There’s no reason you couldn’t do something similar with markdown code blocks if someone were so inclined. But that’s tool dependent, not syntax.

I sort of agree with Karl’s point about there being too many standards of markdown, but I doubt org mode would have survived the same level of popularity without suffering the same fate.

It doesn’t help that there is no standard for org mode. You can only really use and take advantage of its power in emacs. It isn’t susceptible to lossy transformations because there’s only one real org mode editor.

If a programmer creating their own software (or contracting it out to a developer) would be a bespoke suit and using software someone or some company created without your input is an off the rack suit, I'd liken these sorts of programs as semi-bespoke, or made to measure.

"LLMs are literally technology that can only reproduce the past" feels like an odd statement. I think the point they're going for is that it's not thinking and so it's not going to produce new ideas like a human would? But literally no technology does that. That is all derived from some human beings being particularly clever.

LLMs are tools. They can enable a human to create new things because they are interfacing with a human to facilitate it. It's merging the functional knowledge and vision of a person and translating it into something else.

If the expansion slots were larger then they could have maybe facilitated something like getting 2 usb-a ports in exchange for the one USB-C which feels like an actual thing to consider. As it is, it just doesn't feel like you're gaining anything. If you're carrying any additional expansion cards with you you lose the only advantage it has over buying a hub, which can turn that one usb-c slot into multiple usb-a ports, ethernet, hdmi, audio, sd card reader, etc.

They don't have the resources nor is their scope large enough. Could that change in 10 years? Maybe, but probably not. I'm not even sure it's something they would want to replicate. Retail costs a lot of money and the benefits to it are quite limited. Similarly a service network that would be comparable to one of the larger PC manufacturers would also be very expensive.

> Furthermore, when Framework might become that successful, no need to buy a full new laptop, you can just buy the stuff that failed and move on. And if that does happen, then experience with Framework promises to be much better than experience with Macbook.

The experience you're describing is still involving a person opening up their laptop to replace whatever the failed part is, assuming they even know what the failed part is. I'm qualified to do those sort of diagnostics on a computer and depending on what it is, it'd still be more downtime than going to buy/getting a loaner laptop in most cases.

I'm not saying people can't learn that but I know that people won't.

On the other hand, the default on Android is Chrome so there may be less motivation to change since it's the 'default' platform to target. But if Apple opened up iOS to other browsers, the likely outcome would not be Firefox gaining market share but Chrome completely taking over.

I do not like that iOS doesn't allow for alternative engines but I appreciate that it's basically the only thing that even somewhat reigns Google in.

We regulate the operation of motor vehicles because they pose an immediate safety risk. As in, the use of one could reasonably result in injury or death. A phone is not something you could reasonably expect to be used to create immediate harm (injury, death) and you wouldn't regulate one as such. That's not to say that aspects of it can't be regulated, but the fact that it can be a tool used to generate harm does not make it itself particularly dangerous.

> But to challenge your argument further, if the majority are fine with having cameras in their homes that don't transmit unless a crime is detected, isn't that just democracy?

Yes, which is why we avoid direct democracy pretty much everywhere in the world. But rights aren't something that can be taken away by a vote. Only protections against a government violating your rights can. If you could vote away your rights then pretty much every authoritarian government would be wholly justified in their abusive actions.

> What's getting lost in this discussion might be the fact that the majority of people don't care that much about privacy, especially when heinous crimes are involved. Furthermore, the equivalent would be house builders installing cameras in homes, not home owners being required to install one. But a reasonable compromise might be scanning content being transmitted instead of stored?

Most people don't care about a lot of things. That's another reason why we don't have most people writing legislation. There are tons of things I have extremely limited knowledge about that someone else feels very strongly about and vice versa. The majority of people feeling apathetic towards something isn't an indicator that the majority is correct.

I have no doubt in my mind if we did that it would certainly be a huge win for law enforcement, detecting crimes and gathering evidence to help catch criminals. Why stop there, though? Why not require everyone live in glass apartments like in the novel We?

These aren't big leaps from what you're proposing. You are advocating for mass surveillance with the assumption that these systems won't be abused despite countless examples of surveillance being misused by those in power.

Comparing scanning all of someone's digital files to smoke detectors is absurd.

It's both. We can save a whole lot of time and money not wasting resources on security theater and reallocate it towards efforts that actually make society better and safer.

> It isn't governments that are demanding it. I am demanding it of our government, I and the majority.

> I don't want freedoms paid for by such intolerable and abhorrent levels of ongoing injustice. It isn't a false sense of security, for the victims it is very real.

No, it still is a very false sense of security. Intercepting illicit material online doesn't actually stop the crime from being committed nor does it dissuade people from distributing it.

> Most criminals are not sophisticated. Crime prevention is always about making it difficult to do crime, not waving a magic wand and making crime go away.

Sure, but the 'criminals' that are distributing illicit material online are already going to lengths, sometimes very technical, to distribute it anonymously.

> I'm not saying let's give up freedoms, but if your stance is there is no other way, then freedoms have to go away.

You are saying let's give up freedoms. Let's drop any sort of notion that you care about freedom because you do not. I'm not saying that it's an invalid world view; your reasoning for wanting to eradicate those freedoms is rational and with good intention, but you are begging for authoritarianism none the less.

I don't think there's any sort of agreement to be had here. Fundamentally I cannot agree with the notion that everyone must concede their personal liberties and privacy in order to capture a few more stupid criminals.

> But my stance is that the technology is there, it's just slippery slope fallacy thinking that's preventing from getting it implemented.

No, it's actually just a slipper slope. There is no fallaciousness in the logic here because we've already witnessed the erosion of our rights for this purpose over and over again and they continue to push for even more degradation of those rights.

> Persons aren't identified before a human reviews and confirms that the material is illicit.

This is already a violation of privacy. Share all of your personal photos with hacker news if you disagree. We don't know who you are, after all, so it's not a violation of your privacy, right?

> There is just cause, the material was flagged as illicit. In legal terms, it is called probable cause. If a cop hears what sounds like a gunshot in your home, he doesn't need a warrant, he can break in immediately and investigate because it counts as extenuating circumstance. The algorithms flagging content are the gunshots in this case. You could be naked in your house and it will be a violation of privacy, but acceptable by law. If you said after review, they should get a warrant from a judge I'm all for it.

In legal terms, probable cause is what you need to make an arrest or before obtaining a search warrant. The "gunshot" exception isn't probable cause. It's an emergency exception that allows for a warrantless search because there is an independent, externally observable signal of imminent harm i.e. an emergency situation.

The algorithms are not the 'gunshot' here. It is not searching in response to some sort of external signal like a gunshot or hearing someone screaming or even seeing someone getting attacked. It is the search itself - it only produces a flag marking someone as suspicious because it has already examined someone's private files. The "probable cause" was produced by conducting the search. That is backwards.

It is equivalent, in your analogy, to a cop opening every front door in the neighborhood to look inside and then saying they now have probable cause because they saw something suspicious. The search already happened.

> It is materially false, because that the scanning can be done without sending a single byte of the device. The privacy intrusion happens not at the time of scanning, but at the time of verification.

You do not need to transmit information for it to be violation of privacy. If a cop opens your filing cabinet, looks through your folders, and leaves everything exactly where he found it, he's still already intruded by examining your private material.

The suspicion of criminal activity must precede the search. Simply possessing digital files isn't a basis for individual suspicion - you are treating everyone as a suspect that deserves no protection.

> To continue my example, the cop could have heard you playing with firecrackers, you didn't do anything wrong but your door is now broken and you were probably naked too, which means privacy violated. This is acceptable by society already.

Society accepts warrantless entry only when there is an actual emergency - The reason a gunshot or firecrackers can justify it is because they are external signals - they do not require the police officer to enter the home in order to detect it.

Society does not accept random entries just to look for problems.

And just to get ahead of it, a machine performing the search doesn’t change anything. A search is defined by what’s being examined, not who (or what) is doing the examining. If the government sent a robot into your home that didn’t know your name and only alerted authorities if it found something illegal, it would still be a search. The fact that it’s automated doesn’t make it any less of an intrusion.

I understand that you seem to think that adding systems like this will placate governments around the world but that is not the case. We have already conceded far more than we ever should have to government surveillance for a false sense of security.

> You can have a system that flags illicit content with some confidence level and have a human review that content. You can make any model or heuristic used is publicly logged and audited. You can anonymously flag that content to reviewers, and when deemed as actually illicit by a human, the hash or some other signature of the content can be published globally to reveal the devices and owners of those devices. You can presume innocence (such as a parent taking a pic of their kids bathing) and question suspects discretely without an arrest. You can require cops to build multiple sufficient points of independently corroborated evidence before arresting people.

What about this is privacy preserving?

> However, your response of "Yes." is materially false, law makers will catch on to that and discredit anything the privacy community has been advocating. Even simple heuristics that isn't using ML models can have a higher "true positive" rate of identifying criminal activity than eye witness testimony, which is used to convict people of serious crimes. And I suspect, you meant security, not privacy. Because as I mentioned, for privacy, humans can review before a decision is made to search for the confirmed content across devices.

It's not "materially false." Bringing a human into the picture doesn't do anything to preserve privacy. If, like in your example, a parent's family photos with their children flag the system, you have already violated the person's privacy without just cause, regardless of whether the people reviewing it can identify the person or not.

You cannot have a system that is scanning everyone's stuff indiscriminately and have it not be a violation of privacy. There is a reason why there is a process where law enforcement must get permission from the courts to search and/or surveil suspects - it is supposed to be a protection against abuse.

Yes. You cannot have a system that positively associates illicit content with an owner while preserving privacy.

Senators are allowed to debate bills. A motion to end debate and move to vote can't happen until debate ends. A senator does not generally have a time limit on the amount of time they can debate, so unless they yield the floor, the process can't move forward.

Cloture is a process to force a closure of debate to force a vote (which has its own separate rules). This requires 3/5 of the senate to vote in favor of ending debate. In practice, senators are not speaking for hours on end anymore; it is simply the "threat" of filibuster which eventually stops the bill in its tracks. In this state it cannot progress to a vote nor does it go back to the House of Representatives. In order for it to proceed, they must pass it (and send it to the president) or amend it (and it goes back to the house of representatives).

> I’m seeing the vote for the government budget or something being voted on over and over. If there is a certain majority required to pass something then it is implied that there are negotiations. If the opposition party was just expected to vote yes then why vote at all?

There is negotiation. Senators may try to convince each other to vote a certain way so they can gather enough votes to force cloture. This isn't a formal debate on the senate floor, but done behind the scenes. This may result in them finding enough votes to force the vote or it may result in an amended bill. If a bill is amended by the senate, it must go back to the house of representatives to be voted on. If it passes there, it moves on to the president. If it is amended, it goes back to the senate. Once both houses pass without amendments, it moves on to the president.

> If the opposition party was just expected to vote yes then why vote at all?

Currently they need 6 or 7 votes to pass. They have a few Democrats voting with the Republican majority and Rand Paul, a Republican, is voting against the Republican majority. In order to get the supermajority for cloture, they need to convince several more Democrats. It can happen, though without real amendments, it's unlikely.

> That’s why I’m asking, has the content of what was voted on changed significantly? Maybe taking away healthcare from people has to be done a different way. Make a bill that opens the government, then take healthcare away.

The reason why the Democrats are holding as of right now is because of expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies. If the bill opens the government without an extension, then it is taking that healthcare away, as you say. They are using the shutdown and the increased pressure on the government to reopen as leverage to extend these subsidies. The short term pain is dwarfed by the perceived benefit of ensuring that the funding for these subsidies is secured.

For the Republicans it is essentially the opposite. Extending these subsidies leaves it open to being a wedge point again down the road and midterm elections are coming up next year. They are using the shutdown to try to convince voters that Democrats don't care about government employees or other people because they won't fund the government (i.e not paying US service members, Air Traffic Controllers, Federal workers, etc.). Extending Affordable Care Act subsidies goes against their stated interest in aggressively reducing budgetary deficits over the next ten years.

Republicans hold a majority in the Senate (which is akin to the upper house, House of Lords, or whatever else) but in order to forcefully end a filibuster (cloture), you must get 3/5 of the senate to vote for it (60 votes since there are 100 senators)

The filibuster used to actually involve senators standing and speaking since the senate generally does not limit the amount of time that a senator may speak. Today it’s just a threat of filibuster. It’s controversial but neither party really wants to get rid of it.

I'm now on a PPO plan and have been using Vyvanse for over a year now. It's lead to a dramatic improvement in my quality of life. I grieved for the time and opportunities I had lost due to not having been diagnosed and treated in childhood.

HMOs have a lot of upsides, but Kaiser's behavioral healthcare is awful (at least in the DC Metro area) and there's not much recourse unless you want to/can afford to pay out of pocket.

There's so much cynicism about ADHD even existing, even among healthcare professionals. Any time on HN any mention of ADHD seems to invite a lot of cynicism as well. That, compounded with that one of the most effective treatments for it is something that pretty much everyone can see a positive effect from (stimulant medication), makes it really difficult to navigate.

I hope that you can find a better option because it seems like Kaiser is just very antagonistic towards ADHD.

This is incorrect with regards to Japan. Shoyu is made with wheat. Tamari is not. Their production process is different.

Kikkoman is the most popular brand in the West AND in Japan, which is a koikuchi shoyu, which is the "standard" shoyu type in Japan. It is made with wheat.

The most frequently quoted text I've seen is Karl Popper's writing, where he states that we must reserve the right to suppress intolerant philosophies, not that we should always suppress them.

Now, some people might have the opinion that we should be completely intolerant to intolerance and that might be a defendable position in its own right, but the paradox of tolerance is not intrinsically condoning that sort of response.

This isn't really a recent development but I think I understand what you mean. Authoritarians, regardless of their political leanings, try and sow distrust in free speech in order to garner support for advancing their agenda.

Currently, the "right" is using "free speech" as a tool to push back against the "woke agenda." So now "free speech" is becoming faux pas, at least in certain circles. Mentioning it as something you value without some long preface to explain yourself now associates you with a certain group of people, whether that group actually values free speech or not.

Apple Silicon chips are arguably more compatible with Asahi Linux [1], but that's largely in thanks to the hard work of Marcan, who's stepped down as project lead from the project [2].

Overall I still think the right choice is to find a laptop better suited for the purpose of running linux on it, just something that requires more careful consideration than people think. Framework laptops, which seem well suited since ideologically it meshes well with linux users, can be a pain to set up as well.

[1] https://asahilinux.org/

[2] https://marcan.st/2025/02/resigning-as-asahi-linux-project-l...