Top 5 News | Last 7 Days

Discussion (456):

Zed is praised for its fast performance, polished UI design, and AI integration that can be disabled. Users appreciate its support for remote development through SSH but note issues with memory usage on large projects and the need for better theme customization options. Some users find it lacking in advanced features compared to other IDEs like JetBrains IDEs or VS Code.

• Zed is a fast and responsive editor with good performance.
• The UI design of Zed is polished and well-crafted.

• Memory usage can be an issue on large projects.
• Theme customization could be improved for better user experience.

Discussion (376):

The comment thread discusses customer dissatisfaction with Anthropic's policy on compensation for degraded service or technical errors, the perceived lack of genuine human empathy in AI-generated responses, and suggestions for alternative services as a result of poor handling of billing issues.

• Anthropic's policy on compensation is unreasonable.
• AI-generated responses are ineffective.

• Anthropic may not want to set a precedent on refunds.

Discussion (435):

The comment thread discusses various aspects of online age verification, including its potential impact on privacy, censorship, and the rights of children versus adults. There are differing opinions on whether such measures are necessary for protecting children from inappropriate content or if they infringe upon personal freedoms. The conversation also touches on alternative methods to verify age without compromising anonymity and the broader implications of surveillance in online spaces.

• Alternative take: The fact that twitter / facebook / whatever allow arbitrary, unverified posting enables large-scale misinformation that led to, among other things, Russia's manipulation of the US electorate and ultimate impacting the presidential election.
• Playing devil's advocate outside of debate club only serves to promote the devil's point of view.
• Disagreed. I'm against invasive age verification methods, but to allow inaccurate expectations to proliferate often becomes a bubble that pops, causing many to rebound to the other side, even if it's objectively worse. I much prefer to keep the tradeoffs clear, as it prevents betrayed expectations while still showcasing the unacceptable downsides.
• I'm firmly against the idea of Internet arguments presenting an opposing position under the guise of it not being their actual opinion so they can run away from debate. Devil's advocate is a technique that should be used in school to learn how to make stronger arguments.
• Really? How many Electoral College votes did Russia's clumsy attempt at manipulation actually change?
• How are folks recommended to get involved? Contact your local Congress member? I feel this thread has a lot of passion but is missing concrete, actionable steps.
• Heroes @ EFF have our guide (USA residents): https://www.eff.org/pages/help-us-fight-back#main-content
• It's worth pointing out that full digital identity verification ('doxxing' yourself to an untrustworthy, unauditable, legally unconstrained private company) is NOT the only way to verify adulthood.
• The 'cashier standard' you advocate for has already crept toward centralized state tracking in places like Utah. When you go to a restaurant and order a drink, the staff are required to take it to the back and scan it for verification.
• This is not the case in most of the country. Utah is largely influenced by a Mormon / LDS culture that expresses heavy opposition to drinking. I am clearly not proposing that the cards be scanned Utah style, I am proposing that they be glanced at by a cashier, everywhere else style.
• More and more places I go in other states besides Utah, try to scan IDs when purchasing alcohol.
• Again, the proposal isn't for a system which requires scanning of IDs, it's for a system where the cashier glances at the ID. You're arguing against a strawman. You may argue that the system proposed could evolve into the system you're describing, but still, you're arguing against a hypothetical future fiction.
• This type of system is a horrible idea for the following reasons: 1) the cards can just be re-sold which creates a black market and defeats the 'cashier physically saw the person buying the card' angle; 2) nickle and dimes people for simply browsing the internet (verification can dystopia anyone?); 3) related to #2, it creates winners in the private sector since presumably you need central authorities handing out these codes.
• Is it even theoretically possible to have bearer anonymity and no reselling option at the same time?
• First - Alcohol and cigarettes can just be resold too. The black market for them is effectively zero because the consequences for giving them to kids are severe and the room for meaningful profit is close to zero, same applies here.
• Second - The codes would be priced on the order of magnitude of pennies per verification - think 10 cents or less, accessible even to low / fixed income folks without really making a dent in their budget.
• Third - the proposal explicitly mentions a nonprofit running it as an option, and the idea would be that law codifies the method to be approved, not a specific vendor, so competitive markets could emerge, too. Would you argue that restrictions on the sale of alcohol are creating artificial winners in the private sector of alcohol manufacturing?
• I don't think it applies, the difference is that codes are digital and can be sold over the internet, anonymously, in a scalable manner.
• A great lesson in how not to do rhetoric.
• The best way to not be in a digital cage is to opt out of the current digital products.
• But will your friends and family opt out? Their phones are always listening. They can just as easily listen to you, even if you go to great pains not to expose yourself to technology. They'll make a shadow profile of any avoidant user whether they want it or not.
• The best way to not be in a digital cage is to opt out of the current digital products. Bullshit. These are all-encompassing monopolies and government services. More likely, they'll ban you and you'll end up having to go to court out of desperation to demand that they service you.
• This is very limited thinking. If you lacked this sort of imagination 20 years ago, you wouldn't have been able to predict today.
• This is the sort of passive reactionary nonsense that causes the danger that we're in. Everything isn't something to give up lightly, even if you think that it will force your neighbor to turn his music down, or get rid of bad reality television.
• Do you actually have an argument to make? He’s 100% correct. For a start, child are parents responsibility, and the state should stay out of that as much as reasonably possible.
• That's why stores let kids buy alcohol and tobacco, of course, because no responsible parent would let them buy that, right? That's why any kid can go watch any movie in the cinema right?
• Yes it's the parents responsibilities. Do you think a middle class single mother has the resources to keep their kids entertained and out of social media for the whole day?
• The problem with age verification is 100% the lack of anonymity in its implementation (which I do agree has ulterior motives) - but honestly not the age check in itself.
• Did social media exist when you grew up?
• It's weird that none of your arguments or proposals hold accountable the responsible parties. You want to force us to compromise when we were minding our own goddamn business.
• 5 years ago I would have agreed, but seeing how the GOP has been fighting tooth and nail to protect actual child sex traffickers, I don't think so anymore. There's just no possible way that the safety of children is an actual concern to any of them.
• The kids are our future adults. It should be pretty obvious that getting them used to the state yanking access is a future problem. I don’t see anything off-color or unreasonable.
• Responding to tone but not to content is what a dog does.
• Ironic that he's relying on the same ridiculous 'think of the children' rhetoric that's being used to promote age verification. Really says a thing or two about online discourse in our day and age.
• Make no mistake you are engaging in your own form of rhetoric when you respond like this. You are in effect moving the discussion away from the subject at hand, and towards the perceived faults in the author’s communication style. This is a rhetorical slight of hand and it’s highly disingenuous.
• Maybe you're not the target, then.
• I haven't heard too many people say these extreme-sounding, yet at least arguably true points out loud. Someone should be saying them, and the fact that it's not your particular cup of tea may not be the biggest issue here.
• It's important to remember that they're targeting your children. You grew up with freedom from surveillance and constant identification. You were able to communicate anonymously and without the content of your speech being sold to Walmart and the cops. They are putting in effort to make sure that your children will never have that reality as a reference point.
• A lot of people dismissed RMS's 'Right to Read' essay long ago. All the things it was warning about have come to pass, in spades.
• It's mind boggling how far Stallman saw into the future. Saddest part is we're losing this war. They're going to destroy freedom of computation, freedom of information, and it turns out that... Nobody cares. Nobody but a bunch of nerds.
• The one and only method I will participate in is server operators setting a RTA header for URL's that may contain adult or user-generated or user-contributed content and the clients having the option to detect that header and trigger parental controls if they are enabled by the device owner.
• Back in the late 90s or so, there was a proposal to have sites voluntarily set an age header, so parents/employers/etc could use to block the site if they wish. People said it would never work, because adult sites had a financial incentive not to opt in to reduce their own traffic.
• What I am suggesting could address most of that. If they do not participate they get fined. The government loves to fine companies.
• Exactly. If you’re hurting kids to make more money selling porn videos, straight to jail.
• You’d think that one could simply block sites that don’t have the age header set on child computers. This may block kids from hobbyist sites that don’t bother to set their headers as kid-friendly, but commercial sites would surely set their headers properly.
• The porn companies already set the RTA header. It was designed by an organisation funded by the porn companies.
• What, in the same way movie studios wouldn't comply with the Hayes Code, or comic book publishers wouldn't comply with the CCA, or games publishers wouldn't comply with the ESRB? The financial incentive is to police yourself, because government policing is much, much worse.
• There's a great relevant quip: 'If you think that the cost of compliance is high, try noncompliance'.
• People were wrong. We pay money online mostly through credit cards. Credit card transactions can be reversed. If children spend money on porn, those payments are likely to be reversed.
• An age header is a trivial step that can reduce the odds of the adult site receiving payments that later get reversed. Win, win.
• But if someone is willing and able to pay, then the adult industry wants the choice of whether to access content to be up to them. If government tries to regulate them, they'll engage in malicious compliance - do the minimum to not be sued, in a way that they can still reach customers.
• If you live in Utah, and you're able to purchase a VPN, the porn companies want your money.
• This doesn't address the wider array of age-verification related problems that people want to solve, like social media where age verification is needed to police interactions between users.
• I could be misunderstanding the context but to me that sounds like a moderation issue assuming we even want small children on social media in the first place. There should probably be a dedicated child-safe social media site that limits what communication can take place for small children and has severe punishments for adults pretending to be children for the purposes of grooming.
• Such censorship shouldn't exist in the first place.
• Servers can then infer user’s ages by whether or not the client renders pages given those headers or not no? See if secondary page requests (e.g images, scripts) are made or not from a client?
• A bad actor could use this to glean age information from the client and see whether the person viewing the page is a small child. That should be scary
• Clients could refuse to show content that does not have headers set.
• On other hand servers might choose to lie. After all that is their free speech right.
• So maybe you need some third party vetting list. Ofc, that one should be fully liable for any damages misclassification can cause... But someone would step up.
• Compelled to disclaim facts is good compelled speech, though.
• There is a sudden concerted international push for online age verification, and we do not know where this push originates from. That is the scariest thing about it.
• It's true for a lot of things in Western countries. Evident when the fight against 'hate' was suddenly everywhere, and also during covid.
• An attestation-like system to detect humanity at time of post is absolutely for useful online spaces in the era of AI slop.
• The writing style of the author is very annoying.
• It could be done with anonymous credentials though. No tracing to who the human is.
• Anonymous in terms of it not being possible to derive the real world identity of the human from the value, sure. Anonymous in terms of providing no durable way to ban that human from the platform? No.
• And people should be free to pick and choose whether they want to use sites that do that or not. Whatever hacker news does seems to be fine for me, and I did not need to verify my ID in any way (even though it's very easy to figure out who I am from this profile)
• Until people hit 'attest' and then copy the text from ChatGPT.
• Why is it always ‘think of the children’ used to abrogate the rights of adults?
• Because, without further context, it's so hard to argue against. Pretty much every person in every culture cares deeply about their children.
• It's the same with tough on crime. 'What, you want criminals to keep getting away with it!?!'
• I think it's because, without further context, it's so hard to argue against. Pretty much every person in every culture cares deeply about their children.
• Because adults remain children. As in, their parent’s kids and therefore property. It’s less explicit in US I guess but in some places that’s very blunt - if you don’t support your parents enough you can be sued for abuse.
• Protect the children refers to a type of property, not a type of human.
• Because it's very easy for the creeps already thinking of your children to paint these rejecting this type of laws as those who want to see children hurt. Regardless how stupid this argument is, rags will always pounce on it.
• Regardless how stupid this argument is, rags will always pounce on it.
• Until people hit 'attest' and then copy the text from ChatGPT.
• Social Media is not a thing at all. Social media is a website. Websites are not health or unhealthy. Food is healthy or unhealthy. Websites are light and potentially sound, not something with health effects.
• This is simply false -- the literature is full of discussion about the health effects of social media.
• More generally you're committing I believe two separate fallacies of ambiguity? Like one in going from the institution of social media to its reification in the form of specific websites, and then a second fallacy when you go from the specific websites to all websites in general?
• Like if you said 'Gun ownership is not a thing at all. Gun ownership is a piece of metal. Pieces of metal cannot be healthy or unhealthy.' OK but, you owning a gun is known in the scientific literature to significantly correlated with a bunch of very adverse health effects for you, such as you dying by suicide or you dying from spousal violence or your protracted grief and wasting away because your child accidentally killed themselves.
• [1]: Bernadette & Headley-Johnson, 'The Impact of Social Media on Health Behaviors, a Systematic Review' (2025) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12608964/
• [2]: Lledo & Alvarez-Galvez, 'Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review' (2021) https://www.jmir.org/2021/1/E17187/
• [3]: Sun & Chao, 'Exploring the influence of excessive social media use on academic performance through media multitasking and attention problems' (2024) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-024-12811-y
• [4]: The APA has a whole 'Health advisory on social media use in adolesence' https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/health-advisory-adolescent-social-media-use which is pretty even-handed about 'these parts of social media are acceptable, those parts can maybe even be downright good -- but here are the papers that say that for adolescents, it can mess with their sleep, it can expose them to cyberhate content that measurably promotes anxiety and depression, it has been measured to promote disordered eating if they use it for social comparison...'
• What I'm hearing you say: Our freedom is already being eroded, saying that it is being eroded more is just fear mongering. They want to hurt you, instead of fear mongering, find a middle ground where they're hurting you differently.
• Age verification on Australian social media has loopholes. Underage influencers use an agency to manage their social media for them. So anyone with enough followers or money can continue using social media under the age of 16.
• That just makes it even worse, why deprive the younger generation of one of the few remaining methods they have to make a decent income? We should be encouraging youth entrepreneurship, not making them spend even longer in classrooms learning things that LLMs will do better than them.
• People under the age of 16 shouldn't be worried about 'making a decent income'. They should focus on school.
• In the weekends they can stock shelves, deliver pizza, deliver newspapers, wash dishes, babysitting, feed animals or other typical jobs for children in the age range of 12 to 16.
• This is almost verbatim the same argument that people make in support of allowing child labor in factories.
• Children do not need, nor are they entitled to, any kind of 'freedom' to work for a living.
• Since when did being an influencer become 'one of the few remaining methods' to make a decent income?
• I don’t think it truly is, but I do think that the younger generations think it is.
• My nieces and nephews really don't know what they are going to do in their futures because so much is uncertain right now. If it feels like a longshot to expect normal 9-5 office jobs to be around in 5 years, and it's also a longshot being an influencer, then why not go for the influencer thing?
• How could one protect the, call it one in million… the speech of the (young) Greta Thunbergs, for example? I bet there is a 15 year-old much smarter than me making political videos and I wouldn’t necessarily want them to be forced to stop. What if they’re on my ‘team’! ;) (I kid)
• Recalling how we had lots of political debates in high school: if some of those kids made videos and got really popular, and the law made them stop, they would have been incentivized to vote $responsibleParty out.
• Maybe age verification isn't the way to mitigate this obvious risk, but there has to be something that can be done to stop rampant sockpuppeting.
• I’d wager most people want more censorship of the internet.
• For a forum that supposedly consists of hackers and tech-savvy people, this number of comments supporting age verification is concerning.
• The author has said a lot about what kind of future awaits with mass surveillance and AI, but I believe it’s not enough. Technofascism Is not that far away.
• I agree. I don't call it 'age verification' though - it is age sniffing. And it has nothing to do with children - that is the lie.
• The whole 'debate' is already not logical by the way. Let's for a moment assume the 'but but but the kids!' is a real argument rather than a strawman argument, which it is. Ok so ... I am a 'concerned parent', for the sake of discussion. I have three young kids. I am not a tech nerd.
• Of course those who know how things work, they know that this is the build up towards identifying everyone on the world wide web at all times AND to make access to information conditional, e.g. if the state does not know you, you can not access information.
• That same government wants to 'protect' your kids by KYCing everyone.
• You've already condemned those kids to a life of slavery. So much for protecting them.
• What we need is not online verification, but a competent government that does its existing job well.
• No one has been arrested over the Epstein files. Who is protecting those kids?
• That same government wants to 'protect' your kids by KYCing everyone.
• Give me a break.

• Alternative take: The fact that twitter / facebook / whatever allow arbitrary, unverified posting enables large-scale misinformation that led to, among other things, Russia's manipulation of the US electorate and ultimate impacting the presidential election.
• Playing devil's advocate outside of debate club only serves to promote the devil's point of view.
• Disagreed. I'm against invasive age verification methods, but to allow inaccurate expectations to proliferate often becomes a bubble that pops, causing many to rebound to the other side, even if it's objectively worse. I much prefer to keep the tradeoffs clear, as it prevents betrayed expectations while still showcasing the unacceptable downsides.
• I'm firmly against the idea of Internet arguments presenting an opposing position under the guise of it not being their actual opinion so they can run away from debate. Devil's advocate is a technique that should be used in school to learn how to make stronger arguments.
• Really? How many Electoral College votes did Russia's clumsy attempt at manipulation actually change?
• How are folks recommended to get involved? Contact your local Congress member? I feel this thread has a lot of passion but is missing concrete, actionable steps.
• Heroes @ EFF have our guide (USA residents): https://www.eff.org/pages/help-us-fight-back#main-content
• It's worth pointing out that full digital identity verification ('doxxing' yourself to an untrustworthy, unauditable, legally unconstrained private company) is NOT the only way to verify adulthood.
• The 'cashier standard' you advocate for has already crept toward centralized state tracking in places like Utah. When you go to a restaurant and order a drink, the staff are required to take it to the back and scan it for verification.
• This is not the case in most of the country. Utah is largely influenced by a Mormon / LDS culture that expresses heavy opposition to drinking. I am clearly not proposing that the cards be scanned Utah style, I am proposing that they be glanced at by a cashier, everywhere else style.
• More and more places I go in other states besides Utah, try to scan IDs when purchasing alcohol.
• Again, the proposal isn't for a system which requires scanning of IDs, it's for a system where the cashier glances at the ID. You're arguing against a strawman. You may argue that the system proposed could evolve into the system you're describing, but still, you're arguing against a hypothetical future fiction.
• This type of system is a horrible idea for the following reasons: 1) the cards can just be re-sold which creates a black market and defeats the 'cashier physically saw the person buying the card' angle; 2) nickle and dimes people for simply browsing the internet (verification can dystopia anyone?); 3) related to #2, it creates winners in the private sector since presumably you need central authorities handing out these codes.
• Is it even theoretically possible to have bearer anonymity and no reselling option at the same time?
• First - Alcohol and cigarettes can just be resold too. The black market for them is effectively zero because the consequences for giving them to kids are severe and the room for meaningful profit is close to zero, same applies here.
• Second - The codes would be priced on the order of magnitude of pennies per verification - think 10 cents or less, accessible even to low / fixed income folks without really making a dent in their budget.
• Third - the proposal explicitly mentions a nonprofit running it as an option, and the idea would be that law codifies the method to be approved, not a specific vendor, so competitive markets could emerge, too. Would you argue that restrictions on the sale of alcohol are creating artificial winners in the private sector of alcohol manufacturing?
• I don't think it applies, the difference is that codes are digital and can be sold over the internet, anonymously, in a scalable manner.
• A great lesson in how not to do rhetoric.
• The best way to not be in a digital cage is to opt out of the current digital products.
• But will your friends and family opt out? Their phones are always listening. They can just as easily listen to you, even if you go to great pains not to expose yourself to technology. They'll make a shadow profile of any avoidant user whether they want it or not.
• The best way to not be in a digital cage is to opt out of the current digital products. Bullshit. These are all-encompassing monopolies and government services. More likely, they'll ban you and you'll end up having to go to court out of desperation to demand that they service you.
• This is very limited thinking. If you lacked this sort of imagination 20 years ago, you wouldn't have been able to predict today.
• This is the sort of passive reactionary nonsense that causes the danger that we're in. Everything isn't something to give up lightly, even if you think that it will force your neighbor to turn his music down, or get rid of bad reality television.
• Do you actually have an argument to make? He’s 100% correct. For a start, child are parents responsibility, and the state should stay out of that as much as reasonably possible.
• That's why stores let kids buy alcohol and tobacco, of course, because no responsible parent would let them buy that, right? That's why any kid can go watch any movie in the cinema right?
• Yes it's the parents responsibilities. Do you think a middle class single mother has the resources to keep their kids entertained and out of social media for the whole day?
• The problem with age verification is 100% the lack of anonymity in its implementation (which I do agree has ulterior motives) - but honestly not the age check in itself.
• Did social media exist when you grew up?
• It's weird that none of your arguments or proposals hold accountable the responsible parties. You want to force us to compromise when we were minding our own goddamn business.
• 5 years ago I would have agreed, but seeing how the GOP has been fighting tooth and nail to protect actual child sex traffickers, I don't think so anymore. There's just no possible way that the safety of children is an actual concern to any of them.
• The kids are our future adults. It should be pretty obvious that getting them used to the state yanking access is a future problem. I don’t see anything off-color or unreasonable.
• Responding to tone but not to content is what a dog does.
• Ironic that he's relying on the same ridiculous 'think of the children' rhetoric that's being used to promote age verification. Really says a thing or two about online discourse in our day and age.
• Make no mistake you are engaging in your own form of rhetoric when you respond like this. You are in effect moving the discussion away from the subject at hand, and towards the perceived faults in the author’s communication style. This is a rhetorical slight of hand and it’s highly disingenuous.
• Maybe you're not the target, then.
• I haven't heard too many people say these extreme-sounding, yet at least arguably true points out loud. Someone should be saying them, and the fact that it's not your particular cup of tea may not be the biggest issue here.
• It's important to remember that they're targeting your children. You grew up with freedom from surveillance and constant identification. You were able to communicate anonymously and without the content of your speech being sold to Walmart and the cops. They are putting in effort to make sure that your children will never have that reality as a reference point.
• A lot of people dismissed RMS's 'Right to Read' essay long ago. All the things it was warning about have come to pass, in spades.
• It's mind boggling how far Stallman saw into the future. Saddest part is we're losing this war. They're going to destroy freedom of computation, freedom of information, and it turns out that... Nobody cares. Nobody but a bunch of nerds.
• The one and only method I will participate in is server operators setting a RTA header for URL's that may contain adult or user-generated or user-contributed content and the clients having the option to detect that header and trigger parental controls if they are enabled by the device owner.
• Back in the late 90s or so, there was a proposal to have sites voluntarily set an age header, so parents/employers/etc could use to block the site if they wish. People said it would never work, because adult sites had a financial incentive not to opt in to reduce their own traffic.
• What I am suggesting could address most of that. If they do not participate they get fined. The government loves to fine companies.
• Exactly. If you’re hurting kids to make more money selling porn videos, straight to jail.
• You’d think that one could simply block sites that don’t have the age header set on child computers. This may block kids from hobbyist sites that don’t bother to set their headers as kid-friendly, but commercial sites would surely set their headers properly.
• The porn companies already set the RTA header. It was designed by an organisation funded by the porn companies.
• What, in the same way movie studios wouldn't comply with the Hayes Code, or comic book publishers wouldn't comply with the CCA, or games publishers wouldn't comply with the ESRB? The financial incentive is to police yourself, because government policing is much, much worse.
• There's a great relevant quip: 'If you think that the cost of compliance is high, try noncompliance'.
• People were wrong. We pay money online mostly through credit cards. Credit card transactions can be reversed. If children spend money on porn, those payments are likely to be reversed.
• An age header is a trivial step that can reduce the odds of the adult site receiving payments that later get reversed. Win, win.
• But if someone is willing and able to pay, then the adult industry wants the choice of whether to access content to be up to them. If government tries to regulate them, they'll engage in malicious compliance - do the minimum to not be sued, in a way that they can still reach customers.
• If you live in Utah, and you're able to purchase a VPN, the porn companies want your money.
• This doesn't address the wider array of age-verification related problems that people want to solve, like social media where age verification is needed to police interactions between users.
• I could be misunderstanding the context but to me that sounds like a moderation issue assuming we even want small children on social media in the first place. There should probably be a dedicated child-safe social media site that limits what communication can take place for small children and has severe punishments for adults pretending to be children for the purposes of grooming.
• Such censorship shouldn't exist in the first place.
• Servers can then infer user’s ages by whether or not the client renders pages given those headers or not no? See if secondary page requests (e.g images, scripts) are made or not from a client?
• A bad actor could use this to glean age information from the client and see whether the person viewing the page is a small child. That should be scary
• Clients could refuse to show content that does not have headers set.
• On other hand servers might choose to lie. After all that is their free speech right.
• So maybe you need some third party vetting list. Ofc, that one should be fully liable for any damages misclassification can cause... But someone would step up.
• Compelled to disclaim facts is good compelled speech, though.
• There is a sudden concerted international push for online age verification, and we do not know where this push originates from. That is the scariest thing about it.
• It's true for a lot of things in Western countries. Evident when the fight against 'hate' was suddenly everywhere, and also during covid.
• An attestation-like system to detect humanity at time of post is absolutely for useful online spaces in the era of AI slop.
• The writing style of the author is very annoying.
• It could be done with anonymous credentials though. No tracing to who the human is.
• Anonymous in terms of it not being possible to derive the real world identity of the human from the value, sure. Anonymous in terms of providing no durable way to ban that human from the platform? No.
• And people should be free to pick and choose whether they want to use sites that do that or not. Whatever hacker news does seems to be fine for me, and I did not need to verify my ID in any way (even though it's very easy to figure out who I am from this profile)
• Until people hit 'attest' and then copy the text from ChatGPT.
• Why is it always ‘think of the children’ used to abrogate the rights of adults?
• Because, without further context, it's so hard to argue against. Pretty much every person in every culture cares deeply about their children.
• It's the same with tough on crime. 'What, you want criminals to keep getting away with it!?!'
• I think it's because, without further context, it's so hard to argue against. Pretty much every person in every culture cares deeply about their children.
• Because adults remain children. As in, their parent’s kids and therefore property. It’s less explicit in US I guess but in some places that’s very blunt - if you don’t support your parents enough you can be sued for abuse.
• Protect the children refers to a type of property, not a type of human.
• Because it's very easy for the creeps already thinking of your children to paint these rejecting this type of laws as those who want to see children hurt. Regardless how stupid this argument is, rags will always pounce on it.
• Regardless how stupid this argument is, rags will always pounce on it.
• Until people hit 'attest' and then copy the text from ChatGPT.
• Social Media is not a thing at all. Social media is a website. Websites are not health or unhealthy. Food is healthy or unhealthy. Websites are light and potentially sound, not something with health effects.
• This is simply false -- the literature is full of discussion about the health effects of social media.
• More generally you're committing I believe two separate fallacies of ambiguity? Like one in going from the institution of social media to its reification in the form of specific websites, and then a second fallacy when you go from the specific websites to all websites in general?
• Like if you said 'Gun ownership is not a thing at all. Gun ownership is a piece of metal. Pieces of metal cannot be healthy or unhealthy.' OK but, you owning a gun is known in the scientific literature to significantly correlated with a bunch of very adverse health effects for you, such as you dying by suicide or you dying from spousal violence or your protracted grief and wasting away because your child accidentally killed themselves.
• [1]: Bernadette & Headley-Johnson, 'The Impact of Social Media on Health Behaviors, a Systematic Review' (2025) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12608964/
• [2]: Lledo & Alvarez-Galvez, 'Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review' (2021) https://www.jmir.org/2021/1/E17187/
• [3]: Sun & Chao, 'Exploring the influence of excessive social media use on academic performance through media multitasking and attention problems' (2024) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-024-12811-y
• [4]: The APA has a whole 'Health advisory on social media use in adolesence' https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/health-advisory-adolescent-social-media-use which is pretty even-handed about 'these parts of social media are acceptable, those parts can maybe even be downright good -- but here are the papers that say that for adolescents, it can mess with their sleep, it can expose them to cyberhate content that measurably promotes anxiety and depression, it has been measured to promote disordered eating if they use it for social comparison...'
• What I'm hearing you say: Our freedom is already being eroded, saying that it is being eroded more is just fear mongering. They want to hurt you, instead of fear mongering, find a middle ground where they're hurting you differently.
• Age verification on Australian social media has loopholes. Underage influencers use an agency to manage their social media for them. So anyone with enough followers or money can continue using social media under the age of 16.
• That just makes it even worse, why deprive the younger generation of one of the few remaining methods they have to make a decent income? We should be encouraging youth entrepreneurship, not making them spend even longer in classrooms learning things that LLMs will do better than them.
• People under the age of 16 shouldn't be worried about 'making a decent income'. They should focus on school.
• In the weekends they can stock shelves, deliver pizza, deliver newspapers, wash dishes, babysitting, feed animals or other typical jobs for children in the age range of 12 to 16.
• This is almost verbatim the same argument that people make in support of allowing child labor in factories.
• Children do not need, nor are they entitled to, any kind of 'freedom' to work for a living.
• Since when did being an influencer become 'one of the few remaining methods' to make a decent income?
• I don’t think it truly is, but I do think that the younger generations think it is.
• My nieces and nephews really don't know what they are going to do in their futures because so much is uncertain right now. If it feels like a longshot to expect normal 9-5 office jobs to be around in 5 years, and it's also a longshot being an influencer, then why not go for the influencer thing?
• How could one protect the, call it one in million… the speech of the (young) Greta Thunbergs, for example? I bet there is a 15 year-old much smarter than me making political videos and I wouldn’t necessarily want them to be forced to stop. What if they’re on my ‘team’! ;) (I kid)
• Recalling how we had lots of political debates in high school: if some of those kids made videos and got really popular, and the law made them stop, they would have been incentivized to vote $responsibleParty out.
• Maybe age verification isn't the way to mitigate this obvious risk, but there has to be something that can be done to stop rampant sockpuppeting.
• I’d wager most people want more censorship of the internet.
• For a forum that supposedly consists of hackers and tech-savvy people, this number of comments supporting age verification is concerning.
• The author has said a lot about what kind of future awaits with mass surveillance and AI, but I believe it’s not enough. Technofascism Is not that far away.
• I agree. I don't call it 'age verification' though - it is age sniffing. And it has nothing to do with children - that is the lie.
• The whole 'debate' is already not logical by the way. Let's for a moment assume the 'but but but the kids!' is a real argument rather than a strawman argument, which it is. Ok so ... I am a 'concerned parent', for the sake of discussion. I have three young kids. I am not a tech nerd.
• Of course those who know how things work, they know that this is the build up towards identifying everyone on the world wide web at all times AND to make access to information conditional, e.g. if the state does not know you, you can not access information.
• That same government wants to 'protect' your kids by KYCing everyone.
• You've already condemned those kids to a life of slavery. So much for protecting them.
• What we need is not online verification, but a competent government that does its existing job well.
• No one has been arrested over the Epstein files. Who is protecting those kids?
• That same government wants to 'protect' your kids by KYCing everyone.
• Give me a break.

Discussion (93):

The comment thread expresses positive sentiments about Neal's work, praising its creativity, joyfulness, and engagement. Users share personal experiences, tips, and comparisons with other games, while one user humorously suggests a potential lawsuit for productivity loss.

Discussion (117):

The comment thread discusses the Dutch government's open-source initiatives, including code.overheid.nl and Forgejo as alternatives to proprietary platforms. There are concerns about data privacy and security, particularly regarding potential transfers of sensitive information to US companies. The community shows a mix of agreement and debate on these issues.

• The Dutch government's IT infrastructure is stable and reliable.
• Forgejo offers a viable alternative to proprietary software platforms.

• There are concerns about the transfer of sensitive data to a US company.
• Some users prefer proprietary platforms due to their familiarity or specific features.

Discussion (987):

The discussion revolves around concerns over GitHub's declining service quality, particularly in relation to its acquisition by Microsoft. Participants express disappointment and sadness about changes to the platform, with AI-generated code being cited as a contributing factor. There is also debate on whether GitHub was already facing challenges before the acquisition and if the impact of AI is overstated.

• GitHub's quality has decreased since its acquisition by Microsoft.

• GitHub was already facing challenges before the acquisition.
• The impact of AI on GitHub is not as significant as perceived.

Discussion (838):

The discussion revolves around Google's new policy on app installation for Android devices, with a focus on its impact on openness, user privacy, and security measures. Critics argue that the change will deter users due to increased complexity and time-consuming processes, while supporters highlight the need for enhanced security features.

• Android's openness was never just a feature, it was the promise that distinguished it from iPhone.
• Google is revoking the promise of openness for Android devices already in people's pockets.

• Google's identity verification system relies on multiple factors, not solely drivers licensees or other national identity documents.

Discussion (274):

The discussion revolves around comparing various file-sharing alternatives to AirDrop, with a focus on Localsend as a reliable and fast option for transferring files between devices. Users express concerns about the limitations and reliability issues of AirDrop, particularly when it comes to discovering devices on the network. The conversation also touches upon other solutions like Quickshare, KDE Connect, and web-based alternatives such as Pairdrop, highlighting their varying degrees of usability and performance.

• Localsend is a good alternative for file sharing between devices
• AirDrop has limitations and reliability issues

• Web-based alternatives may lack speed compared to native apps
• AirDrop's limitations can be mitigated by using compatible devices

Discussion (216):

The discussion revolves around the decline of GitHub and its impact on open-source development, with opinions on alternatives like Fossil and self-hosted solutions. There's a debate on decentralization trends and concerns about losing social context in project hosting.

• GitHub's decline is due to its cultural dominance, which makes it hard for projects to switch
• Fossil has a more opinionated design that may not suit larger organizations

Discussion (339):

The discussion revolves around the introduction of bugs in a Rust rewrite of coreutils, highlighting issues with low-level APIs and lack of understanding of Unix concepts. Critics argue that Rust's safety features are undermined when interfacing with complex systems code.

• The Rust rewrite has introduced bugs not present in the original GNU coreutils.
• Rust's standard library APIs are too low-level, leading to mistakes when working with file systems.

• Some argue that Rust's safety features are undermined when interfacing with low-level code like kernel APIs, which can be complex and error-prone.

Discussion (841):

The discussion revolves around Microsoft's revised agreement with OpenAI, which removes revenue sharing and exclusivity. Participants debate the implications for both companies' strategies and business models.

• Microsoft will no longer pay revenue to OpenAI
• The partnership is not exclusive

Discussion (552):

The discussion revolves around concerns over significant pricing changes for AI services, particularly Copilot, leading to increased costs for users. There is disappointment and frustration expressed regarding the changes, with some considering alternative services due to perceived increases in cost.

• There is a concern about sustainability of current usage patterns with new pricing.

Discussion (315):

The discussion revolves around a language model trained on pre-1931 text, exploring its outputs, limitations, and potential biases. Users appreciate the unique writing style but also raise concerns about historical accuracy and bias in the training data.

• The model can produce outputs that are inaccurate or offensive due to its training data limitations.

• The model can still provide valuable insights into past perspectives and cultural norms.

Discussion (333):

The comment thread discusses various opinions and experiences related to wall staring as a relaxation technique, comparing it with other methods like walking in nature. It highlights the potential benefits such as focus and calming the mind but also acknowledges that not everyone finds it suitable or effective.

• Wall staring is a form of meditation or mindfulness practice.
• Going for a walk in nature is more effective than wall staring.

• Others argue that going for a walk in nature is more beneficial than wall staring.

Discussion (465):

The comment thread discusses a color perception test that categorizes colors as either blue or green, leading to varied interpretations and debates. Participants note issues with the test design, particularly regarding the existence of colors like turquoise, which are neither purely blue nor green. The discussion highlights cultural differences in color naming conventions and individual variations in color perception influenced by factors such as monitor calibration, ambient lighting, and personal preferences.

• The test fails to distinguish between blue and green due to the existence of colors like turquoise.
• Color perception varies significantly among individuals, influenced by cultural background and personal experiences.

• The test is designed to explore the subjective boundaries between colors rather than provide an objective measurement.
• Color perception can be influenced by factors such as lighting conditions and personal preferences, making results variable across different environments and devices.

Discussion (828):

The discussion revolves around concerns about AI's impact on software development quality and human skills, outsourcing and offshoring effects on domestic industries, government funding for research and development, and the trade-offs between short-term thinking and long-term sustainability in business strategies. Participants express mixed views on these topics, with some advocating for caution regarding AI-generated code and questioning the benefits of outsourcing.

• AI in software development may lead to quality issues due to lack of human oversight.
• Outsourcing and offshoring have negative impacts on domestic industries and job markets.
• Government funding for research and development might not be sufficient or well-targeted.
• Short-term thinking in business strategies can undermine long-term sustainability.

• Others defend the benefits of AI in software development, such as increased productivity and efficiency.
• Some participants argue that outsourcing is a natural part of global trade and can lead to cost savings for consumers.
• There are suggestions that government funding might not be the most effective way to drive innovation or that it should focus on areas with more direct economic impact.
• Counterarguments against short-term thinking include examples where long-term investments have led to significant returns in the future.

Discussion (613):

The discussion revolves around the innovative tapping phone feature of Friendster, which aims to foster real-life connections. However, concerns about privacy and data security are prevalent among users. The app's focus on in-person interactions is appreciated by some, while others criticize its potential for limited scalability due to unique feature set.

• Concerns about privacy, data security, and the potential for misuse of personal information are prevalent.

• Potential for limited scalability and user base growth due to its unique feature set.

Discussion (593):

The discussion revolves around concerns that engineers are becoming overly reliant on AI for tasks they could once perform themselves, potentially leading to a decline in critical thinking and problem-solving skills. There is agreement that AI can be a useful tool but should not replace human thought processes. The conversation also touches on the changing nature of engineering work due to AI integration and the potential for increased productivity and efficiency.

• Engineers need to maintain their skills through practice, even with the help of AI.
• AI can be a tool for elevating thinking rather than replacing it in software development.

• AI can help with mundane or repetitive tasks, freeing up time for more complex problem-solving.
• The integration of AI into software development has led to increased productivity and efficiency.

Discussion (1018):

Comment analysis in progress.

• AI agents should be used cautiously and with proper controls to prevent accidental or malicious actions
• The incident highlights the importance of understanding the capabilities and limitations of AI systems

• AI agents can be beneficial if used correctly with appropriate safeguards

Discussion (253):

The comment thread discusses various issues with GoDaddy's domain registration services, including mistakes, poor customer service, and lack of technical competence compared to competitors like MarkMonitor or Porkbun. Users recommend alternative registrars for better security and reliability.

• GoDaddy has a history of mistakes and poor technical competence.
• Choosing the most popular provider is usually a good strategy for reliability, but this does not apply to GoDaddy.
• GoDaddy's support and processes are lacking compared to competitors like MarkMonitor or Porkbun.

• GoDaddy is the largest registrar by a large margin.
• Decades of experience can lead to established processes that work for all sorts of cases.

Discussion (558):

The discussion revolves around the capabilities, nature, and cost-effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in solving complex problems. Opinions range from considering LLMs as intelligent entities capable of equalizing intelligence to using them merely as tools without attributing true intelligence. The debate includes arguments about the evolving definition of intelligence, the high costs associated with LLM usage, and their potential democratization effects.

• LLMs can solve complex problems that require human-like intelligence
• LLMs should be used as tools rather than being considered intelligent entities
• The cost of using LLMs is too high for solving specific problems

• LLMs are not truly intelligent, just statistical text generators
• The definition of intelligence is evolving with new technologies
• The benefits of LLMs do not justify their high costs

Discussion (371):

The discussion revolves around advancements in high-speed networking technology, particularly focusing on PCIe expansion cards and their compatibility with various Ethernet speeds. There's an appreciation for convenience and efficiency in power delivery solutions like POE, as well as a desire for more affordable options that can be easily integrated into existing setups. The conversation also touches upon the necessity of 10/100 Ethernet in low-cost devices and the cost-effectiveness of high-speed networking solutions.

• The PCIe version announcement is exciting for enthusiasts and professionals who need high-speed networking capabilities.
• Low-cost devices still widely use 10/100 Ethernet, which may not be necessary in some modern applications.

Discussion (86):

The discussion revolves around the technical aspects of Thunderbolt, USB standards, and their compatibility. Participants debate about the similarities between Thunderbolt 5 and USB4v2, naming conventions confusion, high-speed data transfer applications, and the durability of USB-C connectors.

• Thunderbolt 5 demands some capabilities that are optional for USB4v2
• USB naming conventions have changed multiple times

• Female vs male crossover naming and pinouts for Type-C connectors should be added to the specification

Discussion (302):

The discussion revolves around the National Science Foundation (NSF), its role, funding, and recent actions taken by the Trump administration regarding its board members. Participants express concerns about the impact of these actions on scientific independence, funding priorities, and the overall direction of research in the US. There is a general consensus that the NSF plays a crucial role in supporting scientific advancements and economic growth but also acknowledges the political implications of such decisions.

• The NSF's mission is to promote science and engineering across all states, contributing to the nation's intellectual strength.

• Some individuals question the importance of the NSF, suggesting that it is not well-known or understood.

Discussion (324):

This discussion revolves around the complexities of Alzheimer's disease research, including issues related to scientific fraud, funding disparities, and the challenges in studying the human brain. Participants debate the role of Abeta plaques as a cause for Alzheimer’s, the difficulties in conducting clinical trials due to the slow progression of the disease, and the impact of funding allocation on medical research. The conversation also touches upon the controversial nature of certain theories and the skepticism towards pharmaceutical industry practices.

• The major problem has been lock-in of the Abeta 42 peptide fragment as the cause.
• Brain is hard to study due to its complexity.
• Clinical trials for Alzheimer's research are long and difficult.
• Alzheimer’s receives substantial funding compared to other diseases.

• The science was delayed a decade due to fraud.
• Expecting scientific rigor is not a bad bias: everyone who has been willing to do actual science agrees that climate change is real and significant.

Discussion (580):

The comment thread discusses various opinions on AI technology advancements and their impact on productivity. Users appreciate the convenience and cost-effectiveness of AI models but express concerns about pricing sustainability, potential monopolization by certain companies, and limitations in usage limits across different subscription plans. There is a debate around ethical considerations in using copyrighted material for training AI models. The community dynamics show moderate agreement levels with high debate intensity on contentious topics such as pricing strategies and ethical implications.

• AI technology is advancing rapidly, with models becoming more capable and cost-effective.
• Users appreciate the convenience and productivity gains provided by AI tools, but there is frustration over limitations and inconsistencies in usage.

• Some argue that AI companies are not transparent enough about their pricing strategies and business practices.
• Others suggest that the rapid advancement of AI technology may lead to a monopoly situation, potentially harming competition and innovation.
• Concerns about the sustainability of AI pricing models reflect users' worries about long-term costs and potential monopolization.

Discussion (822):

Commenters discuss Google's investment in Anthropic, the role of AI in various industries and its potential economic impact, concerns about code quality and security, and strategies for leveraging AI to gain market share. There is a mix of agreement on AI's value but also debate around sustainability, ethics, and long-term implications.

• Google's investment in Anthropic could be seen as hedging their bets against competition, especially from Amazon and Microsoft.
• AI is becoming a significant part of the economy, potentially leading to a shift where AI companies capture a substantial portion of human wages.

• AI is not yet capable of replacing human skills, especially in areas requiring creativity and critical thinking.
• The AI industry faces significant challenges with capacity constraints and high costs for infrastructure.

Discussion (141):

The comment thread discusses the challenges and frustrations of PhD research, particularly regarding scope creep and maintaining focus on a specific topic. It explores strategies to mitigate these issues, emphasizing learning over novelty, and acknowledges the role of AI in project development and decision-making.

• PhD research often leads to scope creep due to the need to explore related work in a field
• Completing a project for learning purposes is sometimes prioritized over novelty or uniqueness

• Some argue that overthinking can lead to unnecessary complexity in a project
• Others suggest the importance of maintaining focus on a specific topic despite the temptation to explore related areas

Discussion (247):

The comment thread discusses the compatibility of ad-blocking extensions like uBlock Origin with different browser versions and implementations, specifically MV2 vs MV3 in Firefox, as well as Mozilla's decision to add a Rust-based ad-blocking engine. Opinions vary on whether maintaining MV2 support is necessary or if the addition of the Rust engine could improve trust and software risk.

• Firefox should maintain MV2 support for compatibility with popular extensions like uBlock Origin.

• Mozilla's decision to add an ad-blocking engine in Rust could improve trust and software risk.

Discussion (477):

The discussion revolves around concerns about the negative impacts of social media on mental health and society, advocating for age verification systems as a solution. There is debate over whether governments should regulate social media companies or impose ID laws, with opinions divided on the effectiveness and potential consequences of various approaches.

• Age verification is necessary to prevent children from accessing harmful content.
• Governments should regulate social media companies rather than imposing ID laws.

• Social media bans may not solve underlying problems and can lead to censorship.
• Age verification systems raise privacy concerns and may not effectively prevent access.
• Regulation of social media companies should focus on content moderation rather than user restrictions.

Discussion (1604):

The discussion revolves around the open-source nature and Chinese origin of DeepSeek V4, with users appreciating its level of openness while expressing concerns about potential ulterior motives. There is a focus on comparing model performance and pricing, particularly in relation to data handling practices by American companies. The conversation also touches upon geopolitical implications and data security concerns.

• DeepSeek V4 is open source and coming from China, which some find heartwarming.
• Chinese AI labs have made significant contributions to the field.

• Some users express skepticism about Chinese labs' motives, particularly in relation to geopolitical implications and potential influence operations.

Discussion (1056):

The discussion revolves around the release of GPT-5.5, with users comparing its performance against previous models like GPT-5.4 and Anthropic's Mythos. Opinions are mixed regarding token efficiency, cost per task, and marketing strategies. There is a consensus on the need for more open-source AI models in competition with commercial offerings.

• GPT-5.5 improves on previous versions while using fewer tokens.
• Real-world usage may differ from benchmark results.

Discussion (561):

The discussion revolves around the economics of cloud computing, specifically focusing on cloud vendor pricing strategies and their deviation from cost-based models. The community debates the effectiveness of Kubernetes in various use cases, with some arguing it is overkill for smaller applications while others praise its benefits for large-scale production platforms. There's also a focus on AI-driven software development tools like exe.dev, highlighting its potential to assist developers in writing better code and streamlining the development process. The conversation touches upon the role of DevOps practices in modern infrastructure management and the challenges faced by small teams when adopting new technologies.

• Cloud vendor pricing often isn't based on cost.

• Cloud vendor pricing often isn't based on cost.

Discussion (701):

The comment thread discusses various topics related to US foreign policy, including military interventions without formal declarations of war, the actions taken against Iran, and the role of defense contractors like Palantir. There is disagreement on the motivations behind these actions and varying opinions on their ethical implications.

• The US military has been involved in conflicts without formal declarations of war.
• The current administration's actions in Iran may have ulterior motives.

• Arguments defending the actions taken by the current administration, emphasizing national security concerns or strategic objectives.

Discussion (731):

The comment thread discusses user dissatisfaction with changes made by Anthropic, including issues with session resumption and context loss, unexpected token usage increases, and perceived degradation in model quality. Users express frustration with lack of transparency from the company regarding these changes and the impact on their workflow.

• Anthropic has made changes to their service that degrade user experience
• Communication from Anthropic regarding these changes was lacking or misleading
• Users are experiencing increased token usage without clear explanations

• Anthropic claims these changes were necessary for cost optimization or performance improvements
• Some users suggest that increased usage limits could be a solution to mitigate issues