Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jdiff's commentslogin

Thankfully we aren't forced to pick between them, "neither" is the current status quo and will do quite nicely for the foreseeable future.

No, it's prone to assuming or falsifying details even when it has the tools at hand that could verify the true details. Even when explicitly instructed to perform a specific tool call that would load the correct information into its context. Sometimes the pull of the training data is too strong and it will just not make the call and output garbage, all the while claiming otherwise.

There are also, separately, DNS issues that Archive.today chooses to block certain providers from. For instance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828317

And the ones that aren't simply "don't be depressed" are a lottery for anyone, even those not suffering depression. In the US, current projections are for 300 new jobs per state per month this year. Even accounting for retirees and deaths, last I looked at the numbers, there have been 2M more new additions to the workforce (people turning 18) than there are new jobs for those new additions, all competing with the large unemployed and laid off populations.

It's similarly often not easy to solve relationship stressors or noise pollution.


I agree we are headed into very unstable times, all the more reason for people to exercise. The stress relief effect is magical, and if you do it outside you get some fresh air and vitamin D. Exercise isn't a magic cure to make everyone honkey dorey but I do believe it should be seen as one of the best (and free) tools we have to maintain mental health.

This is one of those proverbial regulations that are written in blood. So no, that's not the worst case.


Yes, JWST can see as far back as 300 million years after the big bang.


This is misrepresentative of the situation, and an unloaded version of the question being asked here is answered within the article itself.


How is it misrepresentative of the situation?


Because none of the names are real and they were all already posted publicly previously. This is covered in the article.


We don't know that none of the names are real. And even if they aren't, the article is still showcasing his failed attempt at doxing the owner of archive.today and providing a starting point for anyone else wanting to try.

> they were all already posted publicly previously

Doxing very often consists of nothing more than collecting data from a bunch of public sources


> Doxing very often consists of nothing more than collecting data from a bunch of public sources

I simply don't agree that this looks like doxing. No addresses or even any private information were reported. It's just a Google using WhoIs data and, in one case, the person said, in a public forum, that archive.is is "my website." Why would they have said that if they were worried about people finding out who it belongs to?

If they'd have stumbled upon an address to a private residence and reported that, sure, that would look like doxing. I just don't see it here.


Call it what you will, this activity is hardly defensible.


I simply don't agree with that, either. It just seems like journalism to me. No details were reported that would reasonably be expected to compromise anyone's safety. Why should it be disallowed to investigate the ownership of a website? People used to do this all the time when they were going to order products from a web store they'd never used before, to try to deduce if it was trustworthy. They'd look up the owner, verify that the store has a physical address, etc. Were they not supposed to be doing that? They're just supposed to never Google any of that and just pray instead, because, if they learn any of that information, they've done something morally reprehensible? That's absurd.

And, to that point, archive.is isn't so different from a store. They accept donations, so it seems perfectly reasonable to ask and answer questions about where the donations go IMO. Is it unreasonable to look at and report on Archive.org's nonprofit details?


What a bizarre take.

>It just seems like journalism to me.

What does that even mean? Are you trying to suggest that journalism is inherently okay? A piece of despicable journalism simply cannot exist?

>No details were reported that would reasonably be expected to compromise anyone's safety.

So it's okay because he failed at what he set out to do? I'd counter that regardless of whether or not the doxing was successful, publishing this information serves no other purpose but to aid future attempts.

>Why should it be disallowed to investigate the ownership of a website?

You have to be kidding, I feel like anyone with even just the most basic social skills would be able to understand that absolutely nobody gives a shit about what you do as long as it doesn't affect other people.

> And, to that point, archive.is isn't so different from a store. They accept donations, so it seems perfectly reasonable to ask and answer questions about where the donations go IMO.

Obviously it is very different from a store.

Besides, why would you spend time trying to identify the owner of a store who is obviously not interested in identifying themselves? Surely the right choice is to pass in approximately 100% of such cases.


From https://notepad-plus-plus.org/news/v781-free-uyghur-edition/

> People will tell me again to not mix politics with software/business. Doing so surely impacts the popularity of Notepad++: talking about politics is exactly what software and commercial companies generally try to avoid. The problem is, if we don’t deal with politics, politics will deal with us. We can choose to not act when people are being oppressed, but when it’s our turn to be oppressed, it will be too late and there will be no one for us. You don’t need to be Uyghur or a Muslim to act, you need only to be a human and have empathy for our fellow humans.


Do you have any sources for either or both of "billions" and "known about for a decade" that aren't a figurehead of the current US administration? Because this all smells a lot like "the immigrants are catching and eating cats and geese" story which also turned out to be a lie.


The fraud in Minnesota is upsetting. Fraud also appears to be nationally prevalent:

“New federal data released by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) shows the overall rate of improper payment in Minnesota’s Medicaid program is far below national averages.

In the review released this week, CMS found an error rate of slightly over 2.1%, compared to a national average of 6.1%. The data for the review was compiled before the Minnesota Department of Human Services began implementing new strategies to minimize the risk of fraud and harden its systems against bad actors.”

https://mn.gov/dhs/media/news/?id=1053-720779


People have been saying it about NYC forever, but last I checked the millionaire+ population of NYC had grown, not shrunk.


Of course the number of millionaires has grown on an absolute basis given inflation and the strong stock market.

To control for this look at NYC's share of the nation's millionaires, which shrank from 6.5% in 2010 to 4.2% in 2022.

https://cbcny.org/research/hidden-cost-new-yorks-shrinking-m...


Okay, so aggressive taxation should then have its (proven) benefits weighed against the (dubious) benefits of having 30% of your millionaires change their legal residence to be elsewhere.

I think taxes still handily win with room to spare. Even more: plenty of those rich people are still in NY and participating in its economy (legal residence != where you actually physically live, especially if you have resources to game residence by owning multiple properties).


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: