Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | DoctorOW's commentslogin

> The question is whether we will get there before it's too late... and perhaps AI is the answer?

I won't touch "free and unlimited energy", but is there even evidence that AI produces more energy than it uses? Produces any at all?


> It has nothing to do with "shareholder value"

The reason other countries are able to move so much faster than the U.S. is because parties that have power in the U.S. push back with economic concerns. The distance between "shareholder value" and "stock market performance" is miniscule.


What is this obsession with "shareholder value"? Moving away from fossil fuels too quickly will hurt normal people. It will increase the cost of everything (energy prices determine the cost of stuff), make it harder to heat/cool people's homes, etc. You'll also see people burning more wood, which is far worse for air quality and may be worse in terms of CO2.

Ironically XWiki doesn't use their own short URLs: https://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Documentation/AdminGuid...

They do link the default configuration for "safe": https://wicg.github.io/sanitizer-api/#built-in-safe-default-...

But I agree, my default approach has usually been to only use innerText if it has untrusted content:

So if their demo is this:

    container.SetHTML(`<h1>Hello, {name}</h1>`);
Mine would be:

    let greetingHeader = container.CreateElement("h1");
    greetingHeader.innerText = `Hello, {name}`;

What if I wanted an <h2>?

Edit: I don't mean this flippantly. If I want to render, say, my blog entry on your site, will I need to select every markup element from a dropdown list of custom elements that only accept text a la Wordpress?


If it's anything complex I'm doing it server side, personally

That works fine. That said, client side JS solutions are already quite popular.

> That's the same argument people made about Twitter. "If it goes bad, we'll just leave." We know how that played out.

But they migrated to Bluesky, right? So it played out fine?


Right, but they couldn't take their social graph with them. They essentially had to start from scratch.


Apparently thinking One Battle After Another (2025) is "without a doubt THE most insufferable movie of the year" (<https://singlemindedmovieblog.blogspot.com/2026/01/bottom-10...>)


It looks like he’s confusing Paul Thomas Anderson with Paul W. S. Anderson. The latter directed Resident Evil, which the author refers to.


Small correction, Stoat does have a usable native mobile app:

- Android: https://github.com/stoatchat/for-android

- iOS: https://github.com/stoatchat/for-ios


The iOS client is available through testglight right now, and has this in a banner on the repo:

"This app is still in early stages, and not yet ready for production."

Just for others who are evaluating it as an option.


I use Android so that's the only thing I actually used. I falsely assumed iOS was in a similar place.


> Do we want archive.today taken down over this?

I don't think that's on the table. I would say use this as your incentive to support archive.org, who has proven much more accountable. Archive.Today is weaponizing their traffic, and reducing traffic is the best way to deal with it. Vote with your feet.


I don't think these two are exactly equivalent.

Internet Archive is a registered non-profit organization. It is more trustworthy and accountable, but it cannot realistically stand against government-imposed censorship. We've seen this unfold before with Twitter and Meta, partly with Telegram.

Archive.today may be similar on the surface, but if you take a closer look, it's actually an underground "evil twin" that has all the right tools to publish information the governments and the largest of companies want silenced.

Ideally, there would be no such information in the first place. However, the reality is that this classification has only been broadened to cover more content since the invention of the Internet, regardless of which political parties are in power. The fact that the owner of Archive.today is chased by the FBI even though the website already blocks archival of the kinds of content all of us would unanimously find disturbing speaks for itself.


Internet Archive's trustworthiness took a hit when they waded into fact checking - https://blog.archive.org/2020/10/30/fact-checks-and-context-... and wiping content they disapproved of - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32743325


> content they disapproved of

> Looks inside

> Literal scum of the earth engaging in coordinated harassment campaigns to get people they hate kill themselves, and celebrating their "success"

Sure, the problem with Kiwi Farms is that people "disprove of them", not what they disprove of. KF were even blocked by CloudFlare, who have a very strong neutrality policy, that's how toxic, hateful and illegal they were.


All your comments are right wing shilling


If you don't like Archive.org use something else, there's plenty of ways to archive something. I think the idea that the world's most powerful organizations are trying and failing to pursue this makes "Should we shut it down?" all the more ludicrous a question.


archive.org supports DMCA. If you don't like some information in the Wayback Machine, you just have to send a form email and it will be removed from the Waybaeck machine.

archive.today/is/ph is adversarial. It archives things that don't want to be archived. That's why Trump's FBI is trying to unmask it.


There is a perception that the use of the archive by the HN community has some positive value for the archive.

But in fact:

1. HN uses a free service that someone else pays for.

2. HN abuses its paywall bypass function, which is not its main function, is not advertised (unlike 12ft).

3. HN creates legal problems for the archive by highlighting and framing the archive as a paywall-circumvention tool first.

4. HN promotes doxing.

Who would be more motivated in reducing traffic here?


> 4. HN promotes doxing.

Source:


taking this very post from flagged trash can and posting again - is definitively a such act


I'm going to be honest, I always felt like the verbosity was the point of Go. Iirc the whole reason it was invented was to let codebases be as readable as they are writable even for less experienced developers. Why are there Error types when exceptions exist? To force you to acknowledge the possibility for errors. You can easily let your frameworks and libraries handle recovering from panics, but err is unavoidable. You have to, at the very least, put the _.


Which is great until you have to troubleshoot an error code surfaced by a nasty web of code with no idea where it came from because the simplest way to handle err is to re-return it, optionally (and more or less uselessly) wrapping it in a new err. I'll take a panic with a stack trace over that any day.


The trouble with Go is that, because the language is so simple, the obvious way to do a thing always has a bunch of drawbacks. Taking care of gotchas at a language level means complicating the language, but refusing to do so means complicating code written in your language.

There's a balance to be struck here, but Go is stingy, so you don't get things like error traces and automatic destructors and const semantics even when they would make Go a much simpler language to use.


> Perhaps the poster's curiosity is "Why is the Dallas Morning News hiring a faith reporter?"

Indeed, thank you.


Happy to help.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: