> By that logic all food production and distribution should not be privatized because is should be for the public good rather then the profit of the few.

Sounds like good logic to me, at least for essentials!

If you want to make the argument that anything that is essential should be publicly owned you can make that argument. But I would suggest if you want to make that argument 'nobody should make profit' shouldn't be the relevant argument. The argument should be 'this is how we can solve X problem efficiently'.

Universal healthcare solves the problem. The US is #1 in science and tech, but spends the most with worse outcomes in general healthcare than other peer countries by far.

But it doesn't solve the problem. Does it sound like the nationalized healthcare in Australia is going well? How about Canada? The NHS in Great Britain?

Why would it be any different here?

Depends on the genre and what settings you play in. If you have the right amp, you may not need any pedals at all for the blues, or jazz, etc. But other styles have different expectations. And there’s nothing wrong with experimentation. There’s a lot of analogue pedals that haven’t meaningfully changed since 1995, but if we’re talking about anything digital, there’s obviously been big changes.

I remember reading an article in I think “net” magazine (Brits, remember that?) in the, I guess, early 2000s, that was predicting the “push” (as opposed to “pull”) internet. At the time I thought that sounded awful, and yep, it’s not good.

Ted Nelson apparently predicted it as early as 1965. In his autobiography Possiplex there is a chapter named "My Box of Crayons, 1965", where he shows some of his early sketches, one of which looks just like any ad-infested blogspam website from today. He used it in an ACM presentation, but I can't find it on the web.

I understand many passkey complaints but not this one. Why, for you as a service provider, are passkeys not just better (or at least equivalent to) passwords? You collect and verify an email address at signup and the account can be recovered in the same way as with passwords, or passwordless-email. No CS-verified recovery needed.

> Why, for you as a service provider, are passkeys not just better (or at least equivalent to) passwords?

Why you missed the last line of my answer? How did you get an impression to go back to broken passwords?

All right, my framing was a little too tight. Sure I can see why an email/SMS passwordless loop is easier for you, but it’s a more annoying user experience than your OS/browser/password manager just filling in your credential directly.

You should be comparing the value you get. If you get as much value from a local model as a hosted one, the size difference doesn’t matter.

>>> Claude Code is $100+ or else be constantly throttled

>> Is your comparison against a similar size model? Or shouldn't you be comparing it against the cost of a hosted model matching the one you’re using locally?

> You should be comparing the value you get

But the GP commenter specifically compared the cost of solutions such as Claude Code against a 32 GB model.

If they are going to compare cost, they should compare to the cost of a hosted ~32 GB model.

Or if privacy trumps everything for them, then just say that and don't bother comparing costs of incredibly disparate solutions, as Claude Code costing $100+ a month was a red herring if they're happy with 32 GB model output - they could have compared to a far cheaper option that matched their local model's quality.

It would be like someone saying they were able to buy a bike to get to work, saving them $x million compared to buying a Bugatti. When really, if they're going to compare cost they should compare to a cheap car, or not bring up the cost of an expensive car at all if exercise trumps everything else for them.

> Software is speech.

You might be able to argue source code is “speech”, but running software definitely isn’t. It’s so different it’s difficult to know where to start.

Code is speech, and if you aren't allowed to run the code, what good is it being being available or free? Any "regulations" would start by restricting code, it's no different from saying writers need a lot of regulations because of dangerous or badly written text/books/publications has caused a lot of damage.

It’s very different. It’s doesn’t matter that source code (as “speech”) is useless without running it (though I don’t think that’s quite true) - the definition doesn’t care about how inconvenienced you are. The point of having free speech is to be able to freely express views. Running code isn’t expressing a view, it’s a machine that’s having an independent effect in the world. You may as well say that running industrial equipment is “speech”. It generalises so much it loses meaning.

Way, way worse than an utter waste of resources and ingenuity. Any musician using this is nothing in my eyes, unless it’s the weirdest, most subversive thing I’ve ever heard. Like maybe there are three or four actually creative uses for this, maybe, but all the rest of it will be a talentless void. Awful.

Any DJ playing this shit deserves to have all their equipment taken from them.

The landing page which is linked at the start of the second sentence of this page…? I don’t completely disagree with you, but this is mostly hypertext working as intended, is it not?

Yeah this meta commentary on HN is very confusing for me. The structure of the article is literally

- short paragraph saying "we launched neki"

- short paragraph saying why neki was needed

- paragraphs about what neki is (with a header)

That seems like a very reasonable structure for a blog post like this one. Not being able to get to the third paragraph of a blog post seems like a "you" problem, not a blog problem.

The "what is" section didn't exist when they commented.

Sadly, in 2026, you should never assume anyone will click a link.

If that's what you think, why you keep posting comments linking to your blog?

If you know that to be true and still add your links everywhere ("helping"), isn't this a spammer's confession?

Those are for the people who still respect links.

Why "sadly"? The person writing a link should provide enough detail for readers to figure out whether they should follow the link. I rolled my eyes the first time I saw this entry on HN because it just said "Neki" and the (generic) target domain name. A two-word description got added, and that makes it interesting instead.

It's sad because I think links are the best thing about the web, and it's increasingly clear to me that many internet users either misunderstand or actively avoid them.

Why do people post screenshots of an article on social media instead of linking to it?

Sometimes ignorance, but often because the web is such a hostile experience these days - paywalls and subscribe banners and cookie warnings and slow pages.

That's sad.

Celsius has plenty of resolution for this; in fact I would say Fahrenheit has too much. You can feel the change of one degree Celsius, you can’t really with Fahrenheit. To illustrate this, not only is your scale in tens, but I often only hear people quote the Fahrenheit temperature in tens. In Celsius we almost always give the whole number, because it makes a difference.