clcaev

LLM or not, I absolutely hate the "not X but Y" writing pattern

PhD programs are generally not funded with loans. Professional schools are.

I would rather we align incentives of universities and make them a co-signer on the loan.

The recent policy is also reinstating loan limits for graduate studies that were dropped in the 80s: https://www.npr.org/2026/07/01/nx-s1-5876467/student-loans-d...

It's a great demonstration of how public health communication fails: the most important part is at the tail of the article, below two advertisements, and it's about as obscure as one could write it:

Any direct human contact with a bat is an indication for rabies postexposure prophylaxi - medical treatment given immediately after potential exposure to a rabid animal.

The article should have also recommended they safely isolate the animal to have it tested for rabies.

In all these operations, anonymity is what drives it.

The most egregious, prolific lies out there have been fully attributed; and perhaps especially because of attribution, people vehemently disagree on which are the lies.

Those who wield outsized power experience attribution of speech asymmetrically. Filtering societal communication supports the concentration of power.

As a stylistic comment, on HN I am seeing more and more of "As I have always said..." or similar opening constructs. Concisely documenting a phenomena or affecting change requires detailed, sustained effort. Merely observing a pattern isn't sufficient to be notable.

A succinct point, ideally noting counter arguments, is most welcome. Further, if there is substantial prior discussion or relevant literature, a link is productive.

This is interesting — it put immigration limits directly up for a popular vote.

For those voting to strictly limit citizenship, I wonder if they are supporting: a permanent underclass without full rights? or that basic needs to be more expensive? or that widespread automation will soon meet basic labor needs?

addendum: thank you kgwgk

By failing to provide adequate treatment early in a disease course, further exacerbations and comorbidities can appear, and these can become their own chronic conditions requiring further ongoing treatment.

Perhaps more people are using AI as part of an editorial process that is largely driven by what they wish to convey but where they have stopped fighting the AI on its preferred style. It’s supremely annoying when AI updates your prose with its own formulation despite plenty of instructions otherwise. Too often AIs mangle meaning which can be especially worrisome as it’s not easy to catch subtle word/grammar changes that dramatically shift meaning. Overall though, defects aside, for me, and only very recently, it’s been more helpful than not. I think AIs will continue to improve in this regard and be better editorial partners. For competent writings, it won’t replace human authorship or expert review.

Specifically, I’ve recently used ChatGPT for legal/administrative writing where the AI seems to be trained on a large corpus and seems to know the conventions and vocabulary well; a lawyer who reviewed the work had important corrections. Before AI, I would have sought model filings and have had less success at emulating the genre. So it’s lowered time/cost somewhat but it takes lots of diligence. By default, current AI outputs seems intelligible but are still really far off the mark. I’ve found a structured interview is a good way to start rather than jumping into draft generation.

Attribution requirements in a free software setting should be viewed as a symmetric property: however you treat incorporated contributions should be a guide (upper bound) for how your own attribution is handled. Symmetry among contributors is a founding principle of Debian licensing requirements, and with respect to legal notices, also seen in the Apache 2.0 (via NOTICE clause) license.

The Free Software Foundation sometimes went further than the Apache Foundation with their About dialog or textual notices for end users, so they would learn about their affirmative rights. The purpose of this "prominent but reasonable" preservation requirement is to retain this end user advocacy. Specifically, the GPL copyright contains a prologue which the FSF wished to broadly distribute. This badgeware stuff is a decade old abuse of this end user advocacy strategy.

An otherwise permissive license with a prominent but symmetric end user notification might be a helpful addition to OSI license options, but care is needed so it is compatible with GPLv3, reasonable to textual or embedded environments, and precludes stupid badgeware nonsense. Standard approaches and bill of materials could improve the state of the art.

How does this compare to fossil (https://www.fossil-scm.org/)? Integrated tickets and forum seems important.

This factoring of a market to enable competition by centralizing minimal infrastructure seems the bedrock of best governmental practice. Are there other examples to lean on? How do we turn this into common knowledge?

Why do these open source foundations (like Mozilla) have direct products anyway? Why not a certification? Who should the users be and why? Who are the collaborators and competitors? These are hard questions.

At least with free software licenses we can separate the copyrights from the trademarks, and exercise the right to fork if a trademark owner is captured and misbehaves.

For IL residents the policy requires collection and retention of your biomarkers. Presumably there is a law enforcement exclusion implicitly or explicitly, eg search via administrative warrant.

There is still much to be worked out, but some smart people are working on it. See also https://e2c.how/

I liked that you picked a service that has a relatively low barrier to entry. The real asset are local operators and referrals. Making them more efficient without being controlled by a big company would be a boon for everyone involved.

Consider being a platform coop with regional operators as members. See https://platform.coop/

The software for businesses like this is tightly intertwined with operations. Hence, it's less of a SaaS and could be more like a franchise model.

It'd be great if open firmware could be commercially viable. Finding a business model is hard.

The OpenWRT One [1] sponsored by the Software Conservancy [2] and manufactured by Banana Pi [3] works lovely.

[1] https://openwrt.org/toh/openwrt/one

[2] https://sfconservancy.org/activities/openwrt-one.html

[3] https://docs.banana-pi.org/en/OpenWRT-One/BananaPi_OpenWRT-O...

The referenced policy says "We will unleash the private sector by creating incentives to identify and disrupt adversary networks and scale our national capabilities."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Presid...

I don't see where the policy instructs the private sector to "hack back", a quoted term in the article.

They would be uncommon for single family homes or duplexes unless built in last decade or so.

Audio intercom with shared entry door buzzer are common with older apartment complexes. Newer buildings and retrofits have video.

I'd like Claude on IOS to pull/commit from a private git repository for Markdown and ideally drawio diagram editing.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I ended up hiring a contractor to run PoE but that was not cheap. Setting up the VLan was time consuming and I failed to do it right the first time. The intercom feature is invaluable but an entry buzzer would be even better. I don’t need the camera and it made some guests uncomfortable … electric tape worked.

We shouldn’t have to surrender our privacy for simple conveniences. Is there a market here?

Can someone make an open source, privacy-focused doorbell? Perhaps like the Software Conversancy’s OpenWRT One wifi router. With an open specification, addons like a flashing light or entry buzzer could be integrated. A simple iPhone/Android intercom app usable only on my LAN would be lovely. Yes, one can get a ReoLink and muck with VLan settings but that is not consumer accessible, moreover you have to use their central service or forgo remote answering

There are all kinds of externalities that we fail to accommodate in our market pricing.

How will public libraries comply?

I can see why some things landed here. Medicine is expensive. Desperate people are more susceptible to fraud. Yet things are improving: someone like me would be long dead a generation ago.

We should look at these challenges holistically and think about better fiscal/social engineering of our marketplaces. Alvin Roth's book, "Who Gets What and Why", is a good introduction to identifying market failures and thinking about how to address them.

For those of modest means there is also the "fail first" insurance process where you need to use less expensive therapies before a more appropriate therapy is approved. Each failure can be costly to a patient's health, often exacting irreversible comorbidities, not even considering lost work, family wellbeing, and pain/suffering.

For those with rare diseases, insurance also doesn't help with "N of 1" efforts. A case report to consolidate critical details would be invaluable. Yet there's no administrative path to fund this personally let alone with insurance help. Without summary case report it's harder to see the big picture, get a care team on the same page, and dial in on the underlying disease mechanism.

Pharma is also not enthusiastic about "off label" use of their medications. They are happy to lower costs when insurance denies coverage for an indicated diagnosis, to demonstrate benefit so it then becomes covered. However, "off label" use is often full cash fare, making it impossible for common folk to perform low-risk physician-guided experiments when standard therapies are ineffective.

We can and should do so much better.

Don’t forget about https://verifiedvoting.org/ and its decades-long advocacy for scanned paper ballots.

I hope the addendum helps clarify.

This study showed executives spent relatively more time on questions with moral/ethical concerns. Perhaps the control questions were more similar daily work and hence familiar, while there were fewer encounters with questions having moral/ethical concerns. Perhaps executives decided more care was required for these questions to ensure people were not hurt.

Getting back to the grandparent post, executives are certainly aware of situations with moral/ethical concerns and need not consult their barber to answer them.

Executives are certainly capable of understanding moral/ethical concerns.

Around 2005, a Yale Psychology PhD candidate asked me to write a web-based survey instrument with various questions, some on complex but straight forward business questions (the controls) and others with moral/ethical aspects. Senior executives participated and they answered similarly to rank & file, often completing the entire survey much faster. What they didn't know -- we were tracking how long they spent on each question. Questions with moral/ethical concerns took senior executives relatively longer than the rank & file.

Late Addendum: Sorry that I don't recall the author/paper. The survey population spanned multiple industries representing many Fortune 500s, including huge tech companies. The survey was the same for everyone. The questions were story problems from business and law school case reports. The participating companies were anonymized on our end. We provided HR departments with survey link; only subject rank (not identity) was collected. Survey was voluntary, with informed consent according to IRB approval.