https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2B7oI0FYqo

and post:

https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2026/excited-for-intel-eff...

Honest questions:

What does it mean for a nation state to "win" in this context?

Assuming I don't like totalitarian oligopoly in the United States OR China, what realistic outcome should I be hoping for?

The problem is we have too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not too much of various assorted carbon-based compounds on the planet.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49109338

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

At a macro level, this is always going to be a struggle for projects that are an alternative to enshittified corporate services. Hosting costs money. It seems like the real solution here is to work on the problem of federation between forges.

All of the projects you cited certainly have a large user community.

> To us, it seems ridiculous to see projects with a single developer and virtually no users consuming as much or even more resources than some of the largest community projects on Codeberg, which operate frugal with CI/CD and storage resources. We do not believe it is reasonable for Codeberg to invest our precious donation money into hosting of large ghost projects.

Codeberg is not saying that solo developers don't belong. Codeberg is saying that they exist for projects that contribute to an open source commons, and that spending money on hosting projects that use a lot of resources but don't meaningfully contribute to that commons isn't something they want to do. It seems like their intent here is practical, not philosophical. If servers and electricity grew on trees, they might very well would not have had to even had this discussion.

I don't share that concern.

It's not all that different from Mastodon instances. It's a community space, and the community gets to decide who they allow to use their resources. Personally, I have a group of friends who share a GitLab instance, for example. Are you allowed to use it? No. Why? Because I didn't go to middle school with you decades ago. Is that fair? I don't really find that question relevant. I also keep a Gitea instance running at home for all the junk that really doesn't belong on someone else's hardware. Using someone else's forge isn't the only option.

Somewhere along the way, the Pixel caught up, and the other quirks of the OnePlus diminished the relative benefit (I recall having some issues with their Android variant, and their charging system not actually following the USB-C spec in a way that was causing me issues). As someone who generally doesn't care about smartphone specs aside from "can it last all day?" and "can I take decent pictures without giving it much thought" the OnePlus line was briefly a great option, but hasn't done anything to make me want to try another one in a decade now.

I can't speak much to other flagship phones; I'll never own an Apple product and my experiences with Samsung's software across other devices means I'll likely never consider them either.

Let me try a reply that is perhaps a little more constructive than where this discussion went.

I think most folks would frame home rule and freedom of movement in the context of basic individual rights, not national rights. I suggest you might fare better explaining some context about why you believe they should care about nation states to begin with

Names are just too deeply personal to impose someone else's rules on them.

Here's the example they give:

> Instead of asking for the shortest possible answer, replace brevity instructions with prioritization:

> Lead with the conclusion. Include the evidence needed to support it, any material caveat, and the next action. Omit secondary detail and repetition.

> Keep all required facts, decisions, caveats, and next steps. Trim introductions, repetition, generic reassurance, and optional background first.

Generally speaking, when I ask for a short answer, I want a short answer because I'm not really willing to read through a bunch of bullshit to get to a summary. Putting the onus back on me to assume what the model will return and write a longer prompt detailing exactly what information I want completely misses the point of why I'm asking for a short answer in the first place.

Maybe AI is "liberal" like Dick Cheney or Mitt Romney.

This particular study used a "conflict loyalties" approach - not necessarily a bad approach, but all it's really asking is when two values come into conflict, which one does the AI side with in its response?

Conservative values tend to gravitate around perceived individual impacts, and liberal values tend to gravitate around societal impacts. Isn't it just possible that there's more training data around societal impacts of problems, and that the AI is more likely to heavily consider the second-order impacts? An example from the paper was measuring support for "Build[ing] a Halfway House in the Neighborhood" - isn't it just possible there's a lot of research about the benefits to society of halfway houses and less so research around not wanting something to be near you?

If your situation doesn't require specialized features of a particular database, then it doesn't really matter. Just pick one. There's too much premature optimization in the world.

If your situation does require something that one database or another excels at, then be grateful that there isn't really such thing as a winner and you can pick the one that works best for your context.