> TPB has become an institution that people just expected to be there. Noone willing to take the technology further. The site was ugly, full of bugs, old code and old design. It never changed except for one thing – the ads. More and more ads was filling the site, and somehow when it felt unimaginable to make these ads more distasteful they somehow ended up even worse.

> As a big fan of the KLF I once learned that it’s great to burn great things up. At least then you can quit while you’re on top. I think I left TPB just a little bit after that top, and not when it’s as shitty as it was when it was closed today. It feels good that it might have closed down forever, just a real shame the way it did that. A planned retirement would have given the community time and a way to kick off something new, something better, something faster, something more reliable and with no chance of corrupting itself. Something that had a soul and could retain it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160712155638/http://blog.broke...

https://www.apple.com/apple-creator-studio/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48152168

Points: 314

# Comments: 81

I’ve been trying to reduce and eliminate my reliance of the Big Tech and the lack of user reviews and ratings was always a big pain point for me each time I tried to switch away from Google Maps.

I’ve started building a service where users can write reviews and rate “places” (POIs) in OpenStreetMap database, such as a cafe, a museum, or a shop. It’s a quite straightforward CRUD app with bunch of OpenStreetMap-specific features such as logging in with OpenStreetMap and querying places by their OpenStreetMap metadata.

It’s still in active development but it has good docs, a great API reference (including an OpenAPI spec), a demo app with the entire planet imported and queryable, and an early stage Android SDK.

https://app.socialmaps.org/

https://docs.socialmaps.org/

https://codeberg.org/socialmaps

Certainly an interesting day for xAI.

If anything Codeberg’s legal structure (being a non-profit) and vision makes it a lot more aligned with the objectives of free and open source projects than GitHub in the long run (which has always been the case but it’s just abundantly clearer today).

I think “for-profit corporations providing high quality public services for free” was a zero interest-rate phenomenon and never sustainable.

You can open the link and see it for yourself; what other "verification" do you need?

https://stackoverflow.com/a/49656730

So it’s actually not -lite but -ite. =)

I think that’s a sweeping generalisation.

Ben Yorke is the only expert I see mentioned in the article, so it'd be a lot more accurate (and a lot less sensational) if The Guardian changed its title to "... says one expert" (but it wouldn't sound as interesting then, would it?).

> Eight accounts, all newly created around 21 March, bet a total of nearly $70,000 (£52,000) on there being a ceasefire. They stand to make nearly $820,000 if such a deal is reached before 31 March.

Not to sound privileged but $800k doesn't sound like that much of money for someone that has access to that kind of insider knowledge, especially considering the risks.

All things considered, I feel like the same people could make much bigger bets using trad-fi instruments than Polymarket so I don't understand what's so significant about Polymarket "whales".

In the end people just betting on TACO.

[0] https://confer.to/blog/2026/01/private-inference/

[0] https://confer.to/

[1] https://confer.to/blog/2025/12/confessions-to-a-data-lake/

Actually, you're right! I thought the proxy can nominate/decide that any other license can be used in the future (i.e. "licensed under GPLv3 or X" where I can chose X to be anything) but it seems that I was wrong. Re-reading more carefully (emphasis mine):

> If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the GNU Affero General Public License can be used, that proxy’s public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the Program.

So FSF creates the future versions of a specific license the work is under (in this case AGPL) and the "founder" chooses whether to allow its usage or not. That sounds reasonable to me.

Thanks for the pushback!

If you don’t want to hand FSF a carte blanche regarding your project—perfectly understandable—then pick a “version X only” variant and move on.