MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by esrauch | 2026-01-03 14:07:53+00:00
So I think it's a very neat format, but my feedback as a random person on the Internet is that I don't think it does uphold the claimed vision in the end of being 1:1 to JSON (the security parts, but also you do end up adding extra types too) and that's a bit of a shame compared to the top line deliverable.

Just focusing narrowly on the \0 part to explain why I say so: the spec proposed is that implementations have to either hard ban embedded \0 or disallow by default with an opt in. So someone comes with a dataset that has it, they can get support in this case only if they configure both the serializer and parser to allow it. But if you're willing to exert that level of special case extra control, I think all of the other preexisting binary-json implementations that exist do meet the top line definition you are setting as well. For some binary-json implementation which has additional types, if someone is in full end to end control to special case, then they could just choose not to use those types too, the mere existence of extra types in the binary format is no extra "problem" for 1:1 than this choice.

IMO the deliverable that a 1:1 mapping would give us "there is no bonjson data that won't losslessly round trip to JSON and vice versa". The benefit is when it is over all future data that you haven't seen yet, where the downside of using something that is not bijective is that you run for a long time suddenly you have data dependent failures in your system because you can't 1:1 map legal data.

And especially with this guarantee, what will inevitably happen is some downstream handling will also take as a given that they can strlen() since they "knew" the bonjson format spec banned it, so suddenly when you have it as in-bounds data you also won't be able to trivially flip the switch, instead you are stuck with legal JSON that you can't ingest in your system without an expensive audit because the reduction from 1:1 gets entrenched as an invariant into the handling code.

Note that my vantage point might be a bit skewed here: I work on Protobuf and this shape of ecosystem interoperability topics are top of mind for me in ways that they don't necessarily need to be for small projects, and I also recognize that "what even is legal JSON" itself is not actually completely clear, so take it all with a grain of salt (and again, I also do think it looks like a very nice encoding in general).
by ergocoder | 2026-01-03 14:08:00+00:00
> Admitting that you don't know is often the most intellectual mature position to take.

It's actually more like grandstanding to satify oneself emotionally. It's "I am right" esque type of answer because "anything can happen" is always true.

The statement can be omitted because it literally adds nothing to any discussion.

> but anybody telling you they have a crystal ball is lying.

Then, we can add to a discussion saying which part might not be true, which assumption is incorrect, and etc.

Nobody would predict anything with 100% confidence. You make that up and state "anything can happen"-type of statement to satisfy yourself emotionally.

If those people were that sure about their predictions, they would bet on polymarket and become a billionaire already.
by icegreentea2 | 2026-01-03 14:08:11+00:00
I believe HPV16/18 were considered the highest risk (in terms of causing cancer), even amongst all the other high risk HPV strains. In the intro, they state that prior to the start of the vaccination campaign 74% of cervical cancer cases in Denmark were HPV16/18, and the other 26% from the non-vaccine HR HPV strains. Following through to the referenced paper, in their study they found 20.5% of overall patients had HR HPV, with 5.4% and 2.4% with HPV16 and/or 18. However, for cancer cases, they found that 40% of cases had HPV16, and 33% had HPV18 (note that multiple simultaneous strains are possible).

There's a lot in the paper to summarize, but I think it makes a reasonable argument that HPV16/18 are especially high risk, and that "simple" replacement of the 5% HPV16/18 with another 5% of any of the other HR HPV strains would be beneficial. The linked paper suggests up to 74% (depending on your assumptions) reduction in cancer with "simple replacement".
by throw0101a | 2026-01-03 14:08:15+00:00
> That's a non sequitur. I can have a both a firewall and a NAT. The two layers are better than one because at least my address is shouldn't be routable even if I failed to configure my firewall correctly.

You talk about NAT like it's a single thing: it is not. There are at least three major varieties of NAT:

* https://blog.ipspace.net/2011/12/is-nat-security-feature/

See also various 'cones' that add complexity to getting things to work (and for which kludges like ICE/TURN/etc had to be invented):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation#Me...

See also RFC 4787 which distinguishes between NAT mapping and NAT filtering. Also, also see perhaps "NAT Traversal Mess":

* https://blog.ipspace.net/2025/04/response-nat-traversal/
by imcritic | 2026-01-03 14:08:57+00:00
What are you talking about? What link? Link where to? Your initial question is "should this site be only for white news? I'm tired getting caught in discussions of black news!"

You are being told, that it's impossible, since the world is not black and white: everything is of a shade of gray - either brighter or darker, but neither black, nor white.
by alt227 | 2026-01-03 14:09:10+00:00
So the benefit is that you dont need to worry about NAT for a couple of port forwarded services you may use (which might well even use UPnP for auto setup), but the tradeoff is you now need to think about full individual firewall protection for every device on your network?

I'll take full security by default and forward a couple of ports thankyou!
by energy123 | 2026-01-03 14:09:13+00:00
Maduro is not the head of a sovereign state. The President of Venezuela is Edmundo González, the winner of their last election[1]. To know if this violates Venezuela's sovereignty, you would have to ask their President. Personally, I fully support this operation, unless their President indicates otherwise. It's a good day for democracy and freedom.

[1] https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2024/08/02/what-are-the-odds-...
by 4gotunameagain | 2026-01-03 14:09:18+00:00
I am against China attacking Taiwan, I am against Russia attacking Ukraine, but I am also against Ukraine wanting to join NATO. The war started because of NATO and the US, and it almost fucked us over here in Germany when the US helped the Ukrainians blow up Nord Stream.

I am against any offensive action which leads to the misery and impoverishment of people, for some stupid power games of power hungry idiots.
Ask HN: How can a full-stack generalist generate cashflow in the next few weeks?
by shuiguoqu | 2026-01-03 14:09:34+00:00
I’m a CS grad and a full-stack generalist. I don’t have standout GitHub projects or startup wins yet.

I need cashflow in the next few weeks and I’m trying to pick the highest-odds path.

If you were in my situation, what would you do first (and why)?
Channels I’m considering:
- contract / temp roles
- freelancing platforms
- direct outreach to small businesses
- small digital products/templates

I’m looking for concrete first steps that typically lead to paid work quickly.
by favflam | 2026-01-03 14:09:48+00:00
20 years ago there were a lot of peer to peer applications. For example, Skype used to bounce calls across peers. Now, all calls gets routed through big-brother Microsoft.

NAT and American assymmetric bandwidth ISPs both killed this business model and now we are stuck with tech monopolies like Cloudflare. I see this ipv4-only strategy as another monopoly tactic to kill competition.

And in Asia, it is getting more difficult not to get stuffed behind a double NAT (CGNAT), which means you can't even play games without using big-brother rent-seeker services (no port-forwarding/upnp). But at least here you get ipv6 for free and everything just works.
by hypeatei | 2026-01-03 14:09:55+00:00
1) there's no evidence that they were trafficking drugs, and especially fentanyl (which the orange is on a crusade about)

2) if that's true, how do you feel about him pardoning one of the biggest drug traffickers ever[0]?

0: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/29/nyregion/honduras-hernand...
by 0manrho | 2026-01-03 14:10:10+00:00
I keep seeing this comment regarding congressional authorization for war all over social media this morning, and am wondering why everyone seems to be aware of that, but not aware of the 80+ years of eroding those checks and balances and abandoning that precedent time and time again.

It's the 2020's, not 1920's. Congress hasn't declared war since WW2, and that hasn't stopped us from engaging the dozens of wars and armed conflicts we've been directly involved in since then.

To be clear, I'm not happy/proud of that fact. I think it's a moral and systemic failing, and do not support America's actions in Venezuela this morning. I'm just perplexed why everyone seems to think a precedent we abandonded long before most of us were even born suddenly applies today, or why they know about that law but don't know that we've violated it more times than we've observed it (without consequences), or don't know about the War Powers Act, or think that Congress would do anything but further enable him.

In short, why does everyone suddenly think that's relevant while also ignoring all the other relevant history that establishes we do not and have not observed that precedent in the modern era. Again, we *Should*, but did anyone honestly expect it to happen, or that congress wouldn't go along with it, or that the current POTUS would respect such law/precedent?

TL;DR: I don't think we should be going to war or engaging in armed conflict without congressional approval either, but the law and well established precedent both say POTUS legally has that power, at least in the short term, and we're not even 24hours into the 60 day period the War Powers act (which is 50 years old and passed by congress btw) grants.
by dmix | 2026-01-03 14:10:26+00:00
I’d say it’s easily the most common talking point I’ve seen from westerners on Twitter against overly supporting Ukraine and specifically providing them advanced American weaponry to strike within Russia proper, which was the biggest debate/controversy for about two years.

Also not necessarily “remove Putin by force”, it’s create instability in Russia where there’s a power vacuum if they lose badly in Ukraine.

Everyone just takes all of their American foreign policy lessons from Iraq and applies it broadly because Iraq briefly had ISIS and other extremist pop up

It’s also deeply rooted in a lack of respect for the general public in those countries, who they think will keep supporting evil regardless
by reaperducer | 2026-01-03 14:10:28+00:00
Direct quote:

The problem is that you can't cherry-pick quotes from this administration and use them as a source of truth like you could with previous administrations.

Especially from Mr. Trump, who says something and then an hour later states the opposite. (See his record on solar, electric vehicles, various personnel and congressmen.) Keeping people guessing is part of this administration's strategy, and is inherited from how he did business.
by jinchaohan | 2026-01-03 14:11:04+00:00
Process:
- Trained on synthetic data generated with Blender
- Deployed in the browser via Babylon.js + WebGPU
(GPU execution; a WASM fallback runs on CPU and is slower)
- A secondary network is used for upscaling and quality refinement

Why this matters (for me):
This is an experiment in real-time, web-native neural rendering,
and how it might be used to explore synthetic → real domain gaps.

Rather than trying to eliminate bias in synthetic data,
I’m testing whether it’s possible to control and design it:
define a visual target first, then train toward richer
lighting and material responses.

Details and limitations are shown in the video.
by spacedcowboy | 2026-01-03 14:11:05+00:00
This, of course, is one of the reasons why people's opinion of the USA has been steadily dropping.

They don't play by the rules that they themselves created. They are not a trustworthy partner.

Any country that can ought to be removing any and all dependencies on the USA as a matter of priority - as Europe is doing for military matters. It's actually pretty easy, you just schmooze the orange fuckwit and tell him everything's ok, and then you do what you want, incrementally so you can boil that frog.
by whstl | 2026-01-03 14:11:41+00:00
It comes from the same place as "passwords expire every 30 days".

People don't understand something and just apply the most annoying rule possible.

The craziest one I saw in Germany was "cookies are allowed, localStorage is not", that was for our app. CTO overrode the CISO on the spot and called him an idiot for making rules he doesn't understand. Interesting day.
by krona | 2026-01-03 14:11:58+00:00
The Monroe Doctrine is over 200 years old and simple enough for your average dictator to understand. Don't expect the US to turn a blind eye to investments in key strategic assets of your country by its strategic rivals.

I don't think it's a coincidence that a special envoy of Xi met Maduro hours before being captured. It was probably the final straw.
by saubeidl | 2026-01-03 14:12:02+00:00
> Really? I thought the US just arrested Maduro. To me, that seems like something that would matter.

You can't arrest a foreign head of state in a country where you have no jurisdiction. You can only kidnap them, as a rogue state.

Do you think Iran should be able to arrest Trump because they don't consider him legitimate?

International law isn't "I don't like you, so I will 'arrest' you". It's rules that all countries are bound by and that the US is breaking - making themselves a rogue state on the same level as North Korea.

> Can you actually try to explain why? Can you explain why a reasonable person looking at this from the outside should arrive at the conclusion that "Maduro was the legitimate government"?

Because he led Venezuela, that's what makes him the government of Venezuela. Any judgement on legitimacy is reserved to the Venezuelan people, not far-right oligarchs (who the US government considers the "legitimate government" since they'll make for nice puppets as they rob the place), not foreign dictators like Trump.
by simion314 | 2026-01-03 14:12:19+00:00
>Invading countries to annex them is not even that bad if you give full citizen rights to their population.

This is soviet bullshit, the Moscowitz did a lot of genocides you can find plenty of sources, so they were and are as bad as Israel because the Rusky/slavs in Ruzzia are indoctrinated to feel superior to the other non slaves in the empire and feel still a bit more superior then the rest of the slavs. You can look at the existing recent data from the Ruzzian stats and how the minorities are more in decline then the Ruskies.

So for uninformed people that might read this soviet guy comment, read a wikipedia summary of what moscowites did and Putin is still doing, I suggest not reading in detail, like reading books or interviews with vitims of this criminal empire you will fill a big amount of pain if you have empath on how this Ruscists treated humans , I will never forget the stuff Ir ead and better if I did not know the details.

Ruzzia, israle , USA all are bad but the situation is multidimensional and is not easy to say that Ruzzia is less bad then Nazis and are better then Israle etc., we cana dmit that criminal are criminals, dictators are dictators, bastardads are bastards and trolls are trolls.
by flkiwi | 2026-01-03 14:12:24+00:00
So we can justify, say, deposing the king of Saudi Arabia? Or Zelenskyy on the pretext that he hasn’t held a timely election? Or the president of Taiwan on the basis of illegitimacy of the election? Regardless of Maduro’s sins, this is a massively destabilizing action and I expect we will see unpleasant downstream effects even if, in a vacuum, the action was justifiable and legal.
by gsf_emergency_6 | 2026-01-03 14:12:41+00:00
PH was correct; the melodist is Japanese

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0K8jkNLPdQ&t=13s

In my mind -- the series notwithstanding -- TT (like you) is forever middle-aged (rzn like azn?)

E-
Ask a friendly nbhd (full-blooded) Russian/Serbo-Croat for Chinese p(r)op recs :)
by boramalper | 2026-01-03 14:12:44+00:00
> Whether any one country should be global police or not is a very difficult question to answer

I don’t think it’s that difficult to answer, and the answer is “no” for two main reasons:

1. I don’t think the US has the greater good of humanity in mind nor even of its citizens except a minority, when it’s policing around.

2. Even if we were to assume otherwise (that the US concerns itself with the greater good), “who will watch the watchmen?” Especially when its institutions are being undermined day by day…
by wolvoleo | 2026-01-03 14:12:47+00:00
I don't want people with camera glasses around me either. But the stupid thing is: they don't even need to exist. The Google glass can show its notifications just fine without a camera. My Xreal Air works great without one.

It's the big tech companies that are pushing for pervasive cameras. Not consumers saying they can't live without a camera on their face.
by megous | 2026-01-03 14:12:50+00:00
Right, and in theory that all sounds very thoughtful and morally calibrated—until you remember that U.S. foreign policy decision-making has roughly the transparency of a raccoon operating a shredder at midnight. There is no clear, open process where the U.S. earnestly weighs “dictator versus coup versus fraudulent election” on some ethical flowchart labeled For the Greater Good. Instead, it’s often more like: Is there oil? A lot of oil? Like, cartoonishly large amounts of oil? Because if there is, suddenly democracy becomes very important, very quickly.

And yes, we’re told—solemnly—that every intervention is about democracy, human rights, and justice, which is fascinating because those principles have an uncanny habit of aligning perfectly with strategic interests. Venezuela is a great example, where the rhetoric about freedom somehow managed to coexist with very unsubtle comments about wanting “all that oil.” At that point, the moral argument starts to feel less like a difficult philosophical dilemma and more like a PowerPoint slide hastily slapped over a resource grab labeled “Don’t Look Behind This.”

So while you’re absolutely right that the question of global policing isn’t black and white, the problem is that U.S. interventions often aren’t shades of gray either—they’re shades of green. And once that’s the pattern, claims about benevolent intent stop sounding like hard ethical reasoning and start sounding like a press release written by someone who assumes the audience has the memory of a goldfish.
by ulfw | 2026-01-03 14:12:53+00:00
And where do you stop?

If Trump is prosecutor, judge and executioner all in one, then who is a good person and who is a bad person?

So...

Nicolás Maduro Moros of Venezuela - drugs - bad... (got kidnapped by Trump)

Juan Orlando Hernández of Honduras - drug - gooood.... (got pardoned by Trump)
by throw0101a | 2026-01-03 14:13:06+00:00
> I can’t think of any common requirement that will be afforded to users having devices that will never need to be publicly reachable be publicly addressable.

Because you do not know ahead of time which devices may have such a need, and by allowing for the possibility you open up more flexibility.

> [Residential customers] don't care about engineering, but they sure do create support tickets about broken P2P applications, such as Xbox/PS gaming applications, broken VoIP in gaming lobbies, failure of SIP client to punch through etc. All these problems don't exist on native routed (and static) IPv6.

> In order for P2P to work as close as possible to routed IPv6 in NATted IPv4, we had to deploy a bunch of workarounds such as EIM-NAT to allow TCP/UDP P2P punching to work both ways, we had to allow hairpinning on the CGNAT device to allow intra-CGNAT traffic to work between to CGNAT clients, as TURN can only detect the public-facing IP:Port, hairpinning allow 100.64.0.0/10 clients to talk to each other over the CGNATted public IP:Port.

* https://blog.ipspace.net/2025/03/response-end-to-end-connect...

By having (a) a public address, and (b) a CPE that supports PCP/IGD hole punching, you eliminate a whole swath of infrastructure (ICE/TURN/etc) and kludges.

When it was first released, Skype was peer-to-peer, but because of NAT "super nodes" had to be invented in their architecture so that the clients/peers could have someone to 'bounce' off of to connect. But because of the prevalence of NAT, central servers are now the norm.

A lot of folks on HN complain about centralization and concentration on the Internet, but how can it be otherwise when folks push back against technologies that would allow more peer-to-peer architectures?
by ivan_gammel | 2026-01-03 14:13:18+00:00
> Isn't this literally them not wanting to be left holding the paper bag?

It’s telling that they consider this a possibility. If EU wanted it, they could protect Belgium. But anticipation of business as usual means that whoever distances from such decisions better, will do better.

„Let Ukraine die“ decision was made in 2022, when NATO chose not to engage directly and not to switch to war economy, rapidly scaling production of military equipment and supplies. In NATO vs Russia war, Russia had no chances, but it quickly became Ukraine vs Russia war with token Western support, where Ukraine has no chances in the long term. As for increase in military spending, it’s necessary, but whatever is done, is insufficient. It is barely enough for containment of Russia, and EU needs independent operation in Middle East and Africa, pushing out USA from the region (whatever America does there, always ricocheting on Europe, so they should be denied action without approval of allies)
by gregw2 | 2026-01-03 14:13:25+00:00
Fair.

I acknowledge "dark" is a judgemental term... but the mix of extreme poverty, extreme relative wealth, and the blind eye towards the sex trade is... dark.

Such misery is not unique to Thailand but you may find it more open, deeply rooted, in your face palpable, or covert-in-troubling-ways.

If you are doing serious dev work of a leveragable nature, I would also be6 thoughtful about how to protect one's innovations in a heavenly land adjacent to China, full of friendly Russian expat hackers post-Ukraine-sanctions, with my hinkiness detectors already overwhelmed by cross cultural signals of a new environment.

I could try to sell you on the merits of low cost of living for English-speaking software hackers in other places like Vietnam or the Phillipines but have to remind myself you aren't asking for that and all I really have is anecdotes and observations anyways and so much of our options and choices are shaped by circumstances and personal tradeoffs. I wouldn't do it but I am me, not you. Good luck!
by chrisjj | 2026-01-03 14:13:57+00:00
"“With a project like this, we need to be 100% accurate, and that’s really difficult with this technology,” said Stacey Marz, the administrative director of the Alaska Court System and one of the AVA project’s leaders."

With apparently so little understanding of the difference between difficult and impossible, she should probably not have been given the job.

"Once we get the minimum viable product, let’s get that out there, and then we’ll enhance that as we learn.”

Make that definitely should not.
by alt227 | 2026-01-03 14:14:17+00:00
Because all that usage is in one market space, mobile device only. Take mobile devices out of the picture and that graph would be through the floor.

Mobile and Telco ISPs are the only ones not issueing IPv4 addresses to their clients and this will never change.

Saying NAT 'Won Out' may have been a bit of a flippant overreacting statement which I apologise for, but IPv6 will never replace IPv4 outside of the mobile space and that was my core point I was (poorly) trying to make.