Feed aggregator

Article URL: https://blog.elevarq.com/elevarq-1-0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604624

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Article URL: https://dol.praxostudio.com/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604594

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

This is one of those projects that's been sitting in the back of my mind for years. I made a ThreeJS UI for browsing (read: re-living) the ticket stubs I've been collecting since I was 9 years old.

I was going to create a whole form so that people could share their own collections but landed on just opening up a version you can use to DIY with your agent.

That part is here: https://github.com/billybillymc/stubs

Enjoy! Notes and feedback welcome and appreciated.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604590

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

The origin of this project was me, as a casual farmers' market attendee, grossly misremembering the start date of early girl tomatoes. Ironically, I still haven't achieved that goal, because I couldn't find a suitable source with varietal level granularity online. I'm half dreading a "Why didn't you check X?" comment and discover there's some perfect local varietal data source, but that would really be the best case scenario.

The poster is customizable per crop, and the pictures reposition heuristically. There's only two regions, SF and NY, with very different source data for each. See https://vertumnus.fyi/about/sources for methodology.

A static poster is not the greatest form factor for a schedule with annual variation, and this whole project was a non serious side exercise. See https://vertumnus.fyi/about for more.

The project was coded in a single 731 prompt Claude Opus 5 session over 22 days within a 46 day period, from July 20th to September 2nd, 2026. I've published the entire transcript, searchable and organized by chapter, at https://vertumnus.fyi/about/transcript. A write up, with the stuff that Claude was good at and its repeated code quality shortcomings, is at https://vertumnus.fyi/about/ai.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604581

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Article URL: https://huggingface.co/gdiamos/amx-reasoning-v1-instruct/blob/main/paper.pdf

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604579

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

Article URL: https://huggingface.co/spaces/nanotron/ultrascale-playbook

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604557

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Article URL: https://www.latent.space/p/aeo

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604551

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Article URL: https://lileks.com/motels/index.html

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604550

Points: 1

# Comments: 1

Article URL: https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/09/07/disconnect-your-lg-television-from-the-internet-now

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604537

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Article URL: https://apnews.com/article/brazil-tiktok-owner-fined-regulator-child-protection-cfbe802ab180c45dc2d0c0ec1967cddd

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604534

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Article URL: https://pctweaker.app/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604533

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Article URL: https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/i-know-what-you-think-of-me/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604505

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Article URL: http://gregdiamos.com/2026/09/07/outrageously-small-neural-networks.html

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604500

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Article URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/commandline/comments/1w809fu/til_posix_specifies_a_tool_designed_to_assist_you

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604498

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Article URL: https://decomp.dev/doldecomp/melee

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604454

Points: 1

# Comments: 1

Article URL: https://www.nber.org/papers/w35706

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604439

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

Article URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RatVp4YLwiM

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604410

Points: 18

# Comments: 1

Article URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/07/opinion/trump-meat-import.html

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49604408

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

A federal court in Massachusetts has ruled that copyright holders can issue online takedown notices based on a subjective belief of copyright infringement, even when that belief is unreasonable and self-serving. The case was brought by our client, Channel 781 News, after takedown notices temporarily shut down the citizen journalism group's YouTube channel. We think the court set the bar far too low for copyright takedowns, and we plan to appeal.

Channel 781 is a group of independent, volunteer journalists who report on local affairs in Waltham, Massachusetts. That includes posting short, newsworthy excerpts from recordings of city government meetings produced by Waltham Community Access Corporation (WCAC), the city's public access television station.

In September 2023, WCAC sent three copyright takedown notices to YouTube targeting fifteen of Channel 781's videos. YouTube removed the videos and, under its three-strikes policy, temporarily disabled Channel 781's entire account—just days before a local election.

Represented by EFF and Brown Rudnick LLP, Channel 781 sued WCAC under Section 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which provides a remedy when a copyright holder knowingly makes material misrepresentations in a takedown notice.

When Is a Copyright Holder Responsible for a Wrongful Takedown?

Fair use is the legal right to use copyrighted material without permission, when doing so serves purposes like criticism, commentary, or creating something new. Fair use is not copyright infringement, and courts have recognized that copyright holders must consider fair use before using the DMCA's powerful notice-and-takedown process.

In this case, Channel 781 argued that WCAC accused it of copyright infringement without making a good-faith assessment of whether its videos were fair use.

The evidence showed that WCAC's analysis was seriously deficient. The court noted that Chris Wangler, the WCAC employee who sent the notices, didn’t consider several facts relevant to fair use. For instance, Channel 781 used relatively small portions of WCAC's recordings, and the underlying recordings were factual public meetings, not a creative work. WCAC also gave little or no weight to whether Channel 781's use harmed any market for the recordings.

There’s also strong evidence that WCAC had motivations unrelated to copyright. WCAC objected to its footage being used to criticize local officials and advance political viewpoints. And WCAC sent the takedown notices during a local election, shortly after Channel 781 posted a campaign statement by Waltham's mayor that WCAC had mistakenly made available online.

Despite this evidence, the court concluded that WCAC had a subjective good-faith belief that Channel 781's videos were infringing. We disagree.

A Subjective Belief Should Not Be a Free Pass

Channel 781 argued that a copyright holder’s belief that material is infringing must be both genuinely held and objectively reasonable. WCAC argued that a subjective good-faith belief is good enough. Unfortunately, the court agreed with WCAC.

The court emphasized that Wangler had read up on fair use, watched a short YouTube video explaining the doctrine, and distinguished between videos he thought might qualify as fair use and those he believed did not. That was enough, the court concluded, to establish subjective good faith—even though Wangler’s analysis ignored important facts relevant to fair use. As the court put it, Section 512(f) does not require “a perfect or even reasonable fair use analysis.”

That is an alarmingly low bar for copyright holders seeking to remove someone else’s speech from the internet. A DMCA takedown can cause lawful speech to disappear almost immediately. As Channel 781 experienced, multiple notices can even result in an entire channel being disabled.

If a copyright holder can avoid liability despite a cursory, incomplete, and objectively unreasonable analysis that ignores important facts—even when there’s evidence that the copyright holder wanted to suppress critical speech—the obligation to consider fair use risks becoming little more than a box-checking exercise. That interpretation threatens to strip Section 512(f) of much of its force.

Even Under a Subjective Standard, WCAC Fell Short

Even accepting the court’s subjective standard, WCAC's cursory consideration of fair use should not have been enough. WCAC disregarded important fair use considerations, and the record included statements suggesting that it believed people generally needed permission to reuse its footage—an understanding at odds with fair use. There was also evidence that WCAC objected to Channel 781's political use of its footage, and had motivations for the takedowns unrelated to copyright.

Taken together, these facts raise serious questions about whether WCAC genuinely considered fair use, rather than using copyright as a rationale for removing material it did not like.

The Court Did Not Find That Channel 781's Videos Infringed

Importantly, the court's analysis recognized Channel 781’s strong fair use argument: the group used short excerpts from factual recordings of public government proceedings, selecting clips for their newsworthiness, and making them easier for the public and journalists to find, share, and discuss.

The opinion even states that WCAC's fair use analysis “may have been deficient.” But under the purely subjective standard it adopted, the court concluded that it could not reject WCAC's professed belief—even if the court itself “would have reached the opposite conclusion” on fair use.

We plan to appeal this decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Copyright law should not allow a rightsholder to suppress critical reporting or political speech through the DMCA and escape accountability simply by claiming it believed the speech was infringing. Section 512(f) is supposed to provide protection against wrongful takedowns. We will keep fighting to ensure that safeguard actually protects people. 

Within the last few days, two important state actions have dealt a big blow to automated license plate reader (ALPR) networks. This is just the latest proof of the growing tide of public opposition to mass surveillance. After years of successful grassroots battles to pull these cameras from local streets, bipartisan momentum is sweeping the country.

On August 28, Texas Governor Greg Abbott banned state agencies from spending public funds on Flock cameras. The order dropped just as The Texas Tribune prepared to publish an investigation revealing that a state agency had quietly funneled at least $30 million into building a sprawling surveillance network. 

Then on August 31, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) issued a memo, announced by Governor Ron DeSantis, ordering the removal of all ALPRs from the right-of-way on state highways within 30 days. The order revokes all previously approved permits to install ALPRs, and bars transportation officials from issuing future permits. 

FDOT officials stated that “the recent exponential increase in deployments along our roadways, coupled with concerning reports of misuse, data privacy concerns, and surveillance schemes merit immediate action to preserve Floridians’ sovereignty and quality of life.” FDOT’s action has been followed by a surge of local governments in Florida canceling or pausing their vendor contracts.

Much more work remains. Many ALPRs in Florida are not on state highways, but sit on city streets, county roads, residential driveways, and shopping center parking lots—and FDOT's order doesn't touch any of them. Likewise, the Texas directive leaves local agencies free to use city, county, federal, and private funds to install cameras.

This week’s good news follows years of pushback from local advocates that has seen dozens of cities sever ties with surveillance companies. According to some metrics, during the last 30 days, an average of three localities per day has halted contracts with Flock. Other advocates have been resisting ALPRs in statehouses and court houses, and by blowing the whistle with investigative activism.

The moves in Florida and Texas also illustrate the power that the executive branch can wield to curtail mass surveillance with almost immediate results. We hope that the California Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Department of Transportation will take notice and initiate steps to curb this technology, starting with removing the ALPRs that U.S. Border Patrol and the Drug Enforcement Administration have installed on California highways.

EFF’s position remains: ALPR mass surveillance – the indiscriminate, continuous collection and retention of location data on every driver, regardless of suspicion – should not exist. This past week’s actions in Texas and Florida are good steps forward, but we are still far from the finish line. We will continue working alongside community groups to keep cameras off local streets, while urging judges and state lawmakers to impose enforceable restraints on this warrantless mass surveillance.