hngrok

Zed 1.0 from zed.dev
1624 by salkahfi 13h ago | | |

Article: 8 min

The article discusses the launch of Zed version 1.0, a new editor that was built from scratch using a video game approach and Rust programming language. The editor is AI-native, supports multiple languages, and offers advanced features like parallel agents, edit prediction, and centralized billing for businesses.

Supports dozens of languages and ecosystems.

Discussion (522): 1 hr 10 min

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.

Counterarguments:

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

Software Development Editor/IDEs, Artificial Intelligence, Business Software

HERMES.md in commit messages causes requests to route to extra usage billing from github.com/anthropics
1031 by homebrewer 9h ago | | |

Article: 4 min

An issue with Claude Code's API billing system causes $200 extra charge when 'HERMES.md' appears in git commit messages, despite having a Max 20x plan.

This issue could lead to unexpected charges for users and potentially damage the reputation of Claude Code among developers.

Claude Code's API routes requests to 'extra usage' billing when HERMES.md is in commit messages.
$200 extra charge occurred while Max plan capacity was largely unused.
Minimal reproduction steps provided without project files needed.

Quality:
Minimal reproduction steps provided, technical details clearly explained.

Discussion (441): 14 min

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.

Counterarguments:

Anthropic may not want to set a precedent on refunds.

Software Development Cloud Computing, DevOps

Online age verification is the hill to die on from x.com
823 by Cider9986 12h ago | | |

Article: 10 min

The article argues against online age verification systems, emphasizing that they lead to widespread identity verification and digital ID requirements, which could potentially enslave children for life through a surveillance state. The author calls on parents and freedom advocates to oppose these laws before it's too late.

Age verification is a Trojan horse that leads to the implementation of digital ID requirements.
Once implemented, it cannot be undone and will enslave children for life through a surveillance state.
Parents must oppose these laws before they are passed in their states.

Quality:
The post is an opinion piece and does not provide sources for its claims.

Discussion (517): 1 hr 1 min

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.

Counterarguments:

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.

Politics Privacy & Surveillance

Cursor Camp from neal.fun
749 by bpierre 12h ago | | |

Article:

The article provides advice on how to prevent malware infections when using personal or shared networks.

Run an anti-virus scan on your device
Ask the network administrator to run a scan across the network

Discussion (126):

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.

Internet Security

Copy Fail from copy.fail
699 by unsnap_biceps 9h ago | | |

Article: 8 min

Copy Fail is a critical vulnerability (CVE-2026-31431) that allows an unprivileged local user to gain root access on Linux systems built between 2017 and the patch. The exploit works across various distributions without requiring network access or specific kernel debugging features, making it a significant risk for multi-tenant environments like Kubernetes clusters, CI runners, and cloud SaaS running user code.

Due to potential for widespread exploitation in multi-tenant environments

No network access or kernel debugging features required
Mitigation involves updating to a patched kernel version
Before patching, disable algif_aead module

Quality:
The article provides clear, technical information on the vulnerability and its implications without sensationalizing the issue.

Discussion (289): 12 min

The comment thread discusses a Linux kernel vulnerability and an exploit script, with opinions on the naming of CVEs, the quality of the exploit code, and the effectiveness of patches in various distributions. There is some debate about the marketing implications of CVE names and concerns over the security impact of unpatched vulnerabilities.

The exploit requires a vulnerable kernel version to work
CVEs serve as identifiers for vulnerabilities

Counterarguments:

Naming CVEs is primarily a marketing strategy
The exploit script quality is poor and lacks proper code practices

Security Vulnerabilities & Exploits, Linux Kernel Security

Bugs Rust won't catch from corrode.dev
634 by lwhsiao 1d ago | | |

Article: 33 min

The article discusses 44 CVEs found in uutils, a Rust reimplementation of GNU coreutils, highlighting the importance of defensive programming practices when writing systems code in Rust.

Educating developers on defensive programming practices can lead to more secure software development, potentially reducing the number of vulnerabilities in future projects.

44 CVEs disclosed in uutils

Quality:
The article provides detailed technical insights and is not overly promotional.

Discussion (345): 1 hr 27 min

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.

Counterarguments:

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.

Security Software Development, Security

We need a federation of forges from blog.tangled.org
532 by icy 14h ago | | |

Article: 2 min

Tangled: A new federation of forges aiming to decentralize open-source code collaboration

Decentralizing open-source collaboration could lead to a more resilient, diverse ecosystem that reduces dependency on centralized platforms, potentially increasing security and fostering innovation across different communities.

Tangled's aim to decentralize open-source collaboration
Use of AT protocol for authenticated transfer of events
Integration with existing git servers and support for cross-server collaboration

Quality:
The article provides clear information about Tangled and its features without overly promoting or criticizing the technology.

Discussion (338): 1 hr 12 min

The discussion revolves around various open-source projects and platforms for software development, focusing on Tangled's features, its comparison with GitHub, federated solutions, and concerns about VC funding. Opinions are mixed, with some praising the innovative aspects of Tangled while others express skepticism over its potential stability and alignment with community values.

Tangled offers useful features like Jujutsu-first approach
Radicle may be a better alternative to centralized platforms
GitHub faces significant issues with scalability, security, and user experience

Counterarguments:

Git is powerful enough without additional features provided by Tangled
Mastodon and Discord are not considered part of the future of federated solutions
BitTorrent was discussed as an attempt in the past but did not solve the problem
Gittorrents were mentioned as a previous attempt that did not succeed

Software Development Open Source, Cloud Computing

Soft launch of open-source code platform for government from nldigitalgovernment.nl
532 by e12e 18h ago | | |

Article:

The Netherlands has launched an open-source code platform called 'code.overheid.nl' for government use, aiming to promote digital sovereignty and provide a self-hosted alternative to popular platforms like GitHub and GitLab.

Promotes digital sovereignty and encourages collaboration among government entities, potentially setting a precedent for other countries to follow.

The platform is fully self-hosted and supports digital sovereignty.
It's a pilot using Forgejo, an open-source alternative to GitHub and GitLab.
Not all government organizations can use the platform yet.
Developers are invited to contribute with the aim of growing it into a shared Git platform for government bodies.

Quality:
The article provides factual information without any bias or personal opinions.

Discussion (119): 22 min

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.

Counterarguments:

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.

Software Development Open Source, Government Technology

Mistral Medium 3.5 from mistral.ai
439 by meetpateltech 12h ago | | |

Article: 10 min

Mistral Medium 3.5 is a new flagship model that merges instruction-following, reasoning, and coding into a single dense 128B model with a 256k context window. It's designed for long stretches of coding and productivity work, offering strong real-world performance on as few as four GPUs. The model can be used in Mistral Vibe remote agents for async coding sessions that run in the cloud and can be started from the CLI or Le Chat. Additionally, a new Work mode in Le Chat is powered by Mistral Medium 3.5, enabling complex multi-step tasks like research, analysis, and cross-tool actions.

The introduction of Mistral Medium 3.5 and its applications in cloud-based coding sessions and complex task automation could lead to increased productivity for developers, potentially reducing the need for manual intervention in routine tasks. However, it may also raise concerns about job displacement or dependency on AI systems.

Discussion (202): 35 min

The comment thread discusses the performance, capabilities, and market positioning of Mistral AI models compared to other open-source language models. Opinions are mixed regarding their competitiveness, with some noting their cost-effectiveness and EU focus, while others criticize their SVG generation abilities.

Mistral models are competitive but not leading in all aspects
There's a need for more diversity and competition outside China and US

Counterarguments:

Mistral's SVG generation is inferior compared to some competitors
There are limitations in the diversity of AI models outside major tech hubs

AI Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence

HashiCorp co-founder says GitHub 'no longer a place for serious work' from theregister.com
366 by terminalbraid 16h ago | | |

Article: 13 min

HashiCorp co-founder Mitchell Hashimoto criticizes GitHub's reliability, stating it is 'no longer a place for serious work' due to frequent outages. He plans to move his projects to alternative platforms.

Potential shift in developer community towards alternative platforms, affecting GitHub's market position.

Hashimoto's 18-year relationship with GitHub
Frequent outages impacting work productivity
Plan to move projects elsewhere

Quality:
The article presents a clear and factual account of Hashimoto's experience with GitHub.

Discussion (193): 42 min

The comment thread discusses concerns over GitHub's declining service quality and reliability since Microsoft's acquisition. Users express dissatisfaction with product changes affecting PR functionality and experience frequent outages that disrupt their work efficiency. The conversation highlights the consideration of alternative platforms for hosting repositories, with a focus on decentralization and self-hosting solutions.

GitHub's stability has significantly decreased since Microsoft's acquisition.
Product changes have negatively impacted user experience, particularly with PR functionality.

Counterarguments:

GitHub remains the dominant platform for hosting repositories, making it difficult for users to switch to alternatives.

Software Development Cloud Computing, DevOps