oneplane

I suppose that's true. My mind was already on the likes of Qualcomm, Apple, Ampere and Broadcom but the base ISA and some of the reference designs used in public are indeed pure ARM (the company).

Ideally there'd be a player like Fujitsu (also an ARM licensee), they can do an entire laptop where only the manufacturing and software is not in-house (they don't have the capacity to do that AFAIK). If you then slap some coreboot (or U-Boot) and linux on it, you'd be pretty close to a much less US-attached laptop.

Yes, Google only made it available for Google Messages. They don't have an SDK or API you can use to make your own clients or servers. Google also didn't put it up for standards with the GSMA or any other standards body, at least not publicly. There are no records of it.

There are some older submissions here you can probably find using one of the HN search sites about this, but IIRC those didn't really have any internal Google policy about this, they kept it all pretty private. The only 'leak' I remember about this was the thing where manufacturers that preload Google Android have to ship Google Messages to get RCS support from Google, otherwise they can't have it. Also means you can't have RCS without Play Services.

There is no silicon for useful laptops that isn't US-controlled or China-controlled. On top of that, there is no ISA or reference CPU that isn't US-based.

In the future, we might have RISC-V, but right now, we don't. You can get laptops with Intel, AMD, ARM or IBM, and that's about it. All of the chips that are fast enough to be useful are US-based (in design and manufacturing instructions, but Asia-based in physical construction).

Say you'd be more interested in something that looks/feels like it's not from the US, you are pretty much restricted to stuff that's from ODMs in Asia. But it's the same hardware from the same production facilities, running the same firmware and operating systems.

So essentially, it's not really an Apple thing, it's more that the universal RCS profile just didn't have encryption, and Google RCS was a non-standard extension that nobody else was allowed to use.

The real news is the update to GSMA RCS, because without that, none of this matters. What I'm missing in the article is who's going to own the keys and why this is probably going to default to the telcos as if it's MMS. Are they going back to the days of charging per message?

With iMessage you'd be putting your trust in Apple, with Google RCS you'd be putting your trust in Google. For WhatsApp that'd be Meta and for Signal that's Signal. But with GSMA RCS?

That secondary markets thing has been an earlier subject (but not really covering app stores etc at that time), there were issues where larger companies didn't want you selling CD Keys or Windows license keys you weren't using, and they didn't want the ones that were bought in one market to be used in another (i.e. grey market import etc). I think they (the EU) ended up telling the corporations to suck it up since whoever owns the thing is free to sell it when they don't want it anymore.

This is of course also a factor in the move to subscriptions since you'd no longer own a persistent license or product and as such there's nothing to sell. Ironically this should also mean the 'product' (subscription) has far less value than the actual product, even if it's technically the same system/software. Yet subscriptions are more costly than a one-off you repeat every couple of years. Sigh.

I wonder if (especially after finishing the bottom part of the article) a mailing list type of interaction, but with Git, is exactly the sort of "in the open" version that is described as a potential improvement.

I'm not sure to what degree that natively allows for integration between Git and an MTA but it would still have most of the desired aspects.

Isn't this the same thing as no-code, low-code, MS Access, Excel, HyperCard, 4GL, COBOL etc. we've already had? The idea being that you can build something without knowing how to build something (on a gradient -- you could argue that on the COBOL end of the spectrum you need much more than the no-code end).

I doubt this time around, the AI-flavoured variant is going to change much, except perhaps the volume.

If you read the article, and then read the referenced report, you can see that long term planning is included, which also covers maintenance and upgrades. None of those are new issues or unsolved problems. It's not core to the issue of broadband access at all.

I'm surprised containers aren't mentioned once.

With mass virtual hosting (not virtualisation, think in terms of vhosts in Apache) resource sharing and security issues that aren't easily fixed with some UID/GID quota tricks and as such we got chrooted FTP, SSH and SCP, then OpenVZ at some point, and LXC. Later down the line we got container sand cgroups and even later, cgroupv2. All of them with similar goals in mind: shared resources, but strong enough isolation to not have unwanted side-effects.

This is still something that exists, but isn't really used this way (as far as I can tell - only ISPConfig seems to do this?), because containers were then also used as stateless packaging methods where you don't edit anything in a running container, but rather just re-deploy the whole thing. That is of course not a good match for the article, but there is nothing preventing this from being done in a container. Heck, if you have classic shared storage (i.e. NFS) you could get any container hosting company to do this without them knowing it.

But you'd still be on the hook for managing the container lifecycle...

Right, but that's something any audit will poke right through, and if you take the paper trail (or follow the money) far enough, it just ends up with whatever tax haven corp that is used for the money either way, and the profits and losses still end up with a net zero difference.

Technically, it doesn't even matter where this split is made, if you go up the tree high enough, it merges and just cancels itself out.

They could charge themselves, but what would a couple of entries in bookkeeping do here. If you 'charge yourself' there is no cost, and no gain. It's meaningless.

You can either not be hoarding, or you can be richest man in the world. You can't have it both ways.

I suppose that's possible. Oddly enough, we haven't seen pabs3 take part in their own submission.

That's why I wrote "Asahi Linux targeted". The results cannot be linked here as the contents would violate the guidelines.

It doesn't. It has shown this banner for years, for anyone with a HackerNews referrer.

As for the flagging, the guidelines say otherwise. A change in leadership and governance of a prominent open source project is noteworthy to the point that discussion on HackerNews is a perfect fit.

Right here, of all places, people should be able to either understand the banner, or ignore it and get to the point of the article.

I think it's reasonable to ask, but unreasonable and unrealistic to expect someone to come tell their story just for you. Even if you (and others) have never seen this before.

What you could do is plug "Asahi Linux targeted" in to any search engine and read as much as you like. It's not like this is very new either, this mess has been going on for years now.

As usual, it's also your average internet mud-flinging contest, but at the core the issue of harassment stands, and shining a light on it regardless of the actors is always a good idea.

That's because they have been hurt by HN. Not intentionally by HN itself, but they are also not the only target.

As for how you haven't heard of them before, that is a bit surprising. They have been mentioned here plenty of times.

HN being user-driven means they are an amplification and legitimisation vector for anyone who figures out how to abuse it. It's not an easy problem to solve, and I don't think any organisation (commercial, or otherwise) has really found a way to deal with this.

As a human side-effect, most people will either have to have experienced it themselves, or have this as part of their job to understand the issue at all, and will either deny it or assume it's exaggerated. Even those that are on the instigating side will not have a concept of the impact until it inevitably happens to them (as is common in that ecosystem).

To me it seems to perfectly outline HN's reputation when moderation is delayed. This brigading has been happening on multiple projects for years, specifically by the actors mentioned in the link, but plenty of others as well.

If anything, this specific behaviour and these actors have been outlined by articles dedicated to just that, right here on this sited. Granted, other sites are often lumped in here as well, such as reddit and even stackoverflow. This is not new behaviour, it happens in all communities. The big differences between them all is to what degree they get abused and in what manner.

As for examples: I doubt people who are targeted will want to share their experience with anyone directly. Someone asking for it to stop should be enough.

That is one possibility. It could also be exactly why this warning is on the page to begin with.

Because HN has a reputation and this influences that reputation. The same way an open relay would harm your MTA reputation or an open redirect harms your domain reputation.

So if HN were to think: "gee, we don't want to delete this content, but we also see how it breaks the rules", they could opt to put some noindex flags for the robots to consume which is a very cheap way to try to do something that reflects their own rules.

It is of course possible that this is no reputation effect at all, and there is also no interest on a human level in all of this. In such a case, nothing happens.

I don't think that's the clue here. The clue is calling out such behaviour.

Maybe that's already something that people do, and the banner does nothing. Or maybe it's not something people do, and maybe some people start doing it, and then the banner does something.

The article doesn't, but it provides the context on why the warning does, which is why it is there.

That should answer your question: "What’s with the warning on the top?"

Perhaps you expected a list of all sorts of interactions between this website and that website, but I doubt the project volunteers kept a ledger to share that with you and that in itself would incite reverse brigading which solves nothing.

Reading a biography mostly informed me about the lack of general empathy, remorse, sympathy. Only regret came forward a little (and only once).

> be crazy enough to bet it all

Anyone who doesn't suffer any real consequences. Having parents with a lot of money makes it not matter all that much.

As for the other bad decisions; it doesn't really show much positive except maybe persistence, but persistence in a vacuum is not a good thing. In a way, it mostly read like "a skewed mind made a bunch of bets and got lucky". Perhaps mostly an example of survivorship bias in a business sense.

Now, if we go back to the hoarding; it's not about when someone didn't hoard, it's about the here and now. I'm pretty sure we can find a period of time where Gates or Kamprad didn't do any hoarding, or not the hoarding we'd expect. But concentration of anything doesn't really happen by accident, and wherever we see it now, we can assume it was intentional.

There are of course also examples of people on their death bed realising their hoard doesn't really matter anymore and they might give most or all of it away. But that doesn't mean the hoarding never happened. It doesn't turn someone into a genius or a saint. When such things happen, we might consider it commendable, but that doesn't mean history disappears.

In a way it works not like a balance or a sum but more like a ratchet; it's about the degree to which someone hoarded stuff and how they acted with their hoard (doesn't have to be money, can be property or secrets or power or knowledge etc).

Do you have any examples where that is the case, rather than obvious rule breaking? I have seen some "voted down because people don't like it" but not "hidden because people don't like it". Voting does not equal moderation activity, it's just end-user voting which doesn't really represent the website's rules.

As for why the text up top would still apply: the moderation methods don't prevent brigading or SEO poisoning, so even if HN was perfectly moderately moderated to moderate modernity, it wouldn't help since all scrapers (including search engines and LLM companies) will still connect this content together.

I think the contents of the warning explain the warning on the top adequately. There are some links in there as well, and they in turn lead to examples and citations.

Considering the amount of visitors on HN, it's possible you've never seen or met anyone matching the described behaviour (in the linked pages). But the people on the receiving end might not want to warn for the thousands of people it doesn't apply to, but rather the ones where it does.

Say it's only 10% of 1000 visitors matching the HN referrer, that's still 100 people against a handful of volunteers. If only 10 of those think it's funny to SWAT them, or send them things they didn't order, all day, every day, that's enough to warrant such a warning.

Sure it does, wealth hoarding is a significant factor in students enrolling in doctoral degrees. Be it because it is a step towards more wealth, or because it's not (and as such a group that might be a good fit, but prefer more wealth over deeper education will no longer enrol).

Combine that with very visible people actively promoting that, or representing that, you get yourself a discussion about knowledge, money, and capitalism. And if you dig deep enough you get current affairs and later on, philosophy involved as well.

If you were to remove all incentives on "get educated so you get paid more" and only focus on "get educated so you'll enjoy what you learn more" that might change the enrolment, but as a side-effect, it might also make it harder to find enough people for all manner of work.

Going down this thought a bit more, how much is enough? (money, knowledge) Is there such a thing as a goal or limit? Or better yet, is there a fixed quantity where it's all turned into a zero-sum game? Probably not.

So if someone will put effort in their hoard, would it then be good or bad for society at large? And either way, would such a person do it regardless of the side-effects on everyone else? Even if it has an outsized impact? Would we then not want to talk about someone with a big hoard trying to add a relatively small amount to that hoard at a cost that might be relatively big for everyone else?

You'd think someone would notice how this process is suboptimal and either come up with a way to make the process better, or at least a way to have a single point of contact with knowledge and experience (and reputation) to deal with this for you, i.e. on a more local governmental level.

As a random citizen, you'd perhaps get away with an online self-service form, as a small company or startup you might need a form and an interview, but the entire "talk to 4 different agencies at different levels of abstraction" seems like a waste of time for everyone when it can be done in one go (provided the thing you wanted to do is common enough that it doesn't require some extreme documentation and safeguards etc).

If 100000 people were to want to try out a potato canon, it should be sufficient to do something at a local level where you select "I wanna play with a potato canon for a bit" in some drop-down, and it might ask you if you intend to shoot at people or not, and if you have enough room to experiment with this without hurting anyone (including yourself). If yes, problem solved, no need to fill out a form, if unsure or no, fill out a form since you probably are doing something novel, or something you might not want to do. If this then means some other agency at some other level needs to get notified, sure, automate that, who cares. If it turns out you filled out your form and specified radio active potatoes, perhaps one of those other agencies might want to have a chat first to see if everything is okay.

But the default of "talk to an arbitrary number of agencies in every case" is not great.

I wonder how that would work out. It's a bit of an inverse-Ouroboros where the people that are the government keep saying they are 'doing something about the government' without realising that that's them. Maybe they see themselves as something that is not the government, but the whole race they took part in was the race to get elected for government work.

At some point, enough destruction will have happened where the tools for useful government functionality no longer exist in usable capacity.

We're talking about mindshare, not commercial incentives. There are plenty of things sold to small groups of buyers with no significant mindshare. Mindshare does not equal commercial viability or sales numbers.

As for who would pay for a Rust compiler: probably not a whole lot of people unless that compiler has something special the offer that the normal compiler does not.

The same goes for a C compiler, there are Intel compilers that are supposed to be 'better', but as it turns out, in most cases not 'better' enough for people to pay for them. But even then, I would not be surprised if more people pay for the ICC than for Ada (but I would also not be surprised if the Ada compiler sales rack up more money than the ICC sales).

Ada has practically no mindshare, Rust does. Just like say, Scala, things can be technically 'good', but without adoption it isn't going to get the attention and visibility to compete with everything that does.