HN user
I live in Norway. Starlink is cheaper than FTTH by a country mile. At the very least it's going to force down prices for fiber providers.
Also just because FTTH exists does not mean it's reliable.
[flagged]
What is the future of this? Code is not the same as a viable open-source project with a community, contributors, advocates, users and funding, even if it's perfect code.
Even though I'm sure it won't be easy to convince the Postgres project to switch to Rust, I do think that trying would be time better spent.
We will keep using Claude because internal choices made by engineers and internal gatekeeping by engineers make everything else unfeasible, and going back on that would require said engineers to admit that they did something stupid, so it's not likely to happen.
Cop body slams a white man and then arrests him after he was assaulted by black people: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/uk-man-was-assaulted-by-atta...
Of course the black people were let go. After all, they did nothing wrong, they just assaulted a white guy.
Does the article provide supporting evidence for your claim that "Even though GET+body is not handled the same everywhere, it's easier to make that the standard than it is to make a new syntax the standard."? Because if it does I don't see it. To me it just seems like a baseless claim.
But it's not existing behaviour. It does not already exist. Breaking the semantics of something that exists means that things will work inconsistently. Breaking the semantics of get will also create compatibility issues.
Even though GET+body is not handled the same everywhere, it's easier to make that the standard than it is to make a new syntax the standard.
Is there some research or study that you base this claim on? What is the reasoning? Can you elaborate?
The fact that some infrastructure is poorly maintained is not a reason against evolving protocols, it's a reason to maintain infrastructure better. It's really not that difficult to do.
What does "some random third party" have to do with any of it? An SQL server can expose HTTP directly. SQL is not the only query language that exists.
SPARQL's standard protocol for sending Queries uses HTTP[1], and yes, of course it allows clients to define the query that it sends over HTTP. HTTP QUERY would be ideal for SPARQL queries. There are also many unprotected SPARQL endpoints that you can use without any authentication [2][3].
[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-protocol/#query-operation
For one you would never allow a client to dictate the query. That is a security and validation problem. So you have to deconstruct the query anyway and then rebuild it.
Every single SQL server allows a client to dictate the query. Furthermore, not all queries are SQL queries.
Do you think that Anthropic's models would have been pulled if they did not say for months how their models is basically going to break the whole internet and that governments should most definitely restrict AI? I doubt it.
The problem is, though, given Anthropic have said all of that, they really have very little grounds for objecting to the US government's intervention here. Everything that the government would have to prove to justify their intervention has already been freely admitted by Anthropic, even though the "admission" was maybe more intended as a marketing ploy.
No, it does not feel like that.
How was it stolen, exactly?
Much cheaper to outsource all production and industry to China as Europe is doing.
I liked the UIs of the entire era from 3.0 to 2000, really. I'm mostly using Windows 2000 as an example here because it runs so well in QEMU/KVM and that allows me to easily take screenshots.
[flagged]
[flagged]
US companies already stole scores of data to train their models on and it's hard to imagine they suddenly grew some integrity.
Can you be specific about what data of yours were stolen by who?
I mean if morality is just personal preference why do we even allude to it at all?
[flagged]
Guy basically runs the US government, which has been reduced to a banana republic plutocracy.
Do you have any evidence of this? As far as I know, he basically never gets what he wants. He was against Trump's Big Beautiful Bill, it passed anyway. He wanted DOGE, it fizzled. He wants more Solar/Electric car related subsidies, Trump does not give a darn. He wants more H1Bs, Trump has been doing everything to frustrate H1Bs.
The one thing which Musk seems to have gotten was Jared Isaacman, but that was really difficult for him to get, and it took way longer than it should have.
Really difficult to see evidence that he runs the US government.
I trust people who are investing their money more than analysts who get paid for writing what everyone wants to hear.
Why is it purely speculative for SpaceX and for nobody else? Is Musk just that good a con man, even though literally everyone hates him?
zero rational basis
Do you really think so? Like everyone who risks their and their clients' money here is just being irrational? Is this really a coherent view? Could it not be that someone knows something you don't, or does not have the biases you have?
[flagged]
Lots of countries (including many western countries) have some ethnic parties. That does not mean people will vote for their ethnic groups party - in general most will not.
You can vote among ethnic lines without voting for an explicitly ethnic party, which is why Muslims almost invariably vote for leftists even though they are significantly more socially conservative than the most right-wing conservatives, but you know this, you just pretend that you don't know this. This is your SOP.
It's Voltaire (1694-1778). Depending how you count, The Enlightenment is or isn't part of modernity.
Find me one single definition of Modernity that excludes the 18th century.
Actual full democracy is predicated on a fairly large number of fundamental rights, as well as duties.
This is an entirely modern idea and really has nothing to do with the concept. It's the typical leftist tendency to appropriate a word that people see as good and then redefine it to be something which the leftist themselves want, and then hope that people still associate it with good.
It's the same thing with the word nation, love, marriage and a multitude of other concepts.
Zulus ruling over Xhosas can never be democratic, because nobody is "ruling over" anybody else in a democracy, no matter their ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, and so on.
Zulus making laws for Xhosas is most definitely Zulus ruling over Xhosas. Just because the Zulus also give the Xhosas rights to vote does not make them one people or mean that all of a sudden, Xhosas are ruling themselves.
Demos is a synonym for ethnos, and for all of history except maybe the last 80 years people would have understood democracy as self-determination of ethnic groups. The reason why everyone wanted democracy has always been that peoples, i.e. ethnic groups, want to rule themselves, and don't want to be ruled by others.
If Palestinians are 10% of the electorate in a Jewish nation state then they can never write laws for themselves, they can never rule themselves. There can be no democracy for Palestinians in a situation like that.
If Zulus and Xhosas each make up 50% of the electorate then voting is not democratic, it's a battle for one ethnic group to try and rule the other, and the weapon is just voting.
Xhosas don't want to be ruled by Zulus, Zulus and Xhosas don't want to be ruled by Afrikaners, Afrikaners don't want to be ruled by the English, Poles don't want to be ruled by Germans or Russians, Russians don't want to be ruled over by Lithuanians, Jews don't want to be ruled over by Arabs, and Palestinians don't want to be ruled by Jews.
Everyone knows this, even you. Redefining words won't change this. Nominalism won't change this.
Almost invariably, even under the most favourable conditions of rule by another ethnic group, an ethnic group will still want to rule themselves.
«What is the good of telling a community that it has every liberty except the liberty to make laws? The liberty to make laws is what constitutes a free people.»
That index confuses voting or even liberal democracy with democracy.
A multitude of different peoples voting to rule over the others is not democratic and will never be democratic. Just because the voting process is secure does not make it democratic. What makes it democratic is that a people rules themselves, nothing else.
Zulus ruling over Xhosas is not democratic just because the Zulus give the Xhosas votes because Zulus and Xhosas are two different peoples, and contrary to popular belief, soil is not magical and a Xhosa born on territory ruled by Zulus does not make him a Zulu.
Jews ruling over Palestinians is not democratic just because the Palestinians have votes because Jews and Palestinians are two different peoples, and contrary to popular belief, soil is not magical and a Palestinian born on territory ruled by Jews does not make him a Jew.
Reinventing the dictionary will only confuse you, it won't change reality. Nominalism is not only stupid, it's wrong.