MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
Show HN: Feedster, an RSS/feed reader focused on discovery and agent integration
by pmarsceill | 2026-03-06 17:56:41+00:00
Hey HN,

I built Feedster for a few reasons:

1. I want to spend more time reading people's blogs, long form content, even more traditional digital publications and less time on social media.

2. RSS readers have typically felt a lot like Apple Mail circa 2010... Unread counts for every feed, everything in its own discrete view, no means for easily discovering new stuff. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it does make reading content feel like _work_ which is directly opposing goal number 1.

3. No one has really rethought the shape of RSS in quite some time (Google Reader is probably the biggest re-think here that I can remember). It's typically been a client that downloads posts from various feeds on the internet. This is simple and it works, but what if there was a different shape that was more communal, more editorial, and was web-based?

4. I haven't seen any RSS-powered AI agent workflows and I wanted to experiment with what that might look like. To start, I built a hosted MCP server that users can authenticate to and give their agents read-only access to their Feedster channels and feeds. I plan to add more functionality here, as it would be very cool to have an agent do a search on Feedster and find other feeds you might be interested in and add them to your channels automatically. Or dump a giant OPML file of feeds into an agent and have it auto add them to your account and categorize them into different channels for you.

You can read more about the background on my blog here:
https://p.atrick.org/2026/03/05/introducing-feedster

Thanks for checking it out, any feedback or discussion is appreciated.
by deaux | 2026-03-06 17:56:55+00:00
I expected you to say this, but hoped you wouldn't. Of course I know they talk about it. GOP campaigns say and do a lot of things, there's dozens of topics they shout about. From Benghazi to Hillary's Emails to gender-neutral emails to immigrants to indeed coal/renewables and so on. You could easily name 30 topics.

The topics have different purposes. Fossil fuels vs renewables in particular hasn't won the reps a single race, I repeat. Every race they've won, they would've won without it. And every race they've lost, they would've lost without it. The purpose of bringing up that particular topic for them isn't to help win close races.
by bee_rider | 2026-03-06 17:57:54+00:00
This is pretty cool, and also seems pretty accessible for a “graphics thing.” Just a little calculus.

It would be kind of neat to have an example of a physical situation that produces each of the example functions (although I’m sure that isn’t always possible).

Can the effect of multiple fog emitters reasonably be modeled as the sum of their outputs? I guess for high densities, probably not (eventually the air will get saturated), but for low densities, probably yes…
by SigmundA | 2026-03-06 17:58:07+00:00
I think its a good article and I enjoyed learning a little more about rust, but would have been nice to point out this is a common technique used for tuple storage in databases for those not familiar.

It comes off as being a novel solution rather than connecting it to a long tradition of DB design. I believe PG has used a null bitmap since the beginning 40 years ago.
by lukeschlather | 2026-03-06 17:58:27+00:00
You're confusing bullshit with jargon, which is something they talk about in the paper. The word synergize has a bad reputation, but its mere presence in a sentence is merely a signal, it doesn't mean the sentence is bullshit.

"We will actualize a renewed level of cradle-to-grave credentialing" is an example from the article - you can't actualize a level, you can't renew a level either. And "cradle-to-grave credentialing" is at best a bad way to describe some real concept. It's word-salad from start to finish. It's not coded language, it's bullshit.
by hellojesus | 2026-03-06 17:58:32+00:00
The law necessarily exists for parents that aren't tech literate, since we already have the ability to monitor and lock kids out from adult content.

Do we really think parents will notice that a kid has installed a specific executable? The purpose of this law is to allow parents to outsource caring out which executables are safe, so there is no reason they would check.

Plus a kid can just live boot from a USB if the parent doesn't lock the bios, which would give them an ephemeral session to do whatever they want without the parent knowing unless caught-in-the-act.
by captn3m0 | 2026-03-06 17:58:35+00:00
There is nothing in the dataset that would require the use of a globe to visualize anything. You could have drawn this as bar charts and it would give us the same information (with the added advantage of not being limited to a few countries at a time). Or even a 2D earth map.

It just turns on my CPU fans and gives me no insights.
by Breza | 2026-03-06 17:58:36+00:00
You just nailed the difficult balance in copyright law. I agree that life+70 is wayyyyy too long. But you also want to incentivize creators to keep trying to make something of their existing IP. Sapkowski is one example. Another good one is the Dresden Files series, which is 26 books in and still going strong. Each book in the series repeats some of the basics that were covered in the original (often using the exact same phrasing). Then the author extends the story over the course of a few hundred pages. If the original book were already public domain, anybody could write a fairly convincing in-universe book and I have to imagine the author would have moved on to other series.

Personally, I think 50 years strikes the best balance. Everything from the '60s would be fair use, so Spiderman would be public domain but not a wizard named Harry.
by shrubby | 2026-03-06 17:58:37+00:00
We could chop of a quarter of total emissions (directly + rewilding effect) by ending factory animal production and swapping to plant based.

Another quarter from the top 5 percent emissions that have practically nothing to do with the wellbeing, but only social comparison mechanisms (envy, herd mentality).

But for that humanity would need leaders that are not either idiots, corrupt or spineless and toothless.

But hey, I guess that's too much to ask, after all we're talking about unconscious reactive species that's only rumored to have brains or morals.
by eth0up | 2026-03-06 17:59:21+00:00
I'm not asking for confidence. Folks can use their own critical thinking and judgement. I expressed sincerity. Some concur, some don't. I'm not trying and will not try to please everyone.

The current state of software is to some, myself, deeply offensive and many have passionate opposition to it. If you are into stockware, you won't ever find me in your way. But you'll not bully me into not expressing my opinion either. Shitware defines it perfectly to the very type of person bothering to use Fdroid and freedom respecting devices.
by enraged_camel | 2026-03-06 17:59:39+00:00
>> Even speaking from a pure statistical perspective, it is quite literally impossible for "AI" that outputs world's-most-average-answer to be better than "most engineers". In fact, it's pretty easy to conclude what percentage of engineers it's better than: all it does is it consumes as much data as possible and returns the statistically most probable answer

Yeah, you come across as someone who thinks that the AI simply spits out the average of the code in its training data. I don't think that understanding is accurate, to say the least.
by seanmcdirmid | 2026-03-06 17:59:56+00:00
> We'd just cut off all of our goods manufacturing and leave the shelves empty? I don't think it's likely.

All bets are off if China attacks Taiwan now, I think, it would be hard but there would be a response like that. In a decade or two, probably not, but more due to China's dominance in the world by that point rather than just their ability to make things clout.

Xi isn't dumb, he isn't going to stir the pot right now, he doesn't have to, China doesn't have much to gain from it. China has nothing but patience.
by keeda | 2026-03-06 18:00:30+00:00
That's what I meant, but as the root comment implied, regulation is needed, so the solution is not laissez-faire.

These companies are not going to regulate themselves. Capitalism is going to drive them to relentlessly compete for growth at all costs, a lot of which would be imposed on society. At least they are honest that regulation is needed, unlike Big Tobacco.
by bullfightonmars | 2026-03-06 18:00:34+00:00
Have you read about _where_ the budget is going? You are complaining about accountability without offering a diagnosis or showing any understanding for what is actually happening.

The budget expansion is almost entirely by medicaide.

Looking at 2019-2023

* Human Services: +~50% nominal → ~+22% real — biggest absolute dollar growth, driven almost entirely by Medicaid expansion and COVID enrollment

* K-12: +23% nominal → ~0% real — flat in purchasing power

* Higher Education: +~20% nominal → ~-2% real — slight real decline

* Government Operations: +~30% nominal → ~+6% real — modest real growth, headcount/compensation driven

* Natural Resources: +~25% nominal → ~+2% real — roughly flat

* Total Budget: +43.5% nominal → ~+17% real
by epistasis | 2026-03-06 18:01:02+00:00
This is a but out of date, it's likely that China has already leaked. And it's not oil but coal that they tend to burn.

Renewables are cheaper than coal and oil energy, so we will see an increase in quality of life as China electrifies, at least for those of us that import Chinese manufactured goods.

Oil is mostly for people's cars, for an unsustainable transit system that locks us in little boxes and kills all our salmon and is one of the greatest threats to the lives of our children. Getting rid of oil and coal is going to be a loooot easier than getting rid of our car infrastructure.
by prmoustache | 2026-03-06 18:01:05+00:00
>
dagss 7 hours ago | parent | context | flag | on: System76 on Age Verification Laws

Not commenting on this specific law, but I do believe the premise that children should be exposed to everything is wrong, and that the overall view on humans in this post is naive.
>
>These days, exposing an immature brain to the raw internet is basically just handing the brain and personality over to be molded by large corporations and algorithms.

It is even more naive to think the problem needs to be solved at internet level. Kids learn by imitating adults.

If you don't want kids to take drugs, stop letting adults abusing drugs in front of them. Stop advertising drugs. And by drugs I mean any drug, starting from coffee. Because the addiction pattern is the same.

If you don't want kids to have their life be focused on the quest for sex, stop making sex such a big part of society. I don't want to blame it on reggaeton, but sex is used to sell anything, from music to movies, from teeth whitening toothpaste to shampoo.

If you don't want kids to talk to sex predators, remove the sex predators from society.

I was exposed to porn for the first time at 11, at school, in a porn mag stuck into the heaters at the back of the classroom. It was impossible for a kid to buy such thing. After a few minutes of amusement from the discovery, I stuck it back in the heater. I was back in my regular kids mindset because I was still more interested in playing basketball after schooltime than knowing more on how to exchange fluids and insert parts of my body inside parts of someone else's body. Why? Because society gave me plenty of things to be interested about and was not completely addicted on selling everything with sex. But it shows that if adults can, some smart kids will find a way to access it. The key is to not make it that much of a big deal.
by carodgers | 2026-03-06 18:01:10+00:00
Privacy is about to become more complicated, but for those who need it most, it will still be available.

Very soon, any piece of data which transits public infrastructure will have a declared owner attached, so that those embarrassing the regime may be held accountable. However, outside public infrastructure, beyond the view of the regime, anonymous communications will be unimpeded (home networks, community networks, etc.). And, happily, if comms on private infra must at some point transit public infra, we have tools available (steganography, etc.) to allow this transmission to complete without detection.

The work ahead is to make the private infra -> public infra transition seamless (for convenience) and completely undetectable. It can be done. It will be done.
by nephihaha | 2026-03-06 18:01:34+00:00
Lord Reith did envision the BBC as a cultural force for sure. I would certainly argue that they aren't producing enough highbrow content.

The BBC has shown some commercial considerations. For example, some of its documentaries and dramas are aimed for resale in foreign markets. In the past, the BBC has made money off magazines and books, DVDs/videos, music (including live concerts) and so on.

Their scientific and nature programming is decent, but very much aimed for sale to the American market, with the possible exception of the "Sky at Night" (which is only monthly). Their music programming is alright — some decent classical and jazz. Their sports coverage, again, tends to be very anglocentric (so if you're Scottish, Welsh or (Northern) Irish, don't expect much UK-wide coverage of your teams), but is better than ITV's.

Their drama has been going downhill for some years now (and is dominated by soap operas and crime dramas), and their historical/political content is often tendentious and anglocentric (not even that — Londoncentric). The BBC has traditionally best period dramas but is failing in that sphere now.

They are moving to a stricter pay to watch system. iPlayer for example asks you if you have a TV licence if you watch it.
by baxtr | 2026-03-06 18:01:50+00:00
You need to be careful with these things. Such exaggerated narratives are the reason people are afraid.

during the Industrial Revolution many artisan and skilled trades lost their livelihoods.

And yet, while many people did suffer serious short-term hardship and wage collapse, most did not simply remain in lifelong poverty, because over time industrialization created new types of employment and average wages eventually rose.

You don’t want to go back to before the Industrial Revolution. Do you?
by exceptione | 2026-03-06 18:01:56+00:00
Don't do the AC thing, it is a stupid trope under blogfluencers. There are no restrictions (besides positioning the outer unit in such a way that you cause your neighbors to lose sleep). As the summers get more extreme in Europe, more residents decide getting one is starting to pay off, so you see more AC's, but many people think they are doing fine without.
by myrmidon | 2026-03-06 18:02:02+00:00
> It's all China, but I guess it's cool to blame things on developed countries.

This is just a naive take. You'd obviously expect chinese emissions to be higher (than the US) assuming similar industrialization, because you are counting emissions for like triple the amount of people.

What you conveniently fail to mention: US citizens still emit over 50% more CO2 each, and China basically just caught up to emission levels of developed countries (EU, Japan), while still being significantly below US levels. High income countries combined still emit more than China, too (richest ~15% globally).

If your argument would make any sense, then the obvious solution would be to split China into 3 countries, making the emissions instantly negligible compared to the EU/US. Problem solved?!

There is no reality where we make good progress toward climate change without the "main culprits" (=> nations with highest historical and per-capita emissions) making the first steps.

Why would a country like India pay/sacrifice to reduce emissions while western citizens still pollute at much higher levels after reaping all the spoils from historical pollution?

You could argue that wind/solar is a huge success story in this regard already, with western nations driving lots of the research/development/commercialization efforts (over the previous decades) and now indirectly causing much bigger nations like China to transition onto those very quickly instead of basically fully relying on fossils for decades to come.
by tencentshill | 2026-03-06 18:02:20+00:00
Trump is still all bluster and words. He can't change the math. I've convinced 2 people to get EVs over ICE this year. They still make economic sense even without federal subsidies (dependent on your home/work situation). Though I don't deny that most OEMs are likely selling at a loss now.
It's foolish how foreign wars directly affect how much it costs you to get to work.
by RussianCow | 2026-03-06 18:02:21+00:00
I use this on my Zenfone 8. It's...okay. The UI is pretty sub-par, but the main reason I use it is because the camera, by default, has this annoying, overly aggressive denoising filter built into it that makes everything look slightly cartoony, and there's no way to disable it with any other camera app I've tried.
by JumpCrisscross | 2026-03-06 18:02:46+00:00
> the long term plan here is Iran launching Shadeeds from the back of a pickups into the gulf states every few days

The long-term outcome is Iran’s domestic drone production gets decimated. If America, meanwhile, gets to field test its new anti-drone kit, from gun- and laser-based platforms to kamikaze drones.

> only thing that can stop it will be a ground invasion

Of course not. You blow up the factories and inventory. Ukraine was prohibited by Biden for ages from striking inside Russia, to where the drones and missiles were being made.

> There is also a supply route through the Caspian for China and Russia to bolster Iranian defense. Is the USA willing to invade Russia to stop it?

The pressure point on Putin is tasking the Coast Guard with seizing Russian shadow-fleet tankers again.

> no one has ever won a war with just an air assault

No one has ever effected regime change with just air power. America could absolutely achieve a war aim with air power alone once Hegseth gets around to defining it.
by labcomputer | 2026-03-06 18:03:01+00:00
This feels like an extremely naive take.

Even as late as the mid-aughts the internet was mostly nerdy technical information, real people sincerely discussing various topics, and the very worst thing was a little bit of (mostly still-image) porn if you were looking for it.

Kids back then weren't targeted by a stream of continuously A/B tested algorithmic content intended to tell them what to think and shape their brains. Overwhelming evidence exists that social media (as it exists today) is bad for the mental health of young people (and probably adults, too, but at least adults have the presence of mind and lack of social pressure to delete Facebook).
by roryirvine | 2026-03-06 18:04:16+00:00
My "birthdate" is the same as yours. It was fine when I started using it in the late 90s, but has become increasingly awkward over the past few years - lots of sites seem to assume a maximum age of 120.

If I ever turn uBO off, the ads I get are mostly for funeral plans or incontinence products, with a smattering of "126 year old mom lost 30 lbs of belly fat - click to see how!" (yeah, decomposition's a bitch...)
by Agingcoder | 2026-03-06 18:04:44+00:00
We’re in agreement.

I think we diverge on ‘making it go away in my book’.

When you’re the one having to debug all these bizarre things ( there were real money numbers involved so these things mattered ), over millions of jobs every day , rare events with low probability don’t disappear - they just happen and take time to diagnose and fix.

So in my book ecc improves the situation, but I still had to deal with bad dimms, and ecc wasn’t enough. We used not to see these issues because we already had too many software bugs, but as we got increasingly reliable, hardware issues slowly became a problem, just like compiler bugs or other elements of the chain usually considered reliable.

I fully agree that there are lots of other cases where this doesn’t matter and ecc is good enough.

Thanks for taking the time to reply !
by nephihaha | 2026-03-06 18:04:51+00:00
Well, I can. I'm old enough to remember "Radio Times", and other magazines, being advertised quite openly on BBC1 and 2 as well as their radio stations. I think they had to sell their share in "Radio Times", after government pressure, but they still do many tie-in books. (Especially true of their science fiction franchises such as "Doctor Who", which has dozens of official books based on it.)

The other advertising includes heavy promotion of BBC linked charities such as Comic Relief, Children in Need and so on. These charities make big money and there have been some questions about how that money is used and where.

BBC advertising is less obnoxious than commercial channels, but it is still there. In addition, the BBC owns BBC America (which carries commercial breaks), as well as having shares in services accessible in the UK including the "BritBox" streaming service, and the digital channels "Dave" and "UK Gold" which all have normal commercial breaks.
by gom_jabbar | 2026-03-06 18:04:58+00:00
German book culture is great! When he was in Karlsruhe to profile Peter Sloterdijk, The New Yorker reporter Thomas Meaney seemed surprised by it:

"Over the summer, ordinary Germans who spotted his [Peter Sloterdijk] books in my hands engaged me in conversation on trains, in coffee shops, at universities, and in bookshops." [0]

[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/26/a-celebrity-ph...
by libria | 2026-03-06 18:05:03+00:00
Maybe the opponents consider it a foot in the door; a wedge that can be expanded gradually to include lower tiers at lower percentages AKA the beginning of a WA State Income Tax. There are not few 400k households in Seattle.

The majority of states have one so it's not that big a deal, but it'll be less often said "I'm going to turn down this higher SF offer for Seattle b/c of lower COL...".

I'm not sure where the next refuge will be. Austin? Memphis?
by TZubiri | 2026-03-06 18:05:09+00:00
The issue is that a finite scope is paid once (and often pirated, so not even that), while subscription SaaS are paid perpetually, so there's more money there.

We should have a system where we continue paying for software that we keep using even if it doesn't change, but that's never going to happen, we will start wondering how we will replace it and cut costs.
by qsera | 2026-03-06 18:05:16+00:00
>Have you?

I haven't, and that is why I am not making higher-than-you, virtuous claims about how I would act in that situation. Maybe you should do the same.

>Your ridiculous analogy doesn't even apply to the US, one of the wealthiest countries in the world

And where did that wealth come from? Sure, you have smart people, but it also require a functioning economy to mobilize and convert all those talent into wealth. If a external entity can choke your economy and if your government just stand-by, virtue-signaling to people such as yourselves, your wealth will disappear in no time. BOOM! Back to zero...
by stuartaxelowen | 2026-03-06 18:05:35+00:00
Given the atomization and layering of work, this has become much harder to truly judge. Ten years ago I was excited to join a customer feedback platform - what could be better than helping companies understand their customers and provide better services and products? You can probably see where this is going, but inevitably the tools were just used to better tweak product profitability and eliminate end customer surplus, to the customer company’s benefit. And they were used by the likes of draft kings et al along with the Starbucks and Nikes of the world. I hear people claim that, in capitalism, no one hands are clean, and I am inclined to agree.
by epistasis | 2026-03-06 18:05:41+00:00
A year ago, the IEA thought China's emissions had peaked:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-fuel-demand-m...

And this recent assessment puts emissions from China at "flat or falling" for the past 21 months:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-ha...