatures with verifiable strong identities.

Though there are other approaches as well, both for signing and for encrypting. It's more that people haven't really considered migrating.
by linsomniac | 2025-12-28 15:13:09+00:00
I've been doing a work-oriented "what I did today" list for ~25 years, and really like it. Originally it started because I needed to bill for my time, but when I went to my current job (over a decade ago) I kept doing it. In my iteration, it is a concise sentence about each thing I've worked on that day. At the end of the month I go back through and review it and write up a "Wins" list.

It's surprisingly useful; I share it with my coworkers and we often consult it if we notice something has been behaving differently starting at a certain date to see what was going on then.

I keep it in a simple text file, running in a tmux on a server, so I have connections to it from my laptop and my desktop. It's currently 19,509 lines.
by sejje | 2025-12-28 15:13:11+00:00
I like this, but of course the location it points to should be programmable at any time.

Then it's useful for everyone without dementia as well, and a bigger market is better.

For me, this is the perfect motorcycle navigation. In fact, I use an app that turns my smart watch into exactly this product--an arrow pointing to my destination at all times, no other information (distance might be nice though)

Actually, if it's for people with dementia, I think it should have a couple words on it. "Home", an actual arrow, and a distance. Two of those could be static additions, if the designer will allow their minimalism to be sacrificed for the actual goal of the product.
Does the Nvidia "Revenue Sharing Agreement" Tie the US Gov't Hands?
by DivingForGold | 2025-12-28 15:13:26+00:00
The largest US company by market cap, Nvidia has a “Revenue Sharing Agreement” with the US Gov't. It is reported the deal was cut directly between Huang and Trump. This has been characterized as an “unprecedented move” related to national security export controls, whereby Nvidia (and AMD) agreed to pay the U.S. government 15% of the revenue generated from the sale of certain AI chips (specifically, in this case, the H20 chip) to China. This has been characterized as not a traditional investment, but a “condition for receiving export licenses”. Certainly Nvidia obtaining Groq in the “creative” manner used isn't a traditional investment either.
Call it what you like, but in law any party (most significantly in this case the US Gov't) that stands to benefit from Nvidia sales - - and therefore, any negative action to the contrary, which would curtail or damage Nvidia's sales, which would then be perceived as damaging stockholder value, potentially exposing both to a lawsuit for damages ?
Therefore, could it be assumed that the US Gov't has put itself in an interesting position of being constrained from doing anything that might damage Nvidia's stock value, such as the DOJ filing an antitrust action or suit against Nvidia ?
Even the mere mention of an investigation could result in loss of value of Nvidia stock. It could be debated that the US Gov't entering into these kinds of deals potentially hamstrings enforcement efforts, which enforcement should take precedence over revenue.
Instead of “creative regulatory evasion”, perhaps the US Gov't is now in a position of “creative regulatory liability and entanglement.”
Already trade experts and legal analysts have raised concerns about the legality and potential constitutional issues, suggesting it could also be seen as an export tax, which is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

In general terms it is difficult to sue the US Gv't due to sovereign immunity, but investors in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac won a significant legal victory when a federal jury awarded them $612.4 million in damages in August 2023, finding the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) improperly changed stock purchase agreements (the "Net Worth Sweep") in 2012, breaching good faith and destroying shareholder value by funneling profits to the Treasury instead of recovering shareholders.
by OutOfHere | 2025-12-28 15:14:13+00:00
You can achieve this today using rose hips powder which has tiliroside which already has these studied effects, both of browning (for fat loss) and of anti-cancer. Note that too much rose hips can easily raise the body temperature excessively over several days, so take it easy with the dose, although this effect is useful in the winter. It will do this via fat browning without increasing BP or affecting HR, which is the whole point. I can't wait to be downvoted for sharing something useful, which pretty much is par for the course on this site, i.e. altogether shallow people voting only on the basis of what they already believe in.
by dkdcio | 2025-12-28 15:14:39+00:00
it’s not made up (well all language is made up but I digress), you’re just being flagrantly ignorant of the terms you’re using and their history. you can easily go read up on open source vs source available and the history of the terms/licenses

it’s also fine by me if you want to have your own definition; see other comments, I don’t personally 100% agree with OSI’s definition myself