skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Alright, that's fair. I was going to say "Well, that's just because there's no such thing as Safari for Linux" but at this point I'm somewhat losing the plot. I suppose ultimately it seems like Apple just cares about Safari for its own platforms and if others happen to use WebKit, that's nice but they don't care, it's not like they're seeking to impact the web like Google does.

For all of Apple's contributions for WebKit, you don't exactly see them doing something like this:

"Supporters of Chromium-based Browsers"
https://blog.chromium.org/2025/01/announcing-supporters-of-c...

Huh. That WebKit site links to a Mastodon account that doesn't even say anything. Maybe it's for queries.

https://front-end.social/@webkit
I don't know if I'd phrase it as the "power" to do whatever it wants.

Anyone can always do whatever they want. And the only way there aren't repercussions on some level are if you're some kind of god-like being sealed in the equivalent of closed terrarium.

Does the US have power? Sure. But the US could act disgracefully even if it didn't have power.

The framing I'd give this is that the US is trying to extort Ukraine without actually bringing anything to the table, and all it's going to accomplish is making the US itself less powerful, less reputable, the rest of the world more convinced that nuclear weapons need proliferate because otherwise invasions are on the table, and a litany of other things that will basically make the US weaker over time.
Now do the same outside of the clinical conditions, in the patients' natural environment -- and compare the results.
Brave is organizationally independent, sure. But it also relies on Chromium, and so isn't independent from the Chromium code base.
Web standards are moving fairly fast, and modern browsers are getting more and more complex in the process. It would likely be extremely hard, if not outright impossible, to build a browser completely from scratch today because of the sheer amount of moving parts.
An 85-min video wasn't exactly what I was looking for :)

But appreciate you sharing.
he even took credit by saying I kept this going so long because its important for American people to see whats going on.
It absolutely offers something in return. It gives the US interests in Ukraine and in maintaining the status quo so we can access those minerals. Putin wants them for himself. This is a clever way to push back at Putin while also compromising on having NATO at Russia's doorstep. It also compensates the US for its generous spending on Ukraine's plight. NATO is over anyway because European countries cannot or will not contribute their share and frankly the US isn't threatened by Russia in the same way it was during the Cold War. I much prefer a bi or tri polar world to the Cold War.
I can understand, but honestly it was a mistake. I just scrolled down to get here, and there are no curious perspectives being shared or interesting questions being asked, just the entirely understandable and expected mass anger and frustration.

In an ideal world we could have a threat or two like this that would serve as outlets, but what I've actually seen is that having these discussions leads to them bleeding out into other threads that should have been unrelated. HN is going to need to more aggressively enforce its rules about political news if it's going to stay a haven for curiosity and not descend into just another place for angry politics.
FDR was opposed to imperialism, and so his terms for our meager involvement prior to direct entry into the war were pretty steep, as were his terms for the postwar order. Truman backed off on some of that though.
Which is why they put pro-Putin Gabbard in as DNI. She's been purging.
Who said they are? The official position of NATO was that Ukraine will eventually join NATO while Russia demanded that Ukraine will not join NATO. Contrary to the western mainstream opinion, I think that is why Putin started this war, to prevent Ukraine joining NATO, not to grab some land.
It's simple - interfere with the competition, useless engineer job security, performative "working" , and bad incentives all around. They're on a gravy train and don't want the ad revenue to ever stop. A truly independent browser threatens that entire ecosystem, and that in turn results in collusion and patterns of behavior intended to make things nearly impossible to keep up with, even though the actually functional bits that consumers give a shit about haven't really changed all that much in the last decade. What Microsoft did with IE, all the major browser developers are doing now to reinforce their anti-competitive collective behavior and each can seek as much rent as possible from their respective walled gardens.
Authoritarian governments don't collapse because of the "will of the people", that's a myth perpetuated by those in power to legitimize their positions. The major driver is the material conditions a society exists in.

We are beginnign to experience the contraction of the global economy, and as material conditions worsen, expect everything else to follow suit. Democracy doesn't bring prosperity, it a consequence of prosperity.

The comparisons of Trump to Hitler as also mind-numbingly facile. Other than a penchant for authoritarianism, they share little in common. But what they do share in common is they are both emergent phenomena of their contemporary environments.
The OP said “most Americans”, not “more Americans than voted for Harris”.
Trump is the commander in chief. Top military leadership who disagree with him will be forced to retire, and replaced with loyalists, if they haven't been already.
I am starting to believe the theory that Trump was a Russian agent
I don’t think it’s a fallacy at all. Being on the same team as a famous warmonger when it comes to choosing whether or not to continue funding an endless war is a decent HINT. It should make you take a step back and really examine all the evidence about whether you’re actually on the right side of history (you’re probably not).

This conflict is much more analogous to WW1 instead of WW2. In that conflict both sides basically came to standstill, lines were drawn in the dirt and millions on lives were lost for literally no reason. If the leaders of the countries involved had been able to recognize that years of slaughter had bought them nothing and negotiate a peaceful compromise then so many lives could have been saved. PLUS that likely would have prevented WW2 from even happening.

This is also a proxy war between the US and Russia, Ukraine would have been conquered immediately by Russia without US aid. We have the ability to force a peace and we should be trying to do so not only because we’re spending a lot of money on it but because we are perpetuating a horrific slaughter of millions of people.
What exactly are you suggesting by "Wake up"? How can I actionably do something to "wake up"?
By boundaries I am referring to the geographical ones, might not be the best term.

Like, if Ukraine let Russia have specific regions and it meant millions of people not dying, would people go for it?
Zelensky did nothing wrong.
US had interests in the Ukraine because it was a buffer state. By sacrificing a whole country to Putin, NATO suddenly has enemy neighbors.
Victory for Ukraine is surviving to the next day. Do you really think funding them is "fundamentally evil"? They don't have a choice about fighting. If they lose, Ukraine will be brutally "Russified". Their language and culture will be banned. Their poets and patriots killed. Their children will be brainwashed and turned into loyal soldiers for Putin's next war of conquest.

Nobody likes war, but letting your country be subjugated by an evil dictator is worse.
As long as someone else does the fighting, right? Last I checked, the majority of Ukrainians themselves want a quick end to the war.

[1]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/653495/half-ukrainians-quick-ne...
Couldn’t agree more. Not a peep about land use reform or even any real action on income inequality. DNC offers nothing and is somehow surprised people rejected inaction.
Sure. The WaPo says the only evidence for that claim is Trump asserting it. https://archive.is/XK0A7

> Trump has also said — without providing details — that he at some point banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago.

I am generally not inclined to take the man at his word.

It also notes that, if the breakup happened, it was likely over a piece of real estate.
Frustrating that the US will still apply income tax even if you're working abroad (I want to say over $130k/yr, but that could be wrong)
Well, Russia has been interfering a lot recently. And don't you find it quaint how what Trump does aligns with Russian interests? He has already weakened diplomatic ties to all western countries, killed USAID (who is going to move in to get all that goodwill? China of course). Put doubts in people about the meaning and guarantees of NATO.

And he calls Zelensky a dictator and refuses to call Putin one. Laughable. If there is no russian interference trump is even more clueless than I thought.
Yes, North Korea gains immediate benefit (money or material aid) and a theoretical delayed benefit (demonstration of mercenary abilities, and real world experience for their troops if they survive). Russia gains bodies to throw against bullets. If every North Korean soldier died but took several bullets for Russian soldiers, it's a win for Russia. They do not care about the North Korean soldiers or North Korea.
I think Russia would be much more weary to attack a re-armed, well supported and "rested" Ukraine that would be bolstered by defeating goliath, even if at great loss, remember that everyone thought they would capitulate within two weeks.

In this war the only winners are US/EU weapons manufacturers, there is no winning scenario. Something Trump cannot understand and Putin cannot accept.
A fast revese linear scan register allocator for Cranelift
The short response would be the "web browser" started to fill the role of "cross platform on demand app sandbox" instead of "plain hypertext document viewer" and that will forever be evolving to match the capabilities of devices themselves. More than any other contributing reason to the churn (including the highly charged/passionate reasons), if you defined a "web browser" to be a limited subset of the functionality the user desire for a constantly evolving then an "on demand app sandbox" app with a different name would still exist and it'd just be everyone using that application instead of a web browser.
My senators are both strongly in support of this. Bill Hagerty's website's top news story is from yesterday, but it pretty much restates everything Trump said today. And I'm sure I don't need to explain Marsha Blackburn's opinion. Republicans gerrymandered the state, so the Representative in the House is about the same. Unless I suddenly win the lottery, I don't think they're interested in hearing my opinion.
I generally expect that a country's leader should do everything in their power to defend their country, land, and people, as you say. Of course, what we're talking about here is: Zelenskyy's power is not infinite, no one's is, and today he spoke with an administration that is far more realistic and desirable of peace than the previous one. My question was: What was Zelenskyy's aim in speaking to the administration today; not what were his general aims.

Look: I do not believe the world will be a more peaceful and prosperous place if America continues the path of providing billions of dollars in weapons and military aid to the Ukraine war effort. My question to others is: Do you believe I'm wrong in this assessment, and that the world will be more peaceful and more prosperous if we continue funding this war? Or, is it that: Do you believe that Peace and Prosperity are not Generally Good things we should strive to achieve?

Is the aim to negotiate for peace, and in that negotiation ensure Russia gets nothing? If so, do you believe that to be a realistic thing Ukraine can ask for right now? Even if the United States is brokering the negotiation, and wants this for Ukraine, what can the United States bring to the table to help make it happen? Is your suggestion that the United States go so-far as to guarantee Ukraine's security through direct military intervention?

That's where my brain is at on this; its a horrible situation, but if the goal we're optimizing toward is Peace and Prosperity, and I believe those goals to be laudable, and if we admit that the United States is not All Powerful (as proven by our billions in military aid up to this point not as of yet Increasing Peace and Prosperity in the region): What options does the United States have left to help Ukraine? Do you want to lace up your boots and go to war for them? Or, is it just, do you want to send them another hundred billion in military aid, so the war can continue in a stalemate for another three years?
UNPROFOR was primarily lead by French, Swedish, and Canadian military leadership. KFOR and IFOR was largely German and Italian.

Most of the blood, sweat, and tears of the UN and NATO intervention in Yugoslavia was European militaries like the Dutch, British, French, and Swedish.

The Clinton admin primarily provided air support and diplomatic cover, but most boots on the ground were European (and Canadian).

Lots of people forget that the UN was in Yugoslavia before the NATO intervention happened.
Stop. This is our president. This is our face to the world. By democratic vote. We can't weasel out of this. This IS who we are as a nation right now. Don't 'this isn't us' on HN. Do something in real life to change things so that this stops being us. But today, this is us. You and me.
Make no mistake, this display was a disgrace, but... after the annexation of Crimea the EU (Germany) moved ahead with Nord Stream 2, we are culpable too, massively. Ironically there's a famous video of none other than Trump lambasting the Germans about it.
All I can say is that Zelensky is a terrible negotiator. Recognize who you're dealing with, and adjust your stance accordingly. He should have negotiated a little bit but ultimately taken the minerals deal--give Trump the win with his base, and give Trump a reason for the US to join in the fight. Throw in something crazy, like a Trump golf course or a statue or something. He is a simple man to please! These are generational battles that will long outlive either of their egos: be humble and accept that in at least one regard, Trump is right: Ukraine doesn't have the cards.
I treat http://news.ycombinator.com/active as the real front page. Flagged discussions show up there.
It's the same kind of iterative creep of compromises on privacy that initially raised alarms with Mozilla, which culminated in Mozilla's "don't be evil" moment (or, their, erm, not-"don't be evil" moment).
It did get Trump and Vance to show their asses, that's for sure.
It's not being reported on much, but they have moved towards normalizing diplomatic relations and Russia and the US are negotiating the outline of the deal now.
Here is a recent video with John Mearsheimer (a foreign policy expert) giving commentary on recent developments. [1] John Mearsheimer was (and still is) completely baffled by the mineral deal which as you point out seems to be a distraction.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1lJBv76J5g&t=15s
You are trying to bypass years of experience. It doesn't work that way.

Go read Blake Snyder' "Save the cat". And all the derivative works. And keep rereading them until things start clicking.

The entire ecosystem of "Save the cat" is about being a writer of sorts: movies, novels, theater plays etc. But it describes a very important point: every piece of creative work has a pattern. There are patterns on how to report news, there are patterns on how to write a movie, there are patterns on how to write a novel.

Therefore, there are patterns on making good video games. So go build the knowledge to write your own "Save the cat" for video games.
> If there is one thing that you should never, ever do, is question America's willingness to peak a fight.

But the choose to fight and it’s not on their home ground.
Totally different situation.
You can’t just leave if you begin to lose like in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

They never faced the win or lose everything situation since their independence.
US intel agencies and state department are NOT CHOOSY historically about any of these distinctions.
In NYC it's hard enough to get people not to call them e-bikes (even when they are gas powered), I've given up on the scooter distinction (which then also becomes ambiguous with what I can only call "kick-scooters", most of which are not kick-powered these days).
The whole notion of Pax Americana, just like Pax Britannica before, all the way back to Pax Romana, is that peace (Pax) is in the interest of the dominant empire that enforces it.

Why? Because the dominant empire that enforces it gets the most spoils from that peace. It is why Britain had the biggest empire ever and it's why the US is the richest nation on earth today.

This point seems to be completely missed by Trump, Maga, the US talking heads, and even people in threads like this. If the US withdraws from being "the world's policeman" then it withdraws from its empire.

As a European watching this unfold from the outside, it's hard not to see the actions of the US government as the beginning of the end of US dominance. It will likely hasten the collapse of the US dollar (if you can't force everyone to buy oil in dollars, then the world will shift, likely to Euros), does the US think their currency will remain the ‘reserve currency of choice’ if they isolate themselves from the world? The era of firing up those greenback printing presses whenever you want will be gone.

Isolationism will just lead to Europe recreating (or re-purposing) the institutions that the US was critical in forming (The UN, The World Bank, etc.) and looking to be its own world peacekeeper. It will eventually move the dominance to whichever nation or nations fill the vacuum. The US will get poorer. It may not collapse, but you can't withdraw from being the dominant empire and there be no financial consequences. Just look at the collapse of the British empire.

The problem is that this won't happen overnight. And the process of the US withdrawing will certainly lead to wars, maybe even a third world war. The withdrawal of its soft power via USAID will likely lead to famines, health crises, migrations, and a lot more refugees.

You may think that we can just 'sit it out' and wait for Trump's term to complete. But, it's obvious that the Republican party is now the MAGA party. The former allies of the US need to realise that this is it. They need to fill the space as fast as possible and move forward without the US. The US is not an ally any more.

It really is the last thing we needed after a financial crisis, a pandemic, and with the existential crisis - climate change - being ever more kicked into the long grass.

I despair for where this is heading :(
You seem to have overlooked the clause 179.1.C. If I send a death threat to someone, or I incite violence by spreading misinformation (like happened in Southport) there are consequences.

That's what it covers, not a random tweet that says "I think the sky is actually green".
Because Ukrainian soldiers are not unlimited, and Russia's population is about 3 times larger.

Plus, at some point Russia will start using nukes and then we will be forced to back down. We are not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine.
"Don't piss off Poland?!" There won't be a large scale war against the Eastern EU started by Russia that does not involve Poland. The EU has stronger mutual defense clause than NATO article 5+6 (of course, it doesn't have anything close to the military might of the combined NATO countries). Once there is an all out war, Finland would mobilize its army, threatening Russia's northern flank. The Baltic would be closed. The black sea would be closed. All out war would be terrible, but the deterrence is still too strong in my opinion, as the price would be too high.

The problem / question is what would the EU (or NATO) do, if Russia starts a small scale hybrid war against Estonia or Latvia. Creating a small "local" insurgency, that takes over a majority Russian speaking town on the border. If the military alliances do not react united in such a case they are done.
"Best outcome", no. "Best possible outcome", probably.
…and removed from front page…
FYI, "@dang" doesn't do anything; HN doesn't have @-mentions. If you have suggestions for the mod team, you should email hn@ycombinator.com.
Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine Sweden and Finland have joined NATO, so now Russia has more, not less, border with NATO. How would a buffer on their southwestern border alleviate that?
Whether you call it "defensive" or not, NATO—and the arms race it and the Warsaw Pact fostered—directly led to the Soviet Union's collapse. Recall that JFK almost started WW3 when the Soviets sent nukes to Cuba. NATO on Russia's borders isn't all that different to them.
Ask Russia?
Smell the coffee.
Ah yes, the 1770s. Basically no difference between now and then. Every idea from the 1770s is perfectly relevant to the modern world /s
"Russian state media wandered into the Oval Office without permission" really isn't a comforting explanation.
It's always noble quotes from them, too, like they're saints. Untouchable.

And never the parts about keeping slavery or exterminating indigenous people or conquering Canada, etc being legitimate causes.
They are not prepared to maintain a fork of Firefox: https://codeberg.org/librewolf/issues/issues/2252#issuecomme...
I always wondered how they did that...
I was expecting something like this to happen in 2023 after the catastrophic summer offensive. That was when it became abundantly clear that Ukraine was losing the war. There wasnt even a viable plan for victory after that it was just... keep giving weapons and keep those fingers crossed.

For Trump this is about washing his hands of a war that he understands cannot be won and will become an albatross around his neck if he doesnt disengage.

A makes complete sense if you have a full picture of the military industrial situation, but in the west there is very little cognizance of just how badly Ukraine is losing not how limited western options are.

"Krasov" is an appealing explanation because it means not facing this bitter reality.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/schumer-pushing-to-codify-ihra...

https://democraticleader.house.gov/media/press-releases/lett...
That's incredibly sanguine. Russia has been annexing territory and this was a gambit to take a huge chunk by force. If they had rolled over Ukraine in weeks as many predicted they'd have pointed their guns at Belarus and Georgia and all the former satellites. Acquiescing is what we did to Hitler when he wanted the Sudetenland and he was not appeased by it.

I'd also cite John Donne and say "no man is an island". Our "country" exists as an arbitrary artifact of history. If you are capable of caring about people you don't know then it shouldn't matter if they're from another state or another country.
> Simple. If I'm Russia, I would do everything I could to directly fund every pacifist academic possible, and literally anything that bogs things down, especially if it gives moral fuzzies on paper.

And they tried that, and never really gave up on it, but the real big returns came when they started funding of the international white supremacy and far right movements.
To say the same thing as everyone else, but in a different way: let's say Washington turned out to be some form of benevolent vampire, and was able to live through all of America's lifetime from 1776 to today; do you think he would be commenting on his social media platform of choice quoting his younger self, or do you think his position on this matter would have changed?