MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jakelazaroff | 2026-01-19 20:13:10+00:00
You are the breadwinner for your household. A detective decides that you are the most likely person to have committed a nearby burglary. You have an alibi, but they charge you anyway. You cannot afford to pay bail; your options are to remain in jail until the case makes its way through the courts, or to accept a plea bargain that lets you out on probation. Your underfunded and overworked public defender advises you to take the deal, since a trial would be ruinous even if you do prevail. What do you do?

The issue with plea bargains is not that guilty people are given leniency for remorse; it is that they are used to coerce innocent people into confessing to a crime they did not commit.
by dfabulich | 2026-01-19 20:13:31+00:00
https://2025.stateofhtml.com/en-US/features/web_components/

Sort by negative sentiment; Shadow DOM is at the top of the list, the most hated feature in Web Components. You can read the comments, too, and they're almost all negative, and 100% correct.

"Accessibility nightmare"

"always hard to comprehend, and it doesn't get easier with time"

"most components don't need it"

"The big issue is you need some better way to some better way to incorporate styling from outside the shadow dom"

> It's the only DOM primitive that allows for interoperable composition.

There is no DOM primitive that allows for interoperable composition with fine-grained reactivity. Your framework offers fine-grained reactivity (Virtual DOM for React/Preact, signals for Angular, runes for Svelte, etc.) and any component that contains another component has to coordinate with it.

As a result, you can only mix-and-match container components between frameworks with different reactivity workflows by giving up on fine-grained reactivity, blowing away the internals when you cross boundaries between frameworks. (And Shadow DOM makes it harder, not easier, to coordinate workflows between frameworks.)

Shadow DOM sucks at the only thing it's supposed to be for. Please, listen to the wisdom of the crowd here.
by lurk2 | 2026-01-19 20:13:36+00:00
It’s an incentive problem. If even one party defects in a society of pacifists, the pacifists have no real method of recourse besides refusing to interact with the defector, and how many people are going to do that if the defector starts killing people to enforce compliance?

Some subscribe to a soft pacifism where non-destructive violent resistance like disarming the defector or disabling the defector using less-lethal technologies like a tazer would be fine. Pure pacifists who don’t believe in any kind of physical resistance whatsoever are almost exclusively religious practitioners who don’t ascribe a high degree of value to life in this world because they believe non-resistance will bear spiritual fruit in the next world.
by kens | 2026-01-19 20:13:36+00:00
How to get started reverse engineering? That's a big topic for a HN comment, but in brief... Either get a metallurgical microscope and start opening up chips, or look at chip photos from a site like Zeptobars. Then start tracing out simple chips and see how transistors are constructed, and then learn how larger circuits are built up. This works well for chips from the 1970s, but due to Moore's Law, it gets exponentially more difficult for newer chips.

I also have a video from Hackaday Supercon on reverse engineering chips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKi1xX7KKOI
by 1123581321 | 2026-01-19 20:13:42+00:00
Agape could be discussed as a philosophy between disagreeing figures like King and Carmichael. Today, fewer people have encountered the idea so they can’t choose it as a philosophy.

Without agape, political activism is more zero-sum and utilitarian. Non-violence becomes a gambit that is only appealing as long as it is making obvious gains against the current winners, and there is little motivation to remain nonviolent after becoming winners.
by crazygringo | 2026-01-19 20:13:42+00:00
I don't think so. Nobody disagrees that a brighter color draws more attention than a subdued one, or that the eye is drawn to a heavier weight before a lighter one. Nobody disagrees that it looks more balanced to have the round parts of letters like "O" and S" extend slightly beyond the baseline and cap line, beyond where the bottom and top os "E" and "B" are. These, and 200 (?) other things, are the basic principles that everyone learns and plays with -- that graphic designers are taught. It's the vocabulary of design, and is universal. "Design theory" is one way of referring to it -- theory of color, shape, etc. The things that make things clear or confusing. It's really quite objective, in the sense of what looks pleasing and balanced to the eye. It doesn't appear to be cultural.

Schools of design have more to do with values and purpose, and following fads and trends and all that. Maybe that's what you're referring to? They can have their own "theories". But when people talk about "design theory" they're usually talking about the basic principles/vocabulary of design.
by jimbo808 | 2026-01-19 20:13:47+00:00
As long as you pretend these didn't happen:

Iran (1953) - overthrow of the Shah by the CIA

Guatemala (1954) - overthrow of an elected government on behalf of US corporate interests

Cuba (1961) - invaded Cuba via proxy forces, attempted to assassinate Castro (Bay of Pigs)

Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (1955–1975)

Chile (1973) – overthrow of Salvador Allende

Nicaragua (1980s) - overthrow the Sandinista government (Contra war) without international authorization

Panama (1989) - invaded and overthrew the government without international without international authorizationauthorization

Iraq (2003) - invaded and overthrew the government without international authorization

Serbia (1999) - airstrikes without international authorization

Libya (2011) - exceeded authorization by UN to effect regime change

Syria (2014–present) - US military occupation and oil seizure is ongoing

There are many more, these are the more notable ones
by nvader | 2026-01-19 20:13:55+00:00
I share your sense that there is an unsettling in the balance of the world order at present. However, I completely disagree that non-violence has no place in the absence, and I enter into evidence the Satyaagraha movement in British India in the interwar period, especially the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi.

For just one example, see
his response to the Massacre of Jallianwalla Bagh, which happened around the time of the end of WWI.

https://www.mkgandhi.org/storyofg/chap18.php

Non-violence formed a backbone of the Indian independence movement until independence was achieved at the close of WWII in 1947.
by bryanrasmussen | 2026-01-19 20:14:04+00:00
sorry I don't normally go around poking holes in people's hopeful business plans, but I have thought about the problem of keeping sites from being scraped before, and there are really two issues that everybody needs to work that go against a decent anti-scraping tool and that is

automated testing requirements make it difficult to keep things from scraped, because scraping is an automation process, and automated testing is obviously and automation process.

and the needs for accessibility. Which even if you didn't care about the moral requirements of being accessible the legal requirements force you to be.

And I have also given some thoughts to automated generation of images for a sort of graphing application so I am familiar with the performance issues as well, so your question of course hit all the points that I knew something about.
by AngryData | 2026-01-19 20:14:08+00:00
People plead guilty because they can't afford the $10K in lawyer costs, and if you can't afford a lawyer and get appointed a state one, not only are you far more likely to lose your case, but if you lose you still have to pay that lawyer at the end plus the extra court costs and fees on top.

Often people are given "If you plea, you will pay a few thousand dollars and get to go home. If you don't plea, there is a 50% chance you go to jail, have a black mark on your record, and have to pay $10K in court fees and fines." And when people aren't even sure how they will pay a few thousand dollars, the risk of having to pay $10K+ plus serve jail time that will cost them their job and limit future employment opportunities is a HUGE risk.
by dijit | 2026-01-19 20:14:11+00:00
You're conflating "plea bargains exist" with "innocent people are systematically coerced into false confessions."

The vast majority of plea bargains involve people who are, in fact, guilty and are receiving a reduced sentence for saving the court's time and showing contrition. That's not a perverse incentive, it's a reasonable tradeoff that benefits both the defendant and society.

Yes, edge cases exist where innocent people feel pressure to plead. But the existence of edge cases doesn't prove the system is fundamentally unjust, it proves the system is imperfect, which no one disputes.

Regarding parole: maintaining innocence after you've been convicted and exhausted your appeals isn't "defending yourself"; at that point, you've had your defence. The parole board's job is to assess rehabilitation, and refusing to acknowledge your crime is evidence you haven't been rehabilitated. If you genuinely didn't do it, your remedy is post-conviction relief, not parole.

The burden is on those claiming systemic injustice to show that false guilty pleas are the norm rather than the exception. "98% plea bargain rate" doesn't demonstrate that.
by leoedin | 2026-01-19 20:14:42+00:00
Yes of course. These are calculators - they are meant to reliably calculate things.

I think the difference is that building 60 interactive calculators manually would force you to do a lot of manual testing. If someone built up that many interactive calculators I would imagine a lot of attention has gone on each one. Why would they spend so much time on something and not test it?
by HNisCIS | 2026-01-19 20:15:01+00:00
A commonly cited example is during the Battle of Seattle the cops wanted to beat the shit out of a nonviolent sit in and the black bloc protected them through a combination of strength and diversion. The non violent people are there for the optics and the violent people are there assuring that any move made on the nonviolent protesters will be rewarded swiftly.

The important part is that the violence mostly doesn't start until someone tries to hurt those who are there peacefully. Good was there peacefully so retaliation is becoming a possibility.
by foldr | 2026-01-19 20:15:03+00:00
Ok, maybe 'empirically' was a bit pompous. What I meant is, if you're saying that X is more dangerous than Y, then that's not a pure statement of principle, it's a claim about the real world. Right now, we're seeing a pretty big advertisement for the dangers of disinformation and hate speech, whereas political discourse in the US and EU remains pretty open. You could say that this is a blip and that in the long run, any form of censorship is more dangerous. But I think someone making your argument should at least acknowledge that present circumstances might appear to refute it.
by vee-kay | 2026-01-19 20:15:03+00:00
Yeah, I realise the Nobel prizes cannot be revoked. It was sarcasm.

But let's hear it from the horse's mouth..

The secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Geir Lundestad, wrote in his memoir that the decision “did not achieve what the committee had hoped for”, and that “in hindsight the argument … was only partially correct.”
by cassepipe | 2026-01-19 20:15:19+00:00
You argument is intuitive but it is also very wrong.

In the face of violence, human groups tend to become tighter and more authoritarian with less room for dissenting voices. If you believe that the State was really afraid of revolutionary violence you are terribly misguided, repressing violence with violence is one of the State most ancient task, what all States are most prepared for and good at. Only in rare cases where there is a legitimacy crisis and/or a repressive apparatus unwillingness to do its job, only then regime change may happen.
by mrmattyboy | 2026-01-19 20:15:36+00:00
I agree this doens't seem too ambiguous - it's "you may do this.." and they said "or we may do the reverse". If I say you're could prefix something.. the alternative isn't that you can suffix it.

But also.. the programmers working on the software running one of the most important (end-user) DNS servers in the world:

1. Changes logic in how CNAME responses are formed

2. I assume some tests at least broke that meant they needed to be "fixed up" (y'know - "when a CNAME is queried, I expect this response")

3. No one saw these changes in test behavoir and thought "I wonder if this order is important". Or "We should research more into this", Or "Are other DNS servers changing order", Or "This should be flagged for a very gradual release".

4. Ends up in test environment for, what, a month.. nothing using getaddrinfo from glibc is being used to test this environment or anyone noticed that it was broken

Cloudflare seem to be getting into thr swing of breaking things and then being transparent. But this really reads as a fun "did you know", not a "we broke things again - please still use us".

There's no real RCA except to blame an RFC - but honestly, for a large-scale operation like there's this seems very big to slip through the cracks.

I would make a joke about South Park's oil "I'm sorry".. but they don't even seem to be
by kimixa | 2026-01-19 20:15:37+00:00
That guy's style guide seems to conflict with the Cambridge editorial services guidelines - though that is for books rather than papers:

> Spaced en rules (or ‘en dashes’) must be used for parenthetical dashes. Hyphens or em rules
(‘em dashes’) will not be accepted for either UK or US style books. En rules (–) are longer than
hyphens (-) but shorter than em rules (—).

Section 2.1, "Editorial services style guide for academic books" https://www.cambridge.org/authorhub/resources/publishing-gui...
by smeej | 2026-01-19 20:15:41+00:00
> The size of the bounty isn't defined by the price of the contract, but the total upside available in the order book.

But one person doesn't get the whole thing. ALL the people holding that side of the contract split the payout, in proportion to the size of their holdings in that side of the market.

I think if I use hypothetical numbers, it will help me explain how I think it works, and maybe this will help someone figure out where my error is.

Let's imagine the market is about whether I will die by the end of the day. So far, there are $500,000 in total bets in the market, and there are 5,000 shares in this market. Let's say it's currently sitting at only 10% odds that I'm going to die. I think that means 4,500 shares, or $450,000, is on the "No" side and 500 shares, or $50,000 is on the "Yes" side. Do I have that right so far?

If nothing changes about the market and I'm still alive at the end of the day, everyone who holds a "No" share splits the $500,000 pot, correct? There are 4,500 of them, so they each get $111.11 per share.

But suppose someone has a solid plan to kill me by the end of the day. They decide they want to dump $50,000 in on the "Yes" side. That's not going to buy them 500 shares, because they would need someone willing to sell 500 shares at the current price. They'll actually get well under 500 shares, and probably not even half that many, and they'll still be splitting the pot among the other people who already have the 500 shares on the "Yes" side. So they're still at not even half the "Yes" side of the market. They can probably double or triple their money, but we're talking about making another $50-100k on top of getting their own $50k back. It's not like they get the whole $500k.

That's what I mean when I say it's "not a bounty." A "bounty" makes it sound like, "If you're the one who kills smeej, you get $500k," but that's not what's happening here.

Lots of people might be willing to try to kill me for $500k. A heck of a lot fewer are going to be willing to try to kill me for 2-3x whatever capital they can come up with right before the hit.

Am I at least understanding this part of it correctly, how the payouts actually work? If I'm not, that would go a long way toward helping me figure out what I'm missing.
by therealmarv | 2026-01-19 20:15:50+00:00
Alcohol? After research on Apple they allow:

For infrequent cleaning of hard-to-remove smudges, you can moisten the cloth with a 70-percent isopropyl alcohol (IPA) solution.

source: https://support.apple.com/en-us/104948

But never apply it directly on screen. I think it's important to mention you just do not use "some alcohol" but it should be 70% isopropyl alcohol solution.

Btw. alcohol is a very good way to destroy the old glossy screens (non nano texture).
by aprdm | 2026-01-19 20:16:01+00:00
This is not true. You can see people who are much older and built a lot of the "internet scale" equally excited about it, e.g: freebsd OG developers, Steve himself (who wrote gas town) etc.

In fact, I would say I've seen more people who are "OG Coders" excited (and in their >50s) then mid generation
by threethirtytwo | 2026-01-19 20:16:04+00:00
>Businesses routinely break the law if they believe the benefits in doing so will outweigh the consequences.

I'm saying there's collective incentive among businesses to restrict the LLM from producing illegal output. That is aligned and ultra clear. THAT was my point.

But if LLMs produce illegal output as a side effect and it can't be controlled than your point comes into play here because now they have to weigh the cost + benefit as they don't have a choice in the matter. But that wasn't what I'm getting at. That's your new point, which you introduced here.

In short it is clear all corporations do not want LLMs to produce illegal content and are actively trying to restrict it.
by rm30 | 2026-01-19 20:16:13+00:00
I'm glad you find it interesting. I developed the theory at university, studying how ASK and FSK modems work. To build this, you’ll need to understand the Shannon-Hartley theorem, band-pass filtering, Fourier transforms, and convolution.

For the practical 'how-to,' I recommend studying GNU Radio and SDR++; they show how to process IQ data or raw audio streams directly, and for sure there are other libraries. On the 'ancestor' side, look at the AX.25 Packet Radio protocol and AFSK (Audio Frequency Shift Keying). These are the same 'softmodem' principles used in FidoNet nodes decades ago.

GSM Arena can help you find phones with integrated FM receivers. You'll notice that many features are market-dependent, meaning: the receiver is often physically present but simply disabled by software.
by IXCoach | 2026-01-19 20:16:49+00:00
You can modify this, theres settings for
- how much context
- chunk size

We had to do this, 3 best matches but about 1000 characters each was far more effective than the default I ran into of 15-20 snippets of 4 sentences each

We also found a setting for "when do you cut off and/or start" the chunk, and set it to double new lines

Then just structured our agentic memory into meaningful chunks with 2 new lines between each, and it gelled perfectly.

( hope this helps )
by constantius | 2026-01-19 20:16:50+00:00
The sibling comment answered perfectly, but I'll add that your advice sounds reasonable in a vacuum, but in reality this event happened one year after the start of genocide. The community had no reason to believe that the state would do anything, as the state allowed a genocidal country's genocide-celebrating citizens to travel to the community's city for a football match and the police didn't do anything while they were chanting death to arabs, hours before the locals took matters into their own hands.

After a year of international inaction in response to the genocide, the Amsterdam community acted quite reasonably, and to be honest quite commendably, by stomping the lynch mob into the gutter, as the sibling eloquently put.
by zkmon | 2026-01-19 20:16:52+00:00
Sometimes, I suspect that Gandhi was helped by the global developments of that time, specifically the British context at the end of the war. Gandhi could have been lucky, in part, to find the British in a mood to relinquish their holdings. Bose, on the other hand, decided to fight by all means, though being no match against the British. Maybe, both strategies would have been equally weak, if there was no world war.
by 9029 | 2026-01-19 20:16:58+00:00
That "officially supported" comes with a huge asterisk though. Security bulletins for old android versions already only include backports of high severity patches. On top of that the device also gets no security patches for firmware or kernel, as the hardware and kernel are eol. The FP5 is also on an eol kernel after less than 3 years, not that they were providing kernel updates in the first place. https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand...
by __MatrixMan__ | 2026-01-19 20:17:31+00:00
The way I imagined it, the maintainers wouldn't be considering a commit whose author was not willing to bet on its success.

This thought experiment took part in a world where the web was significantly worse than our own: hoards of malicious AI's and precious few humans trying to not be mistaken for a malicious AI. Of course a pre-existing trust relationship is much better, but ideally there'd be a way for untrusted authors to make it through to a real human somehow. Attaching money to the commit would be one way to do that.
by kibwen | 2026-01-19 20:17:37+00:00
The market can only resolve based on public information, so it could only incentivize revealing information that is already destined to be imminently revealed. Furthermore, it doesn't incentivize sharing that information with enough lead time to actually take action based on that information; the opposite is actually true, insiders are incentivized to wait until just before the event to make their trade, meaning that the public gets no actionable information in practice. And that's assuming that you can distinguish an insider from someone lying for the sake of market manipulation.
by miohtama | 2026-01-19 20:17:51+00:00
These particular people were happy to deplatform Trump in the past. He is guilty of hate speech and might be racist, old, senile, bully and idiot but he is still democratically elected president of the US. They can take their disagreement to him, and based on the history he is not happy what these people have done to him. So from the realpolitik, it is not ridiculous. And if they still think this is ridiculous take can summon Trump to any European court.
by conductr | 2026-01-19 20:18:00+00:00
I build homes and so am adjacent to many blue collar Trump fanatics, here's the thing I constantly hear;

> My tool for X used to cost $500 or $2000. The $500 was imported and good enough for me. I could never justify spending $2000 on the Made in USA version although it was very well built and I wanted it. Now, with tariffs, the import costs $1800, so it's easy for me to justify spending $2000 on the Made in USA option. Trump got me to buy American and support American manufacturing. Go MAGA!

It's strange how if the same economic condition existed due to a Biden (or any liberal presidents term) they surely would have been villainized for eliminating ANY lower cost option, increasing the cost of business (when tools cost more, everything they create costs more), and simply stealing food from people's families (as the $1500 extra he spent would have presumably remained in this contractor's profits in the pre-tariff reality not to long ago). It takes massive mental gymnastics to view this as beneficial and anything other than a direct tax on American consumers. The brain washing rhetoric of conservative media is an extremely powerful weapon.