krick

Maybe it's irrational, and I cannot actually justify it (and of course safe writing is of primary importance), but somehow rewriting the whole file feels like a good thing for a secrets storage. Updating only part of a file obviously reveals something, even though it probably shouldn't matter if it doesn't reveal anything useful. But the default mode of thinking is we can never assume the leaked information cannot be used somehow.

I wasn't gonna say anything that other commenters didn't say, but then it occurred to me, how paradoxical this actually is: I'm less disgusted by the prospect that OP might be just random shill trying to sell yet another random slop generator solely in attempt to make some profit, than that he might be... well, sincere.

Thanks, Google.

Honestly, IMHO archive.today is just so much nicer to use in every aspect than IA, that unless they outright start to distribute malware (I mean, like, via the page itself — otherwise it's pretty much irrelevant), I don't think I'll stop using it.

Well, if it's true it's the first instance of good news I've heard in a while. But as far as I've checked, all local hobby groups still were defaulting to Facebook as the main (an often only) source of updates, events and general coordination. At least, it was a major source of friction for me until quite recently, as I never joined that thing and could only participate if somebody told me personally.

I believe there are multiple options with different degree of "half-baked"-ness, but can anyone name the best self-hosted version of this service?

Ultimately, what we all use it for is pretty straight-forward, and it seems like by now we should've arrived at having approximately one best implementation, which could be used both for personal archiving and for iternet-facing instances (perhaps even distributed). But I don't know if we have.

I don't think this list is as famous as you assume it to be. The only "Carl Sagan reading list" I managed to find [0] is apparently his personal TODO note (books he plans to read, but haven't at the moment of writing). Which obviously isn't the same thing as "his famous reading list for students".

[0] https://www.sciencealert.com/get-inspired-by-carl-sagan-s-am...

But... how is it even useful? Do you use it? Is it a good idea for anyone to, uh, use it? Is it a product that you or any other "vibe coder" cannot ~~build~~ tell Claude Code to build on the go, if he wants to communicate with Claude Code via WhatsApp for some reason? Sure, product doesn't need to be some sophisticated technology to be worth something, it could also just have user base because it succeeded at marketing, but does this particular product even benefit from network effects? What is this shit? Why anybody cares?

Seriously, I just don't understand what's going on. To me it looks like all world just has gone crazy.

What? Why are people talking and arguing with a bot? Why not just ban the "user" from the project and call it a day? Seriously, this is insane and surreal.

First of all, you are imagining some strawman situation, where indeed that datetime is encoded-decoded all across the codebase. Don't keeping your code DRY is an entirely different problem, which doesn't need to happen with this approach any more than if you use a DateTime. I don't mean it theoretically, I mean, really, I was working with codebases, where this approach was taken, and all was fine. You still would have 1 class that works with DTs, it's just that it mostly contains functions of type str → str, and for the rest of the system it's a MySQL-format datetime (i.e. a string). And the point is that your system doesn't try to make any assumptions about that string unless really needed, so you always preserve the original string (which may be a completely invalid gibberish for all you care), and while some auxillary processes might break, you never lose or destroy the original data that you received (usually from some very important 3rd party system, that doesn't care about us, so you cannot really break on input: you must do your best to guess what that input means, and drop whatever you couldn't process yourself into some queue for human processing).

And also, second, this is more specific to this particular example, but when we say "DateTime object" we usually mean "your programming language stdlib DateTime object". Or at least "some popular library DateTime object". Not your "home-baked DateTime object". And I've yet to see a language where this object makes only correct assumptions about real-life datetimes (even only as far, as my own current knowledge about datetime goes, which almost certainly still isn't complete!). And you'd think datetimes are trivial compared to the rest of objects in our systems. I mean, seriously, it's annoying, but I have to make working software somehow, despite the backbone of all of our software being just shit, and not relying on this shit more than I need to is a good rule to follow. Sure, I totally can use whatever broken DateTime objects when the correctness is not that important (they still work for like 99% of use-cases), but when correctness is important, I'd better rely on a string (maybe wrapped as NewType('SpecialDate', str)) that I know won't modify itself, than on stdlib DateTime object.

So... just blacklist all China IPs? I assume China isn't the primary market for most of complaining site-owners.

So, what's up with these bots, why am I hearing about that so often lately? I mean, DDoS atacks aren't a new thing, and, honestly, this is pretty much the reason why Cloudflare even exists, but I'd expect OpenAI bots (or whatever this is now) to be a little bit easier to deal with, no? Like, simply having resonable aggressive fail2ban policy? Or do they really behave like a botnet, where each request comes from different IP from a different network? How? Why? What is this thing?

It's not like I have a real answer, of course, but something flipped inside of me after hearing the following story by Aaronson. He is asking[0], why quantum amplitudes would have to be complex. I.e., can we imagine a universe, where it's not the case?

> Why did God go with the complex numbers and not the real numbers?

> Years ago, at Berkeley, I was hanging out with some math grad students -- I fell in with the wrong crowd -- and I asked them that exact question. The mathematicians just snickered. "Give us a break -- the complex numbers are algebraically closed!" To them it wasn't a mystery at all.

Apparently, you weren't one of these math grad students, and, to be fair, Aaronson is starting with the question that is somewhat opposite to yours, but still, doesn't it intuitively make sense somehow? We are modeling something. In the process of modeling something we discover functions, and algebra, and find out that we'd like to use square roots all over the place. And just that alone leads us naturally to complex numbers! We didn't start with them, we only imagined an algebra that allows us to describe some process we'd like to describe, and suddenly there's no way around complex numbers! To me, thinking this way makes it almost obvious that ℂ-numbers are "real" somehow, they are indeed the fundamental building block of some complex-enough model, while ℝ are not.

Now, I must admit, that of course it doesn't reveal to me what the fuck they actually are, how to "imagine" them in the real world. I suppose, it's the same with you. But at least it makes me quite sure that indeed this is "the shadow of something natural that we just couldn't see", and I just don't know what. I believe it to be the consequence of us currently representing all numbers somehow "wrong". Similarly to how ancient Babylonian fraction representations were preventing ancient Babylonians from asking the right questions about them.

P.S. I think I must admit, that I do NOT believe real numbers to be natural in any sense whatsoever. But this is completely besides the point.

[0] https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html

At first I had a negative reaction to that comment and wanted to snap back something along the lines of "that's horrible" as well, but after thinking for a while, I decided that if I have anything to contribute to the discussion, I have to kinda sorta agree with you, and even defend you.

I mean, of course having a string, when you mean "email" or "date" is only slightly better than having a pointer, when you mean a string. And everyone's instinctive reaction to that should be that it's horrible. In practice though, not only did I often treat some complex business-objects and emails as strings, but (hold onto yourselves!) even dates as strings, and am ready to defend that as the correct choice.

Ultimately, it's about how much we are ready to assume about the data. I mean, that's what modelling is: making a set of assumptions about the real world and rejecting everything that doesn't fit our model. Making a neat little model is what every programmer wants. It's the "type-driven design" the OP praises. It's beautiful, and programmers must make beautiful models and write beautiful code, otherwise they are bad programmers.

Except, unfortunately, programming has nothing to do with beauty, it's about making some system that gets some data from here, displays it there and makes it possible for people and robots to act on the given data. Beautiful model is essentially only needed for us to contain the complexity of that system into something we can understand and keep working. The model doesn't truly need t be complete.

Moreover, as everyone with 5+ years of experience must known (I imagine), our models are never complete, it always turns out that assumptions we make are naïve it best. It turns out there was time before 1970, there are leap seconds, time zones, DST, which is up to minutes, not hours, and it doesn't necessarily happen on the same date every year (at least not in terms of Gregorian calendar, it may be bound to Ramadan, for example). There are so many details about the real world that you, brave young 14 (or 40) year old programmer don't know yet!

So, when you model data "correctly" and turn "2026-02-10 12:00" (or better yet, "10/02/2026 12:00") into a "correct" DateTime object, you are making a hell lot of assumptions, and some of them, I assure you, are wrong. Hopefully, it just so happens that it doesn't matter in your case, this is why such modelling works at all.

But what if it does? What if it's the datetime on a ticket that a third party provided to you, and you are providing it to a customer now? And you get sued if it ends up the wrong date because of some transformations that happened inside of your system? Well, it's best if it doesn't happen. Fortunately, no other computations in the system seem to rely on the fact it's a datetime right now, so you can just treat it as a string. Is it UTC? Event city timezone? Vendor HQ city timezone? I don't know! I don't care! That's what was on the ticket, and it's up to you, dear customer, to get it right.

So, ultimately, it's about where you are willing to put the boundary between your model and scary outer world, and, pragmatically, it's often better NOT to do any "type-driven design" unless you need to.

Start using icons in data tables!

…What? I suppose, if the OP feels he can give you imperative commands, so can I. I'll spare you the pretentious text elaborating the command — it carries as much substance as no text at all, anyway. And, seriously, if you don't use icons in data tables, you should try and see how it feels. For me personally it's the magic trick that often makes all the difference between an unreadable wall of numbers and a vivid, crystal clear picture.

Huh. Can you do that? I wonder what is legal status of this. I used to make all sorts of fake IDs (pretty good ones!) when I was a teen (you know, for purposes such as going to clubs, buying alcohol), but of course this is literally a crime, and not even a "minor" one. Apparently, back then it didn't bother me much, but with age I became more cowardly, I must admit. So now I use my passport data more often than not, even though I am not really a fan of the idea of giving a scan of your documents to some random guy on AirBnB (although, with some obvious caption photoshopped on top, to make the scan less re-usable). I mean, it's just a matter of fact that everyone requires them, and it also has that weird status of "semi-secret thing" that you are somehow aren't supposed to give to anyone, and I still have close to zero understanding of how that works.

So, I suppose you shouldn't give your fake id (digital or physical) to a government officials. It also seems "obvious" that it's similarly unwise to give it to a bank. But you can do that to a random guy on AirBnB? A hotel? To a delivery service (Uber/Wolt/whatever)? Dicsord? Where is the line between a bank (a private commercial corporation) and Discord (a private commercial corporation)?

I don't quite understand the purpose. Yes, it's clearly stated, but, what do you mean "a reasonable subset of Python code" while "cannot use the standard library"? 99.9% of Python I write for anything ever uses standard library and then some (requests?). What do you expect your LLM-agent to write without that? A pseudo-code sorting algorithm sketch? Why would you even want to run that?

No, seriously, people need to be punished for submitting LLM-generated garbage without specifying that it's LLM-generated garbage. 400+ points, oh my god, people, what's wrong with you...

Is there some well established independent benchmark where I can easily (looking at a couple of graphs) compare all popular (especially self-hosted) transcription models?

To me, the most worrying part of the whole discussion is that your comment is pretty much the most "daring", if you can call it that, attempt to question if there even is a crime. Everyone else is worried about raids (which are normal whenever there is an ongoing investigation, unfortunate as it may be to the one being investigated). And no one dares to say, that, uh, perhaps making pictures on GPU should not be considered a crime in the same sense as human-trafficking or production of weapons are... Oh, wait. The latter is legal, right.

Not universally true. I had a couple of cards without a chip because, reasons. I still was walking to the counter myself, because giving somebody my card feels weird.

Honestly, it is funny that people even seriously discuss this. I mean, now. It is such a blatant bullshit that you'd expect this time people would say "okay, now Musk went too far, nobody would buy into this". Yeah, I wish.

You are in the data I attached. #43.

You are largely right. In fact, only 444 710 of those accounts have more than 1 post, and only 229 920 have more than 5.

Let me help you. Words / [days since account creation] would be a far better metric to decide if you have an HN problem, and by that metric you easily surpass current account #1000.

In fact, if I make a proper leaderboard by that metric, you are #914. And #731 if we only consider accounts older than 60 days.

Here's the data: https://pastes.io/name-words

Yeah, that was my reaction as well. Not sure what other people are so happy about. (But of course I did.)

I feel like there's a lot of confusion, so not sure if anyone can clear up mine, but I'm really struggling to see a significance of this.

Obviously, like all ignorant people do, I am going to oversimplify things here. But still, to me, the "platonic idea" of Anki seems a dead simple thing. All what I care about when using Anki is what's on the 2 sides of a Card, a question + answer, which can only be some visual image (possibly encoded as text, possibly just JPEG, I really don't care as long as it fits in my mobile device memory) + optional sound. That's really it. If it should be bi-directional or uni-directional card is a detail of how the deck is generated/encoded, and the spaced repetition algorithm is a detail of the app that I use to study (so, usually AnkiDroid, I imagine — an unaffiliated 3rd party; who even uses desktop apps nowadays?).

So, I imagine there can exist (and do exist) some minor additional features, like an ability to require a typed answer for a card, but it seems pretty minor, and I really don't see a lot of room for the app to evolve.

So, ultimately people need only a common .apkg format, which exists and is relatively simple (although I suppose it could've been even simplier), and a place like AnkiWeb, where people can share their decks, so Spanish top-2000 or basic integrals deck isn't re-invented over and over again. It's a pity that AnkiWeb isn't more open and will be even less open from now on, but as long as someone is willing to just host it (which is ultimately just paying for downloads traffic) it's easy to replicate, so no super-valuable IP here.

Of course, a primary use-case for Anki is a tool to make decks, but you could really do with pretty simple python script + YAML/JSON/CSV/whatever metadata file to convert it to AnkiDroid-compatible .apkg file.

So, basically, who cares? What is to "own" there?

Yet when I call emergency I must provide my location verbally, and then am usually contacted for a follow-up, because the guys cannot find the place. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that this location technology works perfectly well: just not for the "only use case when this should be available".

My first reaction was that it's really great, but almost immediately I got a hold on myself: look, maybe you can argue for the cracks on the road under certain conditions, but surely it didn't have to put transformer booths and collectors where weren't drawn. It doesn't "make the render reality", it's just another "AI"-slop machine, producing the same slop as the "originals" usually are, just with the instruction to make it look sad, instead of making it look happy. Two lies don't make one truth.

> We aquired TikTok because of the perceived threat

It's very tangential to your point (which is somewhat fair), but it's just extremely weird to see a statement like this in 2026, let alone on HN. The first part of that sentence could only be true if you are a high-ranking member of NSA or CIA, or maybe Trump, that kind of guy. Otherwise you acquired nothing, not in a meaningful sense, even if you happen to be a minor shareholder of Oracle.

The second part is just extremely naïve if sincere. Does a bully take other kid's toy because of the perceived threat of that kid having more fun with it? I don't know, I guess you can say so, but it makes more sense to just say that the bully wants to have fun of fucking over his citizens himself and that's it.