derkster

2024.

source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-military-tested-device-that-...

personally, i always check ebay. but i know general sentiment around "used/like new" items is fairly poor. just ask grand pap sitting in florida, buying half the computer new, because "he would never buy used", aka some returned tower.

I see what you're saying, I didn't make the assumption it was the US authorities, simply that an authoritative entity was involved. In this case, that entity applied enough pressure to directors to make the organizers feel the need to cancel the event. I consider the headline to be clickbait, but obviously we drew very different conclusions from it.

I hear you though, clickbait gonna clickbait.

The FBI and Canada seem to feel differently enough to investigate, and have arrested a few individuals operating these types of "overseas police stations". [1]

"Chen Jinping, 60, of New York, New York, pleaded guilty today to conspiring to act as an illegal agent of the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC),"[2]

The films weren't just pulled - the festival was cancelled.[3]

Sources:

1: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlm...

2: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/new-york-resident-pl...

3: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/07/indiechina-ind...

i checked. he seemingly limits his "i have a controversial opinion, let me explain why everyone who disagrees is disgusting" posts to once a month. i'm not sure they're increasing racist, but he's clearly becoming more and more enraged.

anyone so unhinged that they can't comprehend the value in not publicly attacking subsets of the population you might need to cooperate with, eventually becomes a liability for everyone.

Absolutely. It will be a while before AI is the absolute replacement, AI will enable the people in these professions to do faster, better (hopefully) work.

I do agree with you about what the argument actually is, I should have worded it differently. Any time someone brings up Firefox, it always seems to be an ex-Firefox user talking about compatibility issues. Even your GCP, I've personally used GCP with Firefox with no issues, but I have no doubt you spent more time in it than I have. But it does make me wonder if maybe there are platform specific issues with Firefox.

It's still interesting to contrast my personal experience re: Firefox with everyone elses when it comes to the "Manifest V3 ! Abandon ship, but to where?" conversation.

Any feature specifically? I added a project+repo, and it scanned and reported successfully - but this is only the free tier.

I've been bringing this up in every single thread about Chrome and Manifest V3 pops up. I'm been using Firefox, 100% of the time, on three different operating systems, for probably six years at this point.

I can remember a single time I had to swap to Chrome for something, and it was three years ago, and involved some flavor of WebAssembly, I believe.

If anyone can point out a current website that is acting up under Firefox and not Chrome, please post it. I just want want to know that the "Firefox is inferior" argument isn't a decade old echo.

Manifest V3 has 100% market share for all "full featured" browsers. My understanding is that just yesterday, YouTube made a change that allows them to apply DRM to videos, with even the client side buffer maintaining encryption until playback. How long until we start seeing similar applied to websites/articles?

Eventually, there will be an overstep that make enough capable people mad, and those people will get together and make/mod something better.

You talk about Google as if it's a person. You should take a step back and think to yourself why the changes were made to Manifest V3 that broke backwards compatibility, weakening ability to ad-blocking. Rule set based modification is one of the first features I'd think of when developing a systems of extensibility in browser, and they removed it.

The reasoning is obvious, and "plausible deniability" is not enough to give Google charity. The more difficult you make it to block ads, the more impressions, and the more money made. Yet you believe people should be "charitable" to the same company that can't hire the manpower to defend their own users against bad faith DCMA takedown notices. Because they ran the analysis, and it wasn't worth the cost.

Best case scenario, Chromium loses market share, implements the parts removed from V2, Google likely kicks the can down the road to Manifest V4.

There's no reason to believe companies deserve charitability. Companies are systems designed to extract maximum value, and when the world around that system changes, the system adjusts itself. It's not the systems fault for trying to get more value, it's our fault for letting them.

YouTube has been playing a cat and mouse game, disabling some accounts until disabled, randomly re-enabling them. I personally think it's so when people talk about issues like this - people say "Well, it's been ok on my end". But it's definitely some kind of A/B testing.

I'm with you. Every time one of these arguments come up, people talk about how Chrome is superior. I've used Firefox daily for minimum five years as a daily driver, and it's been atleast 3 years since I've had to install Chrome because some website specified that it NEEDED a Chromium based browser for something specific, I believe it was a Firmware Upgrade over USB - through the browser. I split my time between Windows and Linux equally, and Firefox is the daily driver on both.

Can someone in this thread who have swapped between Firefox/Chrome explain the problems they run into ultimately driving them back to Chrome?

I'm old enough to remember an internet before non-porn ads. Being Hacker News, does someone have any hard idea on infrastructure costs in the late 1990s compared to now?

In 1997, when America Online went from an hourly rate to unlimited hours for $20/month. Besides adult ads, I remember a lot of "work from home/get rich quick" ads - and that's all I can personally remember. Almost every forum and community I can remember were serious labors of love, especially the early "hacker" communities. But, we lost that internet a long time ago. I, personally, would love for an internet that could emulate those early years of being able to log in, communicate, and make friends with random, sometimes sketchy, weirdos, all within 45 seconds of dialing up. There weren't algorithms that decided who was important and who wasn't, you just had your words and wits.

That was a tangent, but my point is - would the internet improve or decline if there was a serious "adpocalypse"?

There's still Office LTSC version, which will likely exist for the foreseeable future. I believe they require internet for activation, and are offline afterwards.

https://marketplace.appdirect.com/en-US/apps/345798/office-l...

Putting Ozempic over the counter at a local pharmacy would be more than enough to keep people from wasting away, the same thing they do with asthma medication. In 2025, if you really want something, a dark web tutorial is 30 seconds away. And from what I've heard from a client, Ozempic on the dark web is roughly 5x cheaper.

To you, it might be admirable. To others, it's just a constant reminder of existential threats. Kudos to you if you can handle it, but it's not anyones place to say just how much is too much to cut them off.

I just wanted to bring up the stress caused by "passive" bosses, who attempt to be everyones buddy, avoiding even the faintest whiff of having to actually "manage" employees. Especially employees unable to integrate themselves, after months, into a workflow wothout causing an equal amount of work for others to decipher and clean up.

I'm not bitter, you're bitter! :)

For mass production/scalability, I absolutely agree with you.

For products that won't be scaled, I imagine it becomes just another abstraction layer, with the cost of human input outweighing the cost of the additional infrastructure / beefing up hardware to support the inefficiencies created.

Intel spend was spending upwards of 15% a quarter on stock buybacks, while also being stalled out on 10nm with the yield improvements "right around the corner", every quarter, for at least 18 months. I don't blame capitalism, but I do blame lack of regulation regarding stock buybacks, especially talking about the United States only home fab.

who are we to hold others accountable for their actions when money is at stake?

Hard agree, I like to keep up with the newest models by throwing new haircuts on friends, making bad AI memes, just random stuff - and there's tons of models strictly for generating NSFW content. I saw a LoRA last night that was straight up called "facesitting", on the most popular hub to post/download models.

This is going to probably sound insane, but my primary concern is tech not being able to bridge the gap fast enough for this to be used to enhance our ability instead of enfeebling it.

But hey, maybe this is our centuries calculator and I'm just crazy.

I don't think anyone vaccinated is going to be bothered that they didn't have to risk death by COVID (UK mortality rate of 1.99%) to get superior immunity, even if you factor in J&J/AstraZeneca's clotting risk (UK mortality rate of 0.0019%).

I would like to think that getting vaccinated helped reduce viral load enough to help limit potential mutations to some degree, but who knows.

I do know I need to be able to live with myself, and if I accidentally hurt someone I loved due to being careless in the face of a real threat - it would tear me up. I'm sure others feel the same, and I hope people can keep it up through the fatigue. :)

Talking about these issues at the individual level when it should talked about in broader terms distorts the reality of the situation. If you try to convince "no-risk" individuals that they should get the vaccine for their own health, you're not going to get very far.

But explaining to that same 20 year old that he might unintentionally bring COVID home from college and proceed to unintentionally infect high-risk parents or grandparents? That's where the real damage would comes from.

The peace of mind knowing I'm not going to unintentionally kill off members of my family is priceless.

COVID-19 just recently surpassed the number of war casualties from World War I forward.

625K war casualties[1] < 635K COVID-19 casualties[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualt... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

I'm not sure why a lot of disagreements surrounding this issue devolve in to pointing the finger at some issue that has nothing to do with COVID. I assume it's an attempt to diminish the severity of COVID, by comparing a transmittable disease to one that's not?

To but it simply, I don't risk dying from obesity simply by being in proximity with someone morbidly obese. I risk contracting COVID, and potentially dying by sitting next to someone who has COVID.

What's your thoughts on this?

I don't understand the concept of fairness when we're talking about something that has killed more Americans than every war since the Civil War combined. I would consider every death caused by the asymptomatic much more unfair than someone having to pay for a charter school for the luxury of being a liability to the general public every time they step outside their home.

Every one of us will end up having to pay for the problems caused by 1/3rd the population feeling they have the right to risk my life because of unfounded fears. If said people were so worried about their life, they would do the same risk analysis lots of us did. It's very clear that COVID is more likely to fuck me up than the vaccine.

And if it turns out the data was a result of every first world country in the world coordinating amongst themselves to spread an insanely damaging lie telling us exactly the opposite of the truth, we have much much worse problems.

I do the same. It's extremely sad to know the United States has lost more people to this than every war casualty since the Civil War.

When it comes to the Covid19 vaccine, we were all being fed fear every day on how the vaccine was rushed, and how some were the first of their kind, untested long-term. And a lot of people decided to take it anyway, because a one percent mortality rate is an unacceptable risk to most.

Some quick googling shows that in 1940, there were 235k reported smallpox cases [2] with a world population of 2.3b [1]. 235k * 0.3 mortality rate = 70.5k. 2.3b / 70.5k = 32624. So if you were alive in the year 1940, you had a 1/9787 chance to have smallpox, and a 1/32624 chance to get, and pass away from smallpox.

1/32624 chance to die of smallpox in 1940, versus a 1/500000 (worst case scenario) chance to die of the smallpox vaccine. They can call the vaccine whatever they want. The flaws of any vaccine should be scrutinized under the public eye, but I'll always take the better odds when it comes to risking my life - and I'd assume a lot of us are here today because earlier generations of their own family had similar sentiment towards self-preservation.

Edit: sources

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_...

[2] http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2011/highlights1...