skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I may be misunderstanding your point, but there’s no law requiring individuals to report their financial transactions to the state. That requirement applies to banks, not peer-to-peer exchanges like cash or crypto. The fact that these regulations even exist is disturbing. They essentially allow people who work for certain state agencies to monitor everyone’s banking-based financial activity without a warrant, something that should never have been normalized.

These banking rules should be scrapped. They force people to give up their privacy and prove their innocence before they can transact. This is a blatant infringement on individual freedom, and it only benefits people who might abuse such powers, as agents of overreaching governments.

When it comes to fighting crime, there is no evidence that dragnet financial surveillance is effective. Criminals have been caught and prosecuted for centuries without the state needing to track every transaction. And since these laws were implemented, there is no evidence they have reduced the volume of financially motivated crime. Organized crime generates hundreds of billions of dollars worth of illicit revenue each year, despite all of the privacy that has been sacrificed.

There are far more focused ways to go after criminals without invading the privacy of the entire population. Law enforcement can geotrack scam websites, use undercover agents to gather evidence, and subpoena social media companies to get the information they need. These methods work, and they respect privacy. There’s no reason to burden everyone with blanket surveillance when the actual criminals leave plenty of other evidence.

Privacy and security are not mutually exclusive. We should repeal these invasive laws and return to a society that respects and protects the fundamental right to financial privacy.
I thought getting regularly infected with seasonal diseases keeps your immune system up-to-date against the pathogen mutations and avoids a rarer but more dangerous episode down the road.

But I guess without a serious study my belief is hard to check & validate.
I came up with a simpler solution that keeps kube contexts separated per terminal.

https://smlx.dev/posts/kubectl-global-state/
Android (and to some extent, Chromium) are weird cases of a major corporation weaponising open-source to broaden their already market-dominant position.

Android in doesn't even accept patches from the like of you or I, and future versions are developed almost entirely in secret.
Can confirm that CBP is worse about this. I once had an agent insist that it was not possible to opt out, because the scan was mandatory. I pointed out that I had walked past no less than four signs proclaiming the opposite (if you are a US citizen) on my way through the line.

_He_ then held up the line as he walked off, consulted with someone who obviously knew better, came back and pouted while he verified my identity "manually."
I am addicted to radar cruise + lane assist in my Kia. I use it all the time in traffic.
Support vscode, zed, write in rust.
// Not the author, I just found this when I was looking for rust+zed
https://github.com/Feel-ix-343/markdown-oxide
There's no proof of these cars even existing, while we all see Tesla's every day on the road.
They were not FLOWs however, so the day Adobe decided it was an unprofitable expense, it was dead.
It's ok for people to have different definitions of things
Is gluing the battery inside the case really a requirement for waterproofing?

When they remove the battery cover -- "oh, waterproofing"

When they glue the battery amd remove all screws -- "oh, waterproofing"

When they eventually require an approved persons blood sample to perform repair, will I also hear the "oh, waterproofing" thing?
You've gone from false to unfalsifiable! (or at least unnecessarily vague).

- Plenty of electric drivetrains still use neodymium for example[0]. Whether it's too much or likely to change soon I don't know, but I feel like that's crucial to making a judgement on the overall harmfulness.

- Battery recycling is happening[1], but so is plastic recycling. Are batteries likely to be recycled, and are the environmental benefits and available profit sufficient to make it significant in the near future? Seems like yes, but it's not clear to me.

- Which grid? Is capacity sufficient just on average, or also at peak demand? Would that still be the case if EV adoption increases in the next five years? (or some timescale to short to build more plants). Looks like the US will do ok[2] but again it's not obvious.

- Does this also apply to buying new? Are you including resale value? What about carbon generated at power stations to provide the electrical power? This is a complex claim and it's hard to do anything with unless it's sharpened and given some numbers or at least references. Seems like price to consumer is roughly the same[3] and CO2 emissions even over about five years of normal use and will improve if the grid moves towards cleaner fuel[4].

Overall I think it's annoying for a commenter who knows the truth to go to the trouble of being convincing, but it's critical for having an interesting discussion that might change someone's mind.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/automa...

[1] https://www.npr.org/2024/06/27/nx-s1-5019454/ev-battery-recy...

[2] https://news.mit.edu/2023/minimizing-electric-vehicles-impac...

[3] https://www.nada.org/nada/nada-headlines/beyond-sticker-pric...

[4] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-vehicles...
> I agree with her about blaming developers, not hackers.

They are clearly called "villains".

Wind isn't a person capable of controlling their actions. There is no intention to do harm. They aren't senseless animals either. Yes, it's developers' fault if a product isn't secure enough, but it's also not wrong to put blame on those actively exploiting that. Let's not stop blaming those who do wrong --- and that kind of hackers is doing wrong, not just the developers "making stupid decisions".

Those aren't mutually exclusive
A brief look at the new Kamal Proxy
Presumably because Americans like that Britain is declining but don’t want people to figure out why
What he said: if you read bytes with some byte order, you compose them yourself correctly, no byte swapping but just reading byte for byte and convert them to the number value you need. The architecture byte order is implicit as long as you use the architecture's tools to convert the bytes.

Rust, for example has from_be_bytes(), from_le_bytes() and from_ne_bytes() methods for the number primitives u16, i16, u32, and so on. They all take a byte array of the correct length and interpret them as big, little and native endian and convert them to the number.

The first two methods work fine on all architectures, and that's what this article is about.

The third method, however, is architecture-dependent and should not be used for network data, because it would work differently and that's what you don't want. In fact, let me cite this part from the documentation. It's very polite but true.

> As the target platform’s native endianness is used, portable code likely wants to use from_be_bytes or from_le_bytes, as appropriate instead.
It is also a popular name in the south indian boomer generation
But isn't the chamber full of exhaust at the beginning of the second power stroke? What will burn?
Ah yes, the Elon Musk special. The term you are looking for is “pigeon CEO”[1]: “he comes, shits all over us, and goes”.

[1] https://electrek.co/2024/04/22/elon-musk-pigeon-ceo-former-t...
You did not explain anything, you just said that something would happen, without any reasoning why or why no counter effects would happen.

Yes, both sides of the debate use scifi as facts, I agree. I don't think the other side does it more than you do, though.
For people with a ton of money, it's not really much of a trade-off.

They are also not much of a status symbol anymore, so they don't fulfill the attention seeking drive.
My colleague decided to just get a Porsche Taycan instead.
Do you think making important, widely used open-source software is a good idea when it's being done, for fun? What happens when it's no longer fun, but 150,000 people depend on it for their job?

Imagine Linus Tarvolds stopped working on Linux before there was a foundation to take over because he did it just for fun and no one else wanted to take up the mantle? It's hard to say what the outcome from that would have been... maybe Google would have claimed it entirely and slowly shifted the license to something else?

I appreciate that people can create things for fun, and those things can be open-source, but if someone creates something because it's the right thing to do and not just about fun... well where do we stand now? Should they make it open-source but demand money? Should it be closed-source if the fun-factor is less than 80%? 50%?

Unless a small, dedicated team of capable people agree that your open-source project is worth preserving, allowing it to survive you as the founder, I question the validity of open-sourcing anything for fun unless you design the licence, and more, to enable you to walk away and/or get bored.

Would love to hear your thoughts.
I feel like there's an opportunity for a joke here somewhere along the lines of hardware companies being really terrible at writing software, while software companies being just a normal amount of terrible at writing software.
ICEs have a lot of advantages that make them much better suited than EVs to certain tasks (extreme climates and remote locations, for example). They will likely stick around for niche use cases (at least) for quite a long time.

As for why Porsche is spending money on ICE engines...well, no one really buys a Porsche because it's a "practical car", do they?
Right, but they didn’t get stuck in the DVD business and fail like every other video rental service. They changed the business to serve the greater mission of letting customers watch a lot of movies, rather than thinking their job was simply to make renting DVDs easy.

It seems natural, because they did it well, but look at Blockbuster. Imagine if Netflix stuck with physical media, and then Hulu came out. Netflix would have been toast. Maybe they would have acquired RedBox to hang on for a while longer, but ultimately physical media rental would have only taken them so far.

Netflix was willing to cannibalize their own DVD business for the future streaming business. A lot of companies aren’t willing to sacrifice their golden goose for an unknown future.

Apple has been good at this as well. The iPod was most of their business, and then they released the iPhone which effectively killed the iPod. Then they released the iPad with the expectation that it would eventually take a huge chunk of the laptop market. If a company evolves well and is willing to cannibalize their own products, they don’t need to take the radical Hail Mary pivot.

Looking back the iPhone seems like a pretty natural evolution for Apple, but compare that to Microsoft. They missed the boat, had a few false starts, and effectively missed the entire move to mobile. They’ve made up for it in other areas, but a few big misses like that and companies die. Look at BlackBerry; they botched the move to the modern smartphone and were done. They were too worried about hanging onto the past and trying to carry it forward in some way. It doesn’t seem like a big pivot to make for a phone company, but it was enough to sink them. Nokia too… a shell of what it once was.
This week in Plasma: Bug fixing galore
I support a product that have been packaged in many Linux distributions. I have no "ticket" system whatsoever to speak of. I read email whenever I feel like. I delete all email I just dont care about as if it was spam, and respond only to messages which estimulate me.

Why do people feel that maintaining open-source software is stressful again?
Which ICE performance car? I went from an SRT8 back in 2012 to a Tesla Model 3 performance + mods and now most recently went back to ICE via an AMG GT63. I can confidently say that the GT63 is leagues more fun than the Tesla ever was. Sure the Tesla was quick off the line, but outside of that it felt sterile and the ride was quite uninspired.
JUST GO VEGAN...... health benefits, no animal cruelty and we stop this nonsense too.
PKM = “Personal Knowledge Management”. I had no idea. I think it means a wiki without the website.
On top of all the other replies debunking this, one thing left is that they're not the greener option for everyone. Auke Hoekstra has been pretty active (on Twitter etc) debunking this - electric cars' additional footprint gets paid off under 20k miles even at the emission levels of electricity grids of yesterday. As the grid decarbonizes further it will become even less. The number of cars driven less than 20k miles is irrelevantly tiny.

https://x.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1332464525602410498
It does seem that poker is fundamentally flawed for playing online. Even without bots playing most of the hands and calculating odds in realtime, a group of friends playing in a game from the same room and sharing their hands, strategy and profits would have a winning advantage.
If I can add to this, I think there's something attractive to many about the large, stable, slow-to-steer ship that is a large company: often there's low expectations (relative to startups), you can get "lost in the bureaucracy", and rarely do you get to make a real, influential decision because of the incredible amount of in-fighting and empire-building above you, so you can coast. Taking a different angle to your conclusion, these conditions set up the departure from "how do I contribute to the company creating the best product ever" to "doing more than the bare minimum to guarantee my paycheck nets me a low/negative ROI". Not the ideal attitude for your team to have.

I'm in an org at the moment and I'm watching new layers of middle management being created, excess processes being introduced, ICs being disempowered, consultants being engaged over in-house, eye-watering dollars being pissed away while penny-pinching on things that keep the lights on, etc. I have to wonder what are the conditions that mean these (what I consider to be) mistakes can go on for years before a company actually begins to be seriously impacted? Is it actually extremely difficult to kill a large enough org from the inside once it has enough momentum, provided the org avoids doing anything particularly stupid? I can't actually think of something an org has done that was particularly stupid and resulted in its end. Do big companies even fail?
> One of the things that makes make a great tool is how deceptively simple it is.

One of the worst things of Make is how deceptively simple it looks.

Make does exactly one thing: it takes input files, some dependencies and generates _exactly_one_ output file.
To have rules which don't generate output (like `install` or `all` or `clean` or all targets in the article) we need to resort to a hack, a special magic target like `.PHONY` (which hasn't been part of POSIX up to the 2017 version - IEEE Std 1003.1-2017 - https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/m..., only the current one - IEEE Std 1003.1-2024 - https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/utilities/m... includes `.PHONY`). If you want to generate more than one file (like an object file and a module or a precompiled header or ...) you are on your own to build some brittle hack to get that working. Don't forget that not every Make is GNU Make, BSD and other nix like Solaris/Illumos still exist.

Don't get me wrong: Make has it's uses for sufficiently complex projects which aren't too complex yet to need some "better" build system. Problem is that such projects may get too complex when more code is added and they inevitably gain some sort of scripts/programs to generate Makefiles or parts of Makefiles (so, an ad hoc meta build system is created).

And the problem isn't that they use it, but that they are proposing it as a solution to "everybody". And that their Makefile stops working as soon as there is a directory (or file) `build` (or `dev` or ...) in the project root.
-True, but I believe (at least this holds true for me) - the tinkerability, if you like, of ICEs is much higher. You can work on them at home, install all sorts of modifications and upgrades - real or perceived - to a much larger extent than you (currently) can on your EV.

It all depends on what makes cars interesting to you, of course - but a lot of the car enthusiast clientele would merrily start tinkering with their pride and joy even if all is well, just because they can.
A few attempts with chstgpt managed it: "Hardware companies writing software is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Software companies? They just crash at regular speed."
The first UNIX was announced outside of Bell Labs in 1973. In 1976, pretty much every tool was “the new kid on the block”.
It’s quite possible that security is handled by ssh such that sshfs isn’t exposed over the network. If sshfs can use newer ssh it might be just fine.
Programming is demoralizing because everyone expects you to hit the ground running. HR never gets fired because of high turnover.

No one lets you see the kind of garbage you will be dealing with until you accept the offer and get access two weeks later.

It's lack of training. Just admit it, 99% of senior engineers refuse to train. They also refuse to admit when they've made a mistake by writing dead-end code. Their fault or not, doesn't matter.
I need to check that source but I guess is heavily per country. In Southern Europe is under 5%, south from the US border between 0 to 1 % (source: per country Car Makers Association report)

Globally, if I recall, you need 20 years to replace the whole global fleet (so around 5% replacement rate). Let’s assume this global number is fixed (installed base is growing, as more vehicles are being created that destroyed, actually)

1/7 is 15%. 15% of 5% is 0,75%. So this means that every year 0,75% of global installed base is replaced by EVs. So 130y for full replacement?

Yes, the 1/7 weight will increase. But so will expand base. Even if suddenly today every car made now on the planet is EV only, iCE will still be around for 20-30 years.
LinkSharer – Static website builder for AIOs
We have similar (above ground, but still labour intensive) aqueducts on the dry side of the Alps, and you can see early beginnings of data processing in the solutions they came up with for the problem of "we want people to take water out of the system in direct proportion to how much labour they contribute to its maintenance" — including medieval one-way functions like broken tallies.
I've been writing [GNU] Makefiles for years, and have a love-hate relationship with the [GNU Make] tool. I tend to push tooling to the limit, I think it's in part because I believe in "soundness of scope" -- a tool should have a well defined scope and within that scope "all bases should be covered". In practice that would mean, that with Make I am able to define the dependency graph of pre-requisites and targets (files that Make makes) such that it just about handles the graph resolution complexity for me -- _with variables_, that is.

I love Make because it largely delivers on its promise -- and I am using it almost in _opposite_ to what the author describes. That is, I consider phony targets to be an "illegitimate" feature of Make, and avoid them like the plague. While convenient, targets in Make are heavily geared to be files, certainly most of the machinery in Make was written to assume so, and even the well-known (and documented) targets like "install" and "clean" leave a terrible taste in my mouth as of late, despite these being very conventional.

The problem with phony targets is that they're hard to reason with by Make (unless you actually turn "install" and "clean" into files) and break half of the rest of its assumptions on what targets should be and how they behave. The rest of the problem is the linguistical aspect of it -- if I `make install` am I making an install program/script or what? These kind of vagaries have led me firmly away from ever using phony targets.

As for the rest of it, Make is terribly archaic, but that also lends it strength since the archaic nature is very simple on the flip side.

The "hate" part is me taking a dislike to its bare-bones, in my opinion insufficient variables facility, where only truly global variables (certainly sharing one namespace) exist and juggling these for any non-trivial Makefile is always a problem of its own.

I am no novice with GNU Make, not any longer, but occasionally I need to look back into its manual to remember how e.g. the so-called double-colon rules work (when I suspect I might need one) and the real difference between the `=` and `?=` variable assignment, for when I want to provide default values and so on.

Lately I've been playing with the idea of _implementing_ a [GNU] Make compatible tool just to see if the somewhat _patchy_ scope of [GNU] Make can be given more coverage -- for instance to see if adding locally-scoped variables and more flexible target definition can improve Make? What I mean is to experiment with an implementation that retains fundamental principle and mandate of Make -- dependency graph resolution and reliance on [normally] UNiX shell -- but "upgrading" the syntax and extending the semantics. Because while Make is useful, it's also at times terribly hard to work with. To paraphrase Bjarne Stroustrup (the man behind C++), "inside Make there is a neat sound idea struggling to get out".
These are all "techniques" on top of the foundations of RAG. It's similar to "Chain of Thought" in prompt engineering. You have an underlying technology, and then come up with techniques/frameworks on top. What MVC was for Web dev +15 years ago.

RAPTOR for example is a technique that groups and clusters documents together, summarizes them, and creates embeddings defining a sort of a Tree. Paper: https://arxiv.org/html/2401.18059v1

Agentic RAG is creating an agent that can decide to augment "conversations" (or other LLM tools) with RAG searches and analyze its relevance. Pretty useful, but hard to implement right.

You can google the others, they're all more or less these "techniques" to improve an old-fashioned RAG search.
Exactly. If it's news to people then they clearly had some expectation. But I think it's easy to fool yourself into thinking this isn't true post hoc knowing and especially if you're someone who visits HN and is more keen on the details.

I think it's also worth noting that most people don't want this to happen even when they do know. Of course some people don't care but even they do when they learn how it's being used
> It's already installed practically everywhere

This always comes up, and is a sad chicken/egg problem.

We can all somehow agree that Make mostly sucks, but OS maintainers aren’t interested in providing a default alternative, due to choice overload or something.
Might be a chance to use AI to refine the search for ancient settlements that has been already done for years using Google Earth.

For example: https://metaldetectingforum.com/index.php?threads/using-goog...
It's also plentiful in many countries, it's just not mined because it's too cheap. But since fuel is under 1% of the cost of Nuclear, if it was a problem we could easy mine more difficult places.
I can count on one hand the number of times a simple script or make worked out of the box. Sure, part of the reason is dependencies, but then I might as well use a build tool that is actually doing what a build tool should. Makefiles/bash scripts are hacks, and I don’t get this strange Stockholm syndrome UNIX-people have for them.
> People at companies have very little personal agency when it comes to spending money. Spending has to be approved, justified, and some value has to be received.

seems to all hinge on the justification part, for which ppl that do it for the lulz don't really care
Have you tried writing (or even just reading) a configure.ac script?