frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Open Source @Github

fp.

Supalive, live queries for Postgres and MySQL

https://www.npmjs.com/package/@supalive/core
1•rebaz94•39s ago•0 comments

Show HN: My website as one connected graph – blog, second brain, and book

https://www.ssp.sh/
2•zazuke•3m ago•0 comments

Newsletter market in 2026: $10 per month is default price but not ceiling

https://pressgazette.co.uk/newsletters/newsletters-2026-prices-retention-churn/
1•bookofjoe•3m ago•0 comments

Outbound hold agent that pauses AI runtime while waiting on hold

https://github.com/team-telnyx/telnyx-code-examples/tree/main/outbound-hold-agent-python
1•anushathukral•4m ago•0 comments

What is a Lithium-ion capacitor?

https://www.jtekt.co.jp/e/products/capacitor/capacitor_about.html
1•ksec•4m ago•0 comments

How to Let AI, Workflows, and Custom Systems Manage Your Social Media

https://socialplod.com/blog/how-to-let-ai-workflows-and-custom-systems-manage-your-social-media-t...
1•dexterwura•4m ago•0 comments

More Than Syntax

https://redmonk.com/rstephens/2026/06/12/more-than-syntax/
1•wrxd•4m ago•0 comments

LlamaIndex integration for SynapCores (RAG, GraphRAG, and hybrid retrieval)

https://github.com/SynapCores/synapcores-llamaindex
1•Synapcores•4m ago•1 comments

Poll: Do most countries have the capacity to manufacture all RX drugs?

1•Bender•5m ago•0 comments

Packet_edit_meme (CVE-2026-46331) page cache poisoning vulnerability

https://github.com/sgkdev/packet_edit_meme
1•tanelpoder•6m ago•0 comments

Echoes of the AI Winter

https://netzhansa.com/echoes-of-the-ai-winter/
1•brazukadev•6m ago•0 comments

Notion killing Skiff-influenced email app since most users use AI agents instead

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/06/notion-killing-skiff-influenced-email-app-since-most-user...
1•Brajeshwar•7m ago•1 comments

When a Kaggle Submission Is Rejected Before It Scores

https://medium.com/@alanscottencinas/when-a-kaggle-submission-is-rejected-before-it-scores-58758d...
1•encinas88•7m ago•0 comments

Make PS2 games with one prompt

https://github.com/Ijtihed/ps2-forge
2•Ijtihed•9m ago•0 comments

Oracle promises to open up MySQL governance, but the community wants guarantees

https://www.theregister.com/databases/2026/06/26/oracle-promises-to-open-up-mysql-governance-but-...
1•speckx•9m ago•0 comments

Full Walkthrough: Workflow for AI Coding – Matt Pocock [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QFHIoCo-Ko
1•oriettaxx•10m ago•0 comments

Learning from Nature with System Dynamics

https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2026/04/24/learning-from-nature-with-system-dynamics/
1•surprisetalk•10m ago•0 comments

Three Agents Went to War over a Garden

https://johnmayosmith.substack.com/p/three-agents-went-to-war-over-a-garden
1•mayosmith•12m ago•1 comments

Ava Supernova – open-source coding agent for open-weight LLMs

https://github.com/AugmentedValueAcceleration/ava-supernova
1•AvaSupernova•17m ago•0 comments

VW may close four factories to adapt to the future, report says

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2026/06/vw-may-close-four-factories-to-adapt-to-the-future-report-says/
1•mikestew•18m ago•0 comments

The Exhaustion of Talking to a Tool

https://ohadravid.github.io/posts/2026-06-tool-talking/
1•BrunoBernardino•20m ago•0 comments

Flock-Powered Police LPR Abuse Triples at an Agency Once They Look

https://ipvm.com/reports/flock-police-triple-audit
1•jhonovich•21m ago•0 comments

Germany's railways grind to halt as IT maintenance snag takes down network

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/24/germany-rail-network-deutsche-bahn-standstill-it-re...
1•muxamilian•21m ago•1 comments

Reinventing the Wheel, Now at a Bargain Price

https://zwischenzugs.com/2026/06/24/reinventing-the-wheel-now-at-a-bargain-price/
1•vinhnx•21m ago•0 comments

Show HN: RealtimeSwift - my declarative video rendering framework

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnJA9WUIQOM
1•michael_forrest•22m ago•0 comments

Revolut scraps 'remote-first' working for graduate hires

https://www.ft.com/content/f0e12920-bac5-4f5b-aad1-79e350742d84
4•andrewstetsenko•25m ago•0 comments

Type-checked non-empty strings

https://exploring-better-ways.bellroy.com/haskell-koan-type-checked-non-empty-strings.html
1•surprisetalk•25m ago•0 comments

Show HN: Xtra – a Python framework for reasoning about AI system threats

https://github.com/TangibleResearch/xtra
1•reboy•26m ago•0 comments

A Portrait of the Software Engineer, 2031

https://jamesjboyer.substack.com/p/a-portrait-of-the-software-engineer
1•aesthetics1•27m ago•0 comments

QVAC: Building local-first, peer-to-peer AI applications and systems

https://github.com/tetherto/qvac
1•wslh•28m ago•0 comments
Open in hackernews

Why have papers by one of history's most famous physicists been retracted?

https://www.science.org/content/article/why-have-papers-one-history-s-most-famous-physicists-been-retracted
160•adharmad•1h ago

Comments

josefritzishere•1h ago
The world has gone mad.
baxtr•1h ago
Has it ever been sane?
mdp2021•38m ago
The world is "sane" when the lucid are treated as beacons and the fools are treated as the unfortunate that must stay away from the engines. Insane when the fools are empowered and the bright have to flee for shelter.
akudha•1h ago
Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95

lol, getting paid for nothing. Highest levels of capitalism

bookofjoe•1h ago
"... chicks for free"

See (and listen to): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0

esterna•31m ago
Of course, what they charge $39.95 for is in the public domain. So it's a sort of double scam.
ashenke•1h ago
> Springer Nature deviated from the normal practice of merely slapping the word RETRACTED across the digital version of the paper while still allowing scholars to read the text. Instead, the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.” Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95.

The system is broken

Quarrel•1h ago
and, as the articles points out, it is literally out of copyright.

For profit journals need to die.

otherme123•2m ago
You know what is even worse? A lot of what is paid come from public grants and not-for-profit grants. Reviewers are not paid. Editors are mostly other researchers. Authors are required to put the paper in ready-to-process.format. Thus public money funelled into journal pockets.

There is almost zero reasons why the governments or NIH-like institutions don't have their paper repository.

kingleopold•38m ago
"The purpose of a system is what it does"

it's designed that way.

segmondy•1h ago
Well, I can't be mad if I ever get accused if Plank has no chance.
bluGill•57m ago
Plank is dead and so cannot defend himself. You are at least alive and have a potential to do something (what or if it will work is an open question).

Plank is very famous. If this happens to you, but 50 years after you die: odds are you are not famous and nobody will notice.

bstsb•1h ago
> […] the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.” Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95.

completely unsurprised, given the state of online papers publishing. if you don’t have an subscription or aren’t an organisation member, the fees are insane

stncls•1h ago
Oh even if your org has a subscription, the fees are insane. You just don't see them.

Things are slowly changing but I can't wait for this parasitic business model to collapse for good.

jrumbut•1h ago
What's most bothersome is there is work for them to do.

How about assigning a real copy editor with subject matter expertise? How about publishing open source libraries that automatically validate and output visualizations for their formats? How about hosting multimedia supplements?

It would not be difficult at all to earn the money they charge. There is so much room for creativity and innovation and adding value in scientific publishing.

vitally3643•50m ago
That sounds an awful lot like "costs" which seriously compromises the "free profit" model.

Why pay money to make a better product when you can pay zero money for a worse product and no change in subscriptions? What are your customers gonna do, go get the paper somewhere else?

MostlyStable•43m ago
20 years ago, that argument would make sense. They had no competition and could do what they wanted. As an earlier comment stated: that is starting to change, and if they wait until open competitors are fully established, then it will be too late. Now is the time for them to realize that their parasitic business model is coming to an end and they need to change if they want to survive long term.

They can of course choose short term profits over long term viability, which wouldn't be all that surprising, but that changes the explanation from "more profits" to "short-sightedness/incompetence"

p_j_w•1h ago
> Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95.

I wish I could say such behavior was shocking. Everything Springer touches turns to shit.

zephen•1h ago
> “detailed information about specific retractions is usually confidential and can only be shared with the relevant authors.”

Time for a séance.

arrowsmith•1h ago
Max Planck published the same paper in multiple journals in the 1940s, which was common practice at the time. He also published a second unrelated paper that happened to have the same title as the paper it was a response to. In 2011 both papers were retracted from their journals' archives, most likely because a bot incorrectly flagged them for plagiarism.

Saved you a click.

khurs•1h ago
Link to site: https://retractionwatch.com

One of the recent posts:

"A study claiming a tenfold decrease in bugs splattered on evolutionary biologist Anders Møller’s windshield over two decades has been retracted."

raverbashing•1h ago
Yeah this seems like a fundamentally anecdotal evidence, if bugs are splatting less on his car windshield
bluGill•59m ago
Worse than anecdotal - even if there is real measured data: aerodynamics of windshields will have changed and have an effect and so we still cannot draw conclusions from this. Only if the experiment is more controlled (that is the same car driving on the same roads at the same speeds at the same time) could we draw a conclusion.
dmoy•44m ago
Same roads doesn't even control. If you lived in a town that e.g. changed the very local environment (say drained one specific swamp), the nearby roads my have less bugs for a very uninteresting reason
shagie•8m ago
That is the interesting reason.

While the retraction brings into question the anecdotal evidence for the windscreen phenomenon ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windshield_phenomenon ), there are other studies with other sampling approaches that support the global insect population collapse ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations ).

mbreese•1h ago
To me, this seems like Science dunking on Nature (the journals). It’s interesting, but only a story because Nature is involved.
boscillator•59m ago
> detailed information about specific retractions is usually confidential and can only be shared with the relevant authors.

Good luck sharing that information with Max Planck. It's amazing how robotically humans can act sometimes. I suppose this could be an AI or automated response, but it's just as likely it's someone following the letter of the law without using any critical thought.

fhdkweig•24m ago
I think this is a good example of Kafkaesque.
robertlagrant•57m ago
Why would you need to pay $40 for a PDF of a paper published almost a hundred years ago? What makes the paper not public domain?
seanhunter•56m ago
You don't. It is public domain. You pay that if you want to get it from them. This is the same as I can get a free pdf of "Linear algebra done right" from Sheldon Axler's website but if I want to get it from Springer I pay $50 or whatever it is.
robertlagrant•46m ago
That is a very confusing state of affairs!
ChrisMarshallNY•38m ago
Repackaging and selling free data is a very old business model.

In many cases, it's value-added, because the bundler may also do some curation and interpretation.

Not sure that's what's happening, here, though...

esterna•33m ago
You can also buy licenses to use AV1, a royalty-free codec.
jszymborski•55m ago
The acronym for the University of Quebec at Montreal is UQáM not UQ :P
dcrazy•10m ago
One researcher was at UQAM, the other was at UQTR. Are both not considered part of UQ?
jdw64•50m ago
I always feel that people want one central place to prove their abilities, but when that central place becomes corrupted, it's hard to break away from it. Because the authority of that place feels as if it's tied to your own authority
nyeah•39m ago
lol "self plagiarism". Max Planck got an "extra publication."

Counting papers is death. Everything connected with it is death. This is Max fucking Planck, who gave us the photon. We're judging him according to today's "standards." He's "failing."

Ok. So be it. We'll get what we incentivize.

vanattab•28m ago
"Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95." LOL, what a world we are building.
mijoharas•24m ago
> Representatives from Springer Nature declined to comment, beyond saying that “detailed information about specific retractions is usually confidential and can only be shared with the relevant authors.”

Was it a bot commenting as well? That's a hilariously tone-deaf response. Guess we'd better bust out the ouija board to ask max plank himself.

Artoooooor•12m ago
Do I understand correctly that publishing the same paper in multiple journals is considered self-plagiarism? Who in the name of the great monopoly invented such name for that?
spwa4•7m ago
Do you think these papers have the economic position they have because they are better than some competitor? Or because they have copyright: they provide exclusive access to some important things ...
GTP•17m ago
Yes, many students and researchers resort to piracy.
morelandjs•29m ago
I published in Nature Physics and the copy-editing process was quite embarrassing, to the point where we had to repeatedly nag them to stop them from making the manuscript presentation worse.

To be clear, I’m not talking about subjective style issues, I mean conforming to their own spec and avoiding careless bugs.

All remaining work fell on the backs of the physics referees. I’m not sure what value Springer provided from an editorial standpoint. It was disappointing to say the least after all that hard work.

dieselgate•1h ago
The fees to publish in journals for authors/labs are insane too.
dpoloncsak•42m ago
I'm not familiar here, but if both the publishers and readers are unhappy, why do these services still exist? Is it the 'prestige' of being published with some of these guys? Or do you need to be published for xyz reasons?

Seems like, in 2026, we can have direct publishing without the need of these services? Is it the infra, like query tools and such, that prevent a migration away?

bruckie•33m ago
A lot of academic reputation, as well as performance evaluation (for example toward tenure) is based on being published in "prestigious" journals. If you could fix that problem, I suspect the parasitic journals would evaporate overnight.
ACCount37•32m ago
Publishing is how scientists get their street cred. Thus, the scientists themselves want to publish in big name journals to up their rep - hitting something like Nature is major coup. And then they can convert their standing in the big science gang to things like research grants, commercial projects, academic tenures, etc.

If you don't care about how science street cred works, nothing stops you from just throwing your papers up on arxiv. But then you get no publishing rep. And no visibility either. A big name journal in a given field gets eyes on your paper by default, but in the pits of arxiv, if you don't put your work out there yourself in the circles, no one will see it.

otherme123•10m ago
Arxiv is not p2p, is a preview of what will be published hopefully.

Then you had promising projects like Plos, but they sold themselves. They turned into a joke: open access and good IF, but high fees for the author, thus becoming a quick way to get a sub-par paper published "for the points" if your lab can pay the fee. Pay to win, using a gaming term. If you know you have a good paper, you publish on any other (closed) journal with similar IF but cheaper.

bluGill•9m ago
(read the other replies first, I'm going to assume you understand that first!)

There are a lot of researchers writing papers. In many fields it isn't possible to read them all, so you need someone to make a selection of what is useful. Get into Nature any "everyone" will read your paper because it is important. However if you fail that you only get into a small niche publication - the only people who will read your paper are people who search it out - likely because they are in that tiny niche (and have personally met you to discuss this niche at a conference). There are even lower grades up publications which nobody reads, but in theory someone could find it in a search.

What physics papers should a chemist read? If you are a physicist you should be reading more papers, but there are still too many to read them all so you need a selection, but that selection should bias to others working on similar problems to you. The same applies for every other field: you can't know everything so you need someone to apply a selection to tell you what is important for you to know.

tcp_handshaker•57m ago
To be fair, the Springer empty PDF paper for $39.95, has zero errors, and zero plagiarism, so it is above the bar of their other paywalled proceedings papers.
fhdkweig•28m ago
Even emptiness can be plagiarized. See Cage's 4'33"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3#Plagiari...

Noumenon72•24m ago
That page says that eight years after the supposed lawsuit "Batt admitted that the alleged legal dispute had been a publicity stunt and that he had actually only made a donation of £1,000 to the John Cage Foundation."[1] I guess that he plagiarized it is sure even if the copyright claim was not litigated.

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-11964995

dotancohen•13m ago
4'33 is not empty! That is a common misperception. 4'33 is the sound of the ambient space around the listener. Each performance is unique.
jgraham•24m ago
We can't draw conclusions from that study because it's been retracted on the basis that data has been faked.

On the other hand there are other similar studies that reach similar conclusions, and specifically try to control for aerodynamics e.g. [1] which says

> The weak positive relationship between vehicle registration year and splat rate suggests that newer vehicles are more efficient at sampling insects than older vehicles.

i.e. they saw more insects on newer cars compared to older ones in the same time period.

In general ecology studies aren't like lab physics, you can't control every possible confounding variable; the systems are too complicated and studies ex-situ have their own limitations. But refusing to engage with the data we do have because it's not perfect isn't going to help you make better decisions, and doesn't represent some moral high ground.

[1] https://cdn.buglife.org.uk/2022/05/Bugs-Matter-2021-National...

bluGill•18m ago
I didn't mean we shouldn't engage with data at all. However there are so many possible confounding factors in this type of measurement that we should "take it with a lot of salt."
NopIdoN•21m ago
What's a "tenfold decrease"?
LPisGood•15m ago
x -> x/10
dcrazy•14m ago
Inverse of a tenfold increase, so 1/10 aka 0.1x previous number?