goku12

They either lack that foresight and are completely oblivious of that limitation (the Dunning-Kruger effect), or they're lying shamelessly to manipulate the market in the hopes cashing out in the end, sort of like a pump-and-dump scheme or a pyramid scheme. Based on many of their track records I wouldn't be too surprised if both effects are at play, reinforcing each other.

Why is the news agency so surprised? Is it surprising that the civilians are a little on the edge after what ICE perpetrated in Minneapolis? A few mistaken identities are to be expected and it could happen to practically anyone. The good news is that the mob had enough sense to limit it to a verbal encounter, seriously consider their claims and leave the engineers physically unharmed. Has ICE ever listened to their victims when they protested that they were US citizens? How many innocent people have these mobs killed or seriously injured so far? The article gives you the impression that they are some sort of violent pillaging marauders. Is journalistic integrity a joke?

Meanwhile, the citizens need to calm down a little bit down. Anger and apprehension don't mix well.

(PS: I know who fox news is. It doesn't mean that I ever get used to their duplicity.)

> I am a pretty big RISC-V booster but RISC-V is going to cost way more for a while. It is simple economics of scale.

Yes. That's exactly my concern too. That can be expected to last until RISC-V application processors are a few magnitudes of order more popular. But it isn't as improbable as it sounds. Just a matter of time.

> But somebody designed the RISC-V chip and board you are buying and they will want to get paid.

Yes, that will be the licensing cost of the proprietary IP, excluding the hardware costs.

> RISC-V is inevitable. And the competition that will bring will pay dividends to all of us.

I hope so too. I'm just saying that it's too early to celebrate right now. It will probably take another half a decade as you mentioned.

The article mentions the dangers lurking on social media and doom scrolling. Something that is not mentioned however, is how it affects the intelligence and its growth in children. Teachers from all over the world are reporting significant drop in intellectual proficiency of children, including in literary skills and even very basic reasoning skills. Some descriptions are very disturbing, but teachers don't seem surprised by these reports. This seems to be caused by AI, in addition to social media.

Similar trends are seen in young adults too, especially with regards to their beliefs and culture. Many of them complain about being pressured into a life of vanity due to the race for attention on social media. I've seen research papers that indicate that the same culprits may be causing a drop in IQ among adults of all ages. I haven't seen anything so far that mentions elder adults in particular, but I don't think that they're doing much better either. From my observation, these technologies seem to drive people into extreme ends of the beliefs that existed before they were introduced.

None of this is surprising though, considering how these technologies designed to engage with humans. Many of the symptoms described in adults are exactly the same as substance addiction. And just like addiction, their effect on children is devastating and long lasting. Now it has reached a level where the consequences cannot be ignored anymore.

I favor personal choice and responsibility over big brother style control in these matters. But while those concerns remains, I don't believe that this can be solved without external intervention. It's a bit imprudent to expect addicts to pull themselves out of this mess. Meanwhile, denying people the true benefits of the internet and AI is also unethical and immoral. Due to these problems, we really need to objectively assess the outcome of social experiments in progress at places like Australia, even if they appear dystopian at the first glance. I don't know how entire societies can be saved from this scourge without sacrificing individual freedoms in the process. However, I do know that this is one serious problem that needs attention and solutions as much as any other serious problem we face (like climate change) as a species.

You may know this already, but here's the obligatory clarification. The open/free part is the RISC-V ISA. The actual implementation, the microarchitecture IP, may not be. Most of the higher end RISC-V IPs are proprietary.

It may still have a slight price advantage compared to proprietary ISAs like ARM, due to the latter's ISA licensing costs. But it remains to be seen how much of this advantage will be passed to us, the end users.

That long list of out-of-context jargon you threw over there is more valid in assembly than in C. All you're doing is to ignore the points that the others make and launch red-herring and ad-hominem attacks on them instead. I don't know what your issue is, but your attitude and insults only expose yourself. So keep them to yourself.

There is no point in making any logical argument here. You aren't responding good faith responses.

The question by @wookmaster isn't just valid, if we're to follow your argument, chatbots may as well skip C and write directly in assembly or machine code for maximum efficiency! You seem to put too much faith in chatbots that you forget that correcting AI mistakes in code is a major job now. Even the best coders use AI to only fill in obvious code, not to think on their behalf.

Why does this misleading article from more than a year ago get posted repeatedly?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46510073

This submission doesn't mention the publish time either, and it uses the link that hides a bunch of replies that debunk the article.

This is the sort of comment I'm on HN for. Information, especially links to appropriate resources, that only a true practitioner can offer.

> would you be open to changing your mind on either the absurd sounding statistics of the rate of Somalians using welfare

I'm never completely closed to changing my mind on anything. I don't have any confidence that anything that I know is set in stone. I only have a reasonable confidence in anything I say. You can see that in my original comment too. Those weren't my judgments, those were my assessments based on available evidence that I quoted.

However, this debate started with the quoting of a source with extreme conflicts of interest and bias that wasn't declared. That's academic dishonesty, if you know how reaserch is evaluated. The proper way to debate this was to either quote a reputable source or at least give a heads up about the data and the source. Once that trust is breached, the readers have every justification to be very skeptical and prejudiced about any further claims. That's how debates work. Resorting to these tiring meta debates about the source instead is just shifting the goal posts and inverting the responsibility again.

And as for the counter evidence, I hope you see what others have been saying. Statistics can be used to lie about reality. I don't know who said this, but 'there are lies, damned lies and statistics'. It takes extra context to interpret it properly - a fact that's persistently used by some to spread lies. Because of this, these claims are now going to need a lengthy scrutiny.

> or the reputation of CIS in general?

CIS was started by a eugenicist and they still are a hate group connected to a hate movement. Their motive isn't even in question here. The simplest trick in the book they can use is to cherry pick data that supports their claims from a valid research and neglect everything else. So even if their data turns out to be true in however narrow sense, I don't see how that should give them any more legitimacy.

How does that change the fact that the US style capitalist imperialism is equally, if not even worse? This isn't a zero sum game. Two opposing sides can be evil at the same time.

For that matter, I wasn't the one who introduced communism into this discussion. On top of that, you're talking about the Leninist and Maoist streams of communism. The original Marxist style communist revolution is what is happening in the US right now - something explained splendidly by an American. The US power elite must have recognized this early on and demonized Communism as whole for it. If you're going to argue about communism, at least get that much right.

Look, I am not at all interested in a debate about political systems here. The real topic is what an empire did to the world for its expansion and its consequences. That too is politics, but an entirely different matter from the capitalism vs communism debate.

Dumping an information capsule and demanding that it be debunked upon challenge is an age old misdirection tactic, that takes advantage of the fact that debunking statistics-based narratives take a lot of additional context. That's why the lack of credibility of the source is considered a valid reason to reject an accusation. If you didn't have a motivated agenda in this, you would have avoided this kind of singular source of such reputational dearth, instead of resorting to the tactic of inverting the burden of proof.

I never expected a meaningful response to a criticism of your comment. But I find it disturbing that you slipped in such an obscure and malicious source here without disclosing their conflict of interests. That's a genuine misdirection. The real intent of my reply was to point out this problem to the other readers. Having done that, your rhetoric and weak insults are a misguided effort that I don't find any value in addressing.

> If you think that the ozone problem was remotely of the same level of difficulty as climate change, then you don't understand the problem.

Ozone depletion too was a global problem that needed international coordination to solve. But the reason why it was solved while the climate change crisis wasn't, isn't the 'level of difficulty' you're referring to. It's the perverse economic incentives behind the centralized fossil fuel trade. Unlike ozone depltion, climate change issue was known at least as early as 1892. We had more than enough time to find and implement the solutions. But even today when we have viable long term solutions, the pervesion of global politics against them is splendidly evident. We really could have solved the climate change crisis if we wanted to.

That's why I always emphasize shifting the market dynamics - the supply and demand balance. That's the only way we can overcome those perverse incentives. But people simply refuse to connect the dots that deep, instead preferring to insult those who do. And the reason is simple. It will break the comfort bubble that you're in, if you have to take some responsibility to solve it.

> There is no much harder goal than surviving on Earth, and we are measurably not only completely failing, but we keep accelerating in the wrong direction! We are making it worse, faster everyday.

If only there was/were some solution(s) for that.... Oh! Wait!

The rhetorical and alarmist tone of your comment and the absurd sounding statistics you quote were what prompted me to check the background and bias of the resource you cited: CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) [1]. And oh boy! Isn't that an interesting and fun find!

Here is what Wikipedia says [2]:

> The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an American anti-immigration think tank . It favors far lower immigration numbers and produces analyses to further those views. The CIS was founded by historian Otis L. Graham alongside eugenicist and white nationalist John Tanton in 1985 as a spin-off of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

> CIS has been involved in the creation of Project 2025

> Reports published by CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers and news outlets, and immigration-research organizations. The organization had significant influence within the Trump administration, which cited the group's work to defend its immigration policies . The Southern Poverty Law Center designated CIS as a hate group with ties to the American nativist movement .

All emphasis are mine. So to explain the reason behind a problem, you chose a resource that caused the problem in the first place. Hilarious! That too, an organization with a known history of hatred and bigotry against the population you're 'criticizing', and of producing fake research.

At this point, that resource alone is enough to suspect that everything you argued is false - especially the statistics. There is no better way to discredit yourself than to choose such a pathologically biased source.

Media Bias/Fact Check service [3] rates them with 'low' factuality (7.0), 'extreme right wing' bias (8.9) and an overall 'low credibility' rating. Here are some quotes:

> Overall, we rate CIS a questionable source based on publishing misleading information (propaganda) regarding immigration and ties either directly or indirectly to the John Tanton Network, a known White Nationalist.

> A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing of credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news.

Whenever we look for sources to quote for some facts, we try to find well known publications or at least something that turns higher up in the web search, so that nobody will outright reject our claims for lack of credibility. How do you all instead find such obscure sources on such specific topics? Do you refer some resource list or similar?

> Combine this with the practice of calling out any criticism of these facts as 'racist' and tensions quickly arise.

This really is the cherry on the top! You might as well just say "I'm going to say some racist nonsense, but don't you dare call me a racist!" Preemption by gaslighting?

> ... tensions quickly arise.

The tensions due to hateful behavior are already so high that the minor inconveniences caused by calling it out are well worth it.

[1] https://cis.org/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies

[3] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center-for-immigration-studie...

> have you even glanced at what touching hardware manufacturing involves? The amount of NDAs alone ends this.

Do you think all that came out of the vacuum? It was set into motion over several decades of gradual erosion of user rights. Ultimately, everything is subject to the laws of supply and demand. If you can't see that far, you're thinking a level too shallow to see the problem and possible solutions.

> FSF did jack squat.

People don't simply scorn at FSF or anyone else like this just because they don't like it. I guess that explains the sophistication of your arguments.

This is exactly the cynical, dismissive and defeatist take that I was talking about. Yet, we have numerous examples of this dismissal being wrong. Right now, free software is something we take for granted. But you have no idea what sort of great achievement it was for the early pioneers. Microsoft even used to call it evil.

> We can solve the climate emergency if the consumers unite and stop living the way they live

This is wrong in two ways. The first is that it is a strawman. The consumers are the biggest emitters. The big corporations, militaries and billionaires are. Second, we did solve a related problem with market pressure - the stratospheric ozone depletion and the ozone hole.

Again as I said before, it's easy to call it naive or scoff at it any number of ways. But people have achieved much harder goals. And that takes a lot of skill and effort.

This is exactly what I was referring to in the first comment. To the American fans, America is the hero who swoops in to save the day and can do no wrong. This is exactly how it is depicted in popular media too. But the reality is that the US is hardly the benevolent savior you imagine it to be. I will need an entire book to just list out the atrocities since WWII that the US is responsible for or complicit in. Even the inhumane suffering people had to suffer outside the US that you're referring to, often had a US hand in it. To you, communism is nothing more than a convenient bogeyman that you don't understand in reality, while the numerous warhawks of the US (like Kissinger) have caused unimaginable suffering on this planet. Honestly, you ought to see the world a lot more to even start to understand the depth of the problems that the US has left on this planet. Even the problems within the US right now is merely the birds coming home to roost.

I'm pleasantly surprised to see this opinion gain popularity on HN. When I raise the same point, someone usually replies with a cynical and sometimes snarky dismissal. I just wrote a long rant about it [1] in support of somebody else who made the same point.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46612531

I agree with you fully on this. Unfortunately, the odds are stacked very unfavorably against us. It's not just the manufacturers who resort to these underhanded profiteering tactics. Even the regulatory agencies are for locking down the firmware.

Their argument is that an unlocked firmware would allow us to override regulatory restrictions like the RF output power or the IMEI number. That argument has some merit. However, my opinion is that such restrictions should be implemented as hardware interlocks that are unchangeable through software. Thus, we would be free to change the software as we like. Sadly, both the manufacturers and the regulatory agencies tend to completely ignore that solution, so that they can retain their excess control.

> Pay for products that produce open source software and hardware. Pay artists that put out libre/free work. Demand projects that ask for money and "will open source in the future" open source now before taking your money.

This is the most important part. The markets can be shifted in our favor if the consumers unite and vote with our wallets. Even the biggest MNCs can't resist the demands by a united consumer front. Well known brands have been disappeared after they offended their customer base.

This is very difficult in practice, but not impossible. It will need a cultural shift among consumers and that will need a lot of grassroots work by a group of dedicated individuals. But it has been done before - for example, consider the role FSF played in making free software so common. To begin with, consumers have to be taught to believe in and rely on our collective bargaining power, instead of reluctantly accepting exploitative corporate bs. The next will be to take smart decisions on each product. Obviously, only a small group within the society would know what is harmful and what we really need. We should develop a culture where the concerns and recommendations of the subject experts are quickly disseminated among the larger consumer community.

I know the above sounds too ambitious. But it's not nearly the hardest goal anyone has achieved through sheer will. Whenever I raise this point in relation to any specific topic on HN, someone always replies with a cynical, dismissive and defeatist take, often arguing that the consumer-hostile product has the 'market demand'. They rarely address the market manipulation that the manufacturers resort to, and the fact that those poor product choices are the result of missing consumer vigilance. Besides it's easy to sound smart by scoffing at someone else's suggestions. But it takes hard work to make a positive impact on society with an original idea.

How do you know that all of those were inevitable? After WWII, most nations had little appetite for another conflict. The world order wasn't something America imposed on the others. World nations voluntarily chose it.

Meanwhile, you also have never seen an alternative to say that the current world order is the best there could be. If the US had so much interest in world peace, why were they involved in so many conflicts? Also, do you know how many projects by American allies got sabotaged, that they silently blame the US for?

This is what I was alluding to. From your perspective, it's hard to see the other side of the narrative.

The really scary part is in how your reply differs from the comment you're replying to. So, Here are the relevant parts from your parent comment:

> And the US casually talks of invading other nations.

> Otherwise this merger of the government and corporate power could be a dark future.

And here is the relevant part from your reply:

> What happens if US actually attacks baddies and wins the war?

I get frequently downvoted for saying this. But I'm going to say it anyway on behalf of the 96% of human beings who are not US citizens. To the Americans, the "baddies" are anyone who America chooses to pick a fight with. But the rest of the world has a very different perspective.

I won't say that everything that the US did in the past was evil. But if you throw a dart at the world map, you're more than likely to hit a place that's a memorial to the US mission of 'spreading freedom and democracy around the world'. Except, those places (and sometimes the whole world, like in case of Venezuela) would have been better off without the US brand of freedom. There are far too many examples of this, but I'll just mention two that are currently relevant. Check out the history of Venezuela and Iran to see why they became 'rogue' nations to begin with.

The US preoccupation with wars and immensely destructive weapons has always been a serious security concern for the rest of the world. US warhawks and neocolonial corporations were always on the prowl for resource-rich nations to 'liberate', especially oil rich nations. But the current regime is off the charts and doesn't even bother to hide their greedy motives. Their predecessors at least cared about their international image enough to make something up as excuses (Iraq, anyone?). Now you have a government of racial supremacists and a bunch of billionaire tech bros who drool about technofascism! Why wouldn't the world be worried?

But honestly, I'm not as worried as the others are. They think they're above every law. And that includes even the laws of physics and economics.

This kid is only 3. I doubt that he is old enough to navigate the complex on-screen menus, while taking the delays and other puzzling behaviors into account. This is not to say that young kids are stupid. But the modern device interfaces often feel like a pile of random hacks, rather than something based on the sane and well established design principles that were formulated on the basis of experience and human psychology.

Mozilla has a Bugzilla report on this [1]. It's nearly 5 months old, but still open and relevant.

This means that Google is back to their dirty market manipulation games. This hideous strategy is a big part of how Chrome won the market [2]. They deliberately wrecked Firefox's market share.

It's very sad that they can carry on with this abuse because there is nobody left to intervene of the users' behalf. Right now, one way to overcome this malicious UX degradation is to spoof the user agent. But the best option in the long run is to abandon Google services altogether. They're very much willing to abuse your trust and freedom.

[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1983227

[2] https://archive.is/tgIH9

> Play Integrity and Play Services are two different things.

You're right in your elaboration, but I didn't mention which one it is. My primary concern is that it forces me to log in to my play services account, which I haven't agreed to so far.

> There's an open source substitute called MicroG that allows most apps to run without it.

It's not for the lack of trying and I probably wouldn't even be complaining if it had worked. Phones are getting harder to root these days, much less install a custom ROM. Everyday feels like the ecosystem is tightening around us.

Oh Please! Can't protect the users without forcing them to log on to Google and subject themselves to surveillance? That too even for the weather and the emergency alerts? Give me a break! And stop ruining the discussion with your misguided condescension and nationalist rhetoric.

Why though? What makes PyPI or compatible registries so great for this? On a similar note, Pixi uses the conda packaging mechanism for managing platform agnostic multi-language software distribution. How do these two compare?

> There's no way this isn't intentional hostility towards forks.

Of course it is. But it isn't new. This was declared in March last year. We discussed it a lot here. It's only now that it's going into effect.

> Maybe 2026 will be the year of Linux on mobile phone.

Considering the ongoing DRAM and SSD crunch, I won't hold my breath.