krick

Here, did it for you (.tsv): https://limewire.com/d/iZp6i#ZEhH4XXWBC

Not really, there are quite a few books "missing" that I definitely saw mentioned in discussions not so long ago.

CSV export (just the book list) would be welcome.

Oh, I was somehow under impression that libgen is no more. Glad to see it's not. I guess it was just a different domain.

Uh, cool, I guess? I want to applaud that, but, first off, unless you are OpenAI or Facebook, it is not exactly plausibly easy to participate in the festivities. Even if I had spare 300 TB laying around, how the fuck do I download that?

But, more importantly, I cannot even say "good for you", because I don't actually think it is good for Anna's Archive. I wouldn't touch that thing, if I was them. Do we even have any solid alternatives for books, if Anna's Archive gets shot down, by the way? Don't recommend Amazon, please.

I'm not even so sure it's such a useless joke. I mean, it is, and I wouldn't want titles to be like "Academic publishers admit paywalls were a scam all along" (unless ALL major publishers actually admit it, which so far they didn't). But I clicked on "Math nerd explains how to spend 3 days proving 1+1=2" and when it turned out to be a Lean tutorial I thought "Oh, that's exactly what I wanted!". I don't know why, but "From Zero to QED: An informal introduction to formality with Lean 4" I didn't even notice. It's such a boring and verbose title with lame attempt at wordplay that, that my brain somehow filters it out.

Very good and appreciated, but I think for math/CS the problem is essentially solved by virtue of having arxiv.org strongly embedded into the culture, so I consider it just a PR stunt. Thanks nevertheless.

Ok, as others noted, the tool in question is hardly a solution, but what is, then? I mean, presented like that, it's pretty crazy that everyone just downloads and runs 5GB executable blobs from Hugging Face. Does anyone review them somehow before they are accepted and gather 10K downloads on HF? Or is it really another totally mindbogglingy crazy thing that happens right now across all world, and everybody just shrugs and waits for catastrophic breach of security of planetary scale to happen?

Cool, but honestly I always end up regretting another device that is not just plain "non user-firendly" Linux. First you buy Synology because it's just quick and easy to set-up, and "I'll figure the rest later". But when time comes to figure the rest out, it's just so unreasonably inconvenient. In theory, it is just Linux, and DSM is just for convenience, and there are special packages intended to use Docker and install stuff and all, but there are so many "user-friendly improvements" on top of that, that I get tired even just thinking about all the hoops I have to jump to do something super-simple and end up choosing some another device for all tasks that theoretically would be a good fit for my NAS to perform. The only good thing is hot-swap and automatic volume rebuild, that is super convenient. But, honestly, are these 2 minutes of convenience worth the rest? I don't know.

I seriously don't quite understand the point of using a VPN that doesn't offer you clean residential IPs somehow (and I don't really know good VPN like that). Most services where I really want to use VPN are well aware of VPN IP blocks and just won't allow any of these famous VPNs (that I am aware of, at least). And services that don't care if it's my real IP or not… well, usually I don't really care about exposing them to my real IP either?

I mean, ok, there are use-cases. But commercial VPNs exist under specific premise, you know, and they just don't offer what they claim to be offering. Unfortunately.

I probably shouldn't be surprised, but… so, you are saying, Apple can remotely brick YOUR device? For any reason, let alone "because of a mistake"? Heh, and I was considering to buy my first iPhone. I mean, seriously, I can only shrug at the fact that anybody accepts these terms at all.

Indeed. So I don't really understand what this proposal tries to achieve. It even explicitly says that dict → frozendict will be O(n) shallow-copy, and the contention is only about O(n) part. So… yeah, I'm sure they are useful for some cases, but as Raymond has said — it doesn't seem to be especially useful, and I don't understand what people ITT are getting excited about.

Well, bizarre is the point. Surely you do understand that this is the content to gather kids views, because there is a ton of kids on the internet, and they can be monetized. I don't know what kind of research they do on their audience and if they purposefully want to traumatize kids as much as possible, but I suppose all this shit does capture kid's attention more than just Disney characters fucking.

FWIW, I personally liked the joke.

This is so cool! I love things like that, it feels like fresh air after years and years of anachronistic retro-vibes that seem to be a part of C-programming culture.

Sure, everyone wants to "stop silly people replying to my comments by posting LLM-generated garbage", but rules are rules, so you should understand that by introducing a rule like the one you propose, you also automatically forbid discussions about "here's a weird trick to make LLM make stupid mistakes", or "biases of different LLMs" where people reply to each other which prompts they tried and what was the result. Obviously, that's not what you've meant (right?), and everyone understands that, so then it's a judgement call when this applies and when it doesn't, and, congratulations, you've made another stupid rule that no one follows "and that's ok".

"A guideline to refrain" seems better. Basically, this should be only slightly more tolerated than "let me google for you" replies: maybe not actively harmful, but rude. But, anyway, let's not be overly pretentious: who even reads all these guidelines (or rules for that matter)? Also, it is quite apparent, that the audience of HN is on average much less technical and "nerdy" than it was, say, 10 years ago, so, I guess, expect these answers to continue for quite some time and just deal with it.

Cannot properly evaluate now. I never really use it without a cable for too long, and by now the battery must have slightly degraded too. Anyway, it never was Macbook-level, I guess, and it's an oldish model, so you should check actual reviews for current models that you are interested in, there always was plenty of them for ThinkPads (at least, the last time when I looked for a new laptop).

I feel the same way, but I wouldn't be bold enough to call it dumb. I mean, I assume they know what they are doing. This is very inconvenient for me, as a buyer, but I suppose most companies just aren't Apple, so they throw at us a lot of various stuff hoping that something sticks. And, for that matter, Apple's product line gets more diversified each year too. now it's Air, and Pro, and Max, so I wouldn't bet it won't be G1 Ultra F12b in 10 more years too.

I wonder why ThinkPads are not mentioned. It's not like I recommend them (I mean, I use one, but it's not like I've tried most laptops out there, so who I am to judge), but I was under the impression it's still a de-facto Linux laptop standard.

I never even used Google Photos (because, you know), so if somebody could explain more concretely: how do you use it? Is it actually a backup app (and if so, is it really much different from using a generic backup app or even just syncthing), or does it somehow magically allow you to keep the preview gallery and search on your device, while your actual 200 GB of photos are somewhere in the cloud and the local storage is basically just auto-managed cache, where everything you didn't access in the last 6 months gets deleted? Does it preserve all this additional data Android cameras add, like HDR, video fragments before photos, does it handle photospheres well, etc? I'm asking because I don't even fully understand how the camera app handles it itself, and if all the data is fully portable.

FWIW, I also don't use any fancy collection management and barely understand what all these Lightrooms and XMP files are for. Maybe I should, but up to this day photos for me are just a bunch of files in the folder, that I sometimes manually group into subfolders like 2025-09, mostly to make it easier on thumbnail-maker.

I was pondering on this very thing not so long ago. I didn't discover anything new, of course, but I ended up convinced that the whole thing exists only because most people don't take a moment to think how absurd it is, and not so much time has passed since its somewhat forceful foundation (meaning, it wasn't something that "people of the Europe willingly decided to establish"). And, hence, it's only a matter of time it falls apart, and it may happen any time. Which is a pity, because I like open borders, I like EU as an idea, and I don't like wars, revolutions and other rapid changes, which I'd otherwise prefer to happen outside of my lifetime.

What I mean to say is that the whole EU political system is an epitome of citizen alienation, and it is like that by design. It is the purest faceless Kafkian bureaucratic machine. And, by the way, I think it works pretty well for what it is. I don't know how to measure it, but I suppose the overall quality of legislation is higher than what, say, Russia or USA produce. But the fact it is completely opaque by design, that no one is ever truly accountable for anything, I think, just isn't what anyone would willingly accept, and it's only a matter of time when the critical mass of people truly "notice" the fact.

You can often hear how some guy on the internet calls POTUS "the most powerful man in the world", which is always somewhat funny, because, of course, anyone sane understands how far from truth that is. It's laughable, how little he can really do as a president, how powerless he is to change something he truly wants to change. He is more of a glorified clown, than a ruler or a politic. But I come to believe it's really important to have a role like that in the government, somebody who ignorant people believe to be responsible for everything, somebody they can hate and blame for all that is wrong around them. It is important for the silliest psychological reasons, just by human nature.

Anyway, the comment is too long as it is, so I know I won't be able to properly explain myself, but the thing is I don't imagine things like the meaningless cookie-notification, or that idiotic bottlecap thing being possible almost anywhere but Brussels, certainly not that often. It is both ironic and very characteristic of the system, that both are only some very minor footnotes in an Appendix to some enormous legal package that is "mostly obviously good", and are about the only thing from the whole package that most people notice (and obviously are very costly in the end).

"Sliding doors"? What's this guy's problem with sliding doors? This is the best type of door there is, all bathrooms ever should have sliding doors!

It would be a good thing, if it would cause anything to change. It obviously won't. As if a single person reading this post wasn't aware that the Internet is centralized, and couldn't name specifically a few sources of centralization (Cloudflare, AWS, Gmail, Github). As if it's the first time this happens. As if after the last time AWS failed (or the one before that, or one before…) anybody stopped using AWS. As if anybody could viably stop using them.

It appears to me that the rationale was clearly stated in GP:

> resulting in missing upstream features and decreased security

I.e. it's a matter of technical superiority, which, to me, how the decisions should be made. Not by having friends in the community and all of us being Europeans and so on. (But, of course, I would be glad to hear more particular details/examples of Forgejo lagging behind.)

Thanks. I was wondering what is the status of it, given that Forgejo is being pushed more in the media lately. TBH, I haven't understood the controversy even after reading a couple of recaps. I remember it being about having "suddenly revealed" a couple of years ago that the guy on top is the owner of the trademark. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me, given that he actually was the main contributor and de-facto the leader of the project the whole time.

But then a couple of years have passed, and I started to hear about Forgejo more often only very recently, so I was wondering, if maybe the original project actually had some downfall and questionable technical decisions since. I still haven't switched, and was wondering if I should do so. As far, as I've heard it's still basically a matter of running the different docker container with the same volume, and it should work seamlessly. So what's about this "hard fork" you are mentioning? Did it actually break compatibility?

> 3-6 months

Wow, you are an optimist. I do feel "it's close", but I wouldn't bet this close. But I wouldn't argue either, I don't know. Also, when it really pops, the consequences will be more disastrous than the bubble itself feels right now. It's literally hundreds of billions in circular investing. It's absurd.

> what used to be just called ML

FWIW, 10+ years ago I was arguing that your old pocket calculator is as much of an AI as anything ever could be. I only kinda stopped doing that because it's tiring to argue with silly buzzwords, not because anything has changed since. When "these things were called ML" ML was just a buzzword, same as AI and AGI are now. I'm kinda glad "ML" was relieved of that burden, because ultimately it means a very real thing (which is just "parametrizing your algorithm by non-hardcoded values"), and (unlike with basic autocorrect, which no end user even perceives as "AI" or "ML") when you use ChatGPT, you don't use "ML", you use a rigid algorithm not meaningfully different from what was running on your old pocket calculator, except a billion times bigger and no one actually knows what it does.

So, yes, AI is just a stupid marketing buzzword right now, but so was ML, so was blockchain, so was NoSQL and many more. Ultimately this one is more annoying only because of scale, of how detrimental to society the actions of the culpable people (mostly OpenAI, Altman, Musk) were this time.

That was exactly my thought. To be fair, I probably end up thinking that because this article is written is this trashy dumbass style, which portrays it as "Google bug reports vs. ffmpeg bug fixes", which is simply unfair: as you've said, a bug report is a contribution, not some kind of a demand. That being said, I kinda do understand if someone from ffmpeg said something snarky about that on Twitter, since surely if Google (of all things) as an organization sees it valuable to contribute by sending bug reports, it surely isn't less feasible (logistically or economically) for them to also work on a patch, than it is for random people within ffmpeg mailing list itself.

That's weird. If the color difference is caused entirely by some peculiar chemical properties of the film, it should be trivial to calculate the filter that you need to apply to the digital source material so you get the "authentic" colors. So why not just do that and distribute the movie as it was designed? Or, heck, even 2 versions if you insist that some audience likes that new more vibrant look.

To be fair, it's always an artistic choice if you think it is appropriate here or not, but, yeah, this article is a really heavy offender. Reading the "Abstract claim" I caught myself thinking that this word salad hardly makes any sense, but I don't know and am just gonna let it go, because I am not yet convinced that it's worth my time to decipher that.

Also, "asinine contemporary "rationalist" movement" is pretty lightweight in this regard. Making an art out of writing as bad as possible has been a professional skill of any "academic philosopher" (both "continental" and "analytical" sides) for a century at the very least.