The thread continues, also asking about GitHub, anyone using Microsoft services, BlueSky, and Apple. Mentioning DEI, equality, representation ... do these make something a target for cessation of funding and possible seizure?
People are making sure they have off-continent backups of everything ...
Nothing is safe unless you fully control it yourself.
But your points are more around the legislative issues than the funding which is valid but a separate issue.
On that I’ve been unpicking the tie in mess I got myself into for 2 years now. I have got control over my data but not always things I reference which is where this problem comes in.
Recently a relative died and I’ve seen how a simple non technical person is screwed already due to iCloud dependency etc.
essentially the theory of LOCKSS https://www.lockss.org/ would mean that only controlling something yourself cannot keep it safe from the threat of destruction.
There are just different metrics of safety - there is also safety from revealing, and that is probably most safe if you control it all yourself, even though that increases risk of destruction and loss.
The current government has shown they're more than willing to weaponize the DOJ and other departments against people and speech they don't like.
See the AP News incident this week where the White House banned AP from the WH press pool for publishing the words Gulf of Mexico. Seriously.
Or the weaponization of corruption charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams.
Private companies will not be exempt from the fascist retaliation. If Apple or Microsoft is hosting something they perceive as a threat, they will exert pressure to take it down - constitution or laws be damned.
Eric Adams alleges the charges were brought against him by the Biden administration for political reasons. They were dropped by Trump's administration. How does that show that Trump is weaponising the DOJ? Surely the opposite is true.
The White House press pool thing has nothing to do with the DOJ or the justice system generally.
Dropping charges against your political opponents is not a hallmark of fascism. There is ZERO evidence of Trump putting pressure on third parties to take anything down.
On the other hand, the Twitter files proved that the Biden administration was pressuring Twitter to censor stories it didn't like, and it did the same with Facebook.
The charges are not fully dropped. They can be brought up again at any time.
AG Pam Bondi and Emil Bobe are openly admitting they are using this to pressure Eric Adams for political loyalty. It's straight up weaponization of the DOJ, don't be daft.
Read the letter from the acting prosecutor Danielle Sassoon who was pressed by the top of the DOJ to drop the charges. This is conservative, Federalist society, attorney who clerked for Scalia, by the way. Trump is using the charges for a quid pro quo. Tell me with a straight face this is not corrupt.
And I didn't say the DOJ kicked the AP out, I said other departments. But it shows you the admin wants to punish orgs for freedom of the press. There's no defending kicking out one of the most reputable news orgs for using the words Gulf of Mexico. Petty tyrants.
Same with Trump's incessant lawsuits against news orgs that report on him. Including a pollster who didn't provide him favorable numbers.
Same with their orders of to strip publicly funded research of wrongthink by removing references to race, orientation or gender.
This admin is actively suppressing speech including in private organizations at a scale we haven't seen before. And this is only in the first month
For my mother, the year of Linux on the desktop was this year.
Basically, she got enough of Windows, mostly due to subscriptions, that there was news being shown in the browser, and some other related issues and she was incredibly happy with Ubuntu (which is of course American, but since it's free and gratis, it doesn't really matter, and there's always SUSE).
She liked the cleanness, the absence of distractors, how it was clearer what was in the cloud and what was on the local machine, that she wasn't paying any continuous fee for LibreOffice and the happiness this switch brought was huge.
The only reason people are still using Windows is gaming and that it's a default on the machines at computer- and electronics stores. They'd be happy with Linux, they'd be more productive with Linux and they'd be calmer with Linux.
I work with energy systems that are still running Windows Server 2003. Even upgrading to a new version of Windows would be a multi-year project; rewriting all of the customized, Windows-specific software to work on Linux would be incomprehensibly expensive.
People who don't know often imagine that, understandably. Recreating years of accumulated deployment and management in a new system is so expensive, it's usually impossible. In a real sense, you have to redo many years of work, all at once. And on top of that, you have to deploy it all at once - an immensely complex project that is almost certain to be a disaster.
Also, in many ways, Windows management components (Active Directory, Group Policy, etc.) have no competition:
First, you must have management systems: imagine you are deploying, configuring and managing a new application on 10,000 desktops, or just 1,000. You can't manually go to each desktop (just add up the time spent walking between desks!); you must automate it.
Second, most user applications provide management components for Windows and for no other platform. If they have something else, it's often an afterthought (and goodness forbid they stop developing it and you are left 'to your own devices').
Finally, there's usually no reason not to use Windows. Why create these risks and costs? The users care only about the applications - these aren't their home computers; the IT department handles the OS, etc. The network effect of the Windows standard is hard to beat.
There are exceptions: Some deployments are very simple and can be done on Linux, for example POS cash registers. Many applications now depend on web browsers, though even then you can have DRM and other issues, and you don't know what new application a user may need tomorrow. Macs are a standard in some places.
I forgot another aspect of migrating: After all that time and money and energy (including opportunity cost of taking people from other productive work), what do you have to show for it?
Another directory services / management system that does the same thing as - or likely worse then - the original. All that work and at best you haven't moved an inch forward, you haven't helped the business' bottom line ... what did you do? How do you explain that to the CEO?
What major corporation doesn't use AD, excluding special cases (e.g., Apple might use their own, or do they use their Macs under AD)? What do they use?
I ran Linux as my desktop since... approximately the turn off the millennium, with a brief downgrade to Windows from when the Rift S came out until I finally got around to switching back last year.
I should probably see about finding time to upgrade my laptop away from the os it came with as well as some point...
> In general it’s not like war is about who’s right or moral. It’s more about who can bring more and better weapons to the fight.
I suspect, though I'm not sure, that the point was more that a nation that rejects science in favor of a different kind of ideological purity (lack of virtue signaling as its own kind of virtue signaling) is a nation whose weapons are no longer likely to be the better ones.
I think the point is that the US is no longer a reliable ally, so people will no longer want to buy weapons systems for which the US might withdraw support at any moment.
That seems to be a premature assessment. Trump paused a weapons shipment to Ukraine, then allowed to it to continue. No other shipments have been held up at all. Our allies continue to receive the output of the American arms industry just like they did six months ago.
In fact, the latest news is that Trump is expanding our circle of friends when it comes to advanced weapons, offering India the opportunity to purchase F-35s.
It's a long-term shift. European militaries are built on the assumption of US support via NATO in the event of an attack on a member state. That assumption is looking very shaky now, and it will affect future planning.
They are built on the assumption will subsidise their defence almost entirely. They are rapidly realising that the US defending them will be conditional on them defending themselves. This is not a serious threat, it is just pressure. But it has resulted in increased investment in defence in Europe which is really important for global security.
>They are built on the assumption will subsidise their defence almost entirely.
This is an exaggeration. The larger European military powers spent enough on defence to be able to operate without US assistance in a range of circumstances (e.g. the Falklands war). But Europe did not anticipate having to defend itself against Soviet aggression without US assistance.
In fairness, it would have seemed crazy, not so long ago, to think that the POTUS would be on friendlier terms with the leader of a Russian dictatorship than with the democratically elected leaders of France and Germany. But here we are.
The Falklands conflict was almost half a century ago. It is doubtful that the UK could respond today like they did in 1982.
The video "The Navy With More Admirals Than Warships"[1] addresses that exact scenario, and talks about the current woeful state of the British Navy today.
I think that’s somewhat unclear. In principle, the new carriers with F-35s should have a much bigger advantage over the Argentinian navy and air force than the tiny carriers we sent to the Falkland’s with Harrier jump jets. But of course it is impossible to know until such a thing actually happens. (Even in the case of a far more antecedently plausible conflict such as Russia/Ukraine, expert predictions were all over the place, and mostly wrong.)
Given the rejection of science and extreme virtue signaling the US has had for the last 20 years, I’m a bit skeptical that a slight turning back from that would make any difference to our allies.
Canada would not buy anymore F-35. Their replacement parts can be shutdown any moment as the current US President stated publicly at least six times, they should become a US state.
A change of administration in the next few years, will not mitigate the taboo that has been broken.
Is this based on anything other than wishful thinking?
European nations switching entirely to domestic military production within 4 years is as realistic as Trump's plan to make the US auto industry fully domestic within a few months, which is not very.
Cloud vendors already offer ways to ensure your data never leaves the EU, for larger enterprises.
Which Linux distro is Europe going to be on, top-to-bottom? The one controlled by Google?
We need teams of people working on decentralizing any important information sources like this, with mirrors and open protocols that don’t have single points of failure
When I had access to academic journals through my (western, wealthy) institution I would still mostly use scihub.
The simple reason was that I got conditioned to doing that because the login wall to doing it legitimately was often too painful. At a certain point my workflow switched to checking scihub first, then going the legal path if scihub failed.
It saves a lot of time, and I suspect it is a lot more common than most people think.
Acquiring a massive library of unlicensed IP, the best-known such library in the world, would also seem to destroy arXiv's credibility with those in power and I expect would be the end of arXiv.
Edit: my mistake. I’ve always heard it referred to as a “state school” which is true given its land grant status and SUNY affiliation, but it is private.
To be fair, the original article (or posts?) makes no effort to assert why he thinks arXiv is in any risk for its continued existence. It's unlikely that Cornell will go away, nor the site they own.
Cornell University has seven colleges, three of which are public, and four of which are private. I'm an alum, but it's been a while, but my recollection is:
Engineering, Arts and Science, Architecture, Hotel Administration
are private, while:
Industrial & Labor Relations, Agriculture and Life Sciences, Human Ecology
accept public funding. That info might be ~20 years out of date though.
"In 2023, arXiv received a $5 million grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF Grant 2311521 | “Frameworks: arXiv as an accessible open access research platform”). Distributed over five years (performance conclusion: 2028) this grant’s goal is to create a more discoverable and accessible arXiv to advance scientific innovation."
More like administration disrupting status quo, with a healthy dose of concern about services and process that are important and have historically been left to their own devices (freedom?) which are now being threatened based on what are known as a Hegelian dialectic, where simple worries are presented as higher problems to push alternate agendas. The news about NOAA is a good example.
I think that one thing we’ll see that is common with manipulative people, is that we’ll see an argument formed that talking about things like this at any level will be considered pushing back on the manipulation and then it will be rationalized to “cut off” the critical thinkers by swamping the signal. When that happens here, perhaps sooner than later, you’ll jnow things are fixin’ to get interesting.
Much of that concern comes from a place of ignorance. Example: all the fretting about NNSA.
Having worked with that agency, they have a fair number of people who don't directly have much to do with the nuclear weapons enterprise at all. Those include their social media team, recruiters who try to push going into the weapons community, and the like. There are also the normal administrative paper-pushers that flourish in Federal and state agencies.
Getting rid of some of those people seems like a bad idea when NNSA is a black box that says "scary nukes here", but really isn't once you look inside a little bit. The job of recruiting people should be left to the companies that run the Labs. We don't need a social media team to publicize a statutorily-required agency. We could probably prune a bunch of admins and have little impact on the enterprise after a little bit of shakeup. Etc.
Why are you downplaying it? Musk and Trump wrecklessly terminated employees responsible for the maintenance and inspection of nuclear weapons. This isn't just a social media team.
The loss of institutional knowledge for managing an arsenal of nuclear weapons has serious consequences for security.
> Some of the fired employees included NNSA staff who are on the ground at facilities where nuclear weapons are built. These staff oversee the contractors who build nuclear weapons, and they inspect these weapons.
> It also included employees at NNSA headquarters who write requirements and guidelines for contractors who build nuclear weapons. A source told CNN they believe these individuals were fired because “no one has taken anytime to understand what we do and the importance of our work to he nation’s national security.”
> Just days before, officials in leadership had scrambled to write descriptions for the roughly 300 probationary employees at the agency who had joined the federal workforce less than two years ago.
> Managers were given just 200 characters to explain why the jobs these workers did mattered.
It’s important to remember that Musk and DOGE are starting a negotiation and anchoring with a very low initial offer. That’s not where the cuts will end up. But it gets the counterparty to imagine that pain and then when we land at a 10-20% cut (or whatever), they’ll think, “Whew! That’s not that bad!”
Why is it every time they do something wildly stupid/crazy/disastrous for every part of America, there’s always somebody who says “yeah but that’s not REALLY what they’re doing”.
Like they’ve done more damage to businesses with the tariff threats to Canada and Mexico than they’ll ever save in these “cuts”. Republicans first budget under “Trump priorities” is 4.5 trillion dollars of DEFICIT spending. None of the proposed tax plans balance anything, 100% in the red. They’ve left our networks open to foreign adversaries and weakened NATO.
…but there’s always somebody who says “yeah, but that’s not what they MEANT”. I don’t get it.
It is crazy. It is completely reckless. I’m not saying it’s ok or that I agree. I’m simply pointing out that this is a clear and obvious negotiation tactic. It’s a pattern that Trump and Musk have both followed over and over in their career.
I’m saying, if you don’t want the cuts, DON’T FALL FOR IT. DON’T LET THEM ANCHOR HERE. Congress has the power of the purse, not DOGE. These 50% cuts will be as real as self driving Teslas.
I was the victim of a pretty bizarre super in-your-face academic theft. Someone snooped a half-finished paper draft of mine off GitHub and...actually got it published in ArXiv and a "real" journal: https://forbetterscience.com/2023/10/30/stephensons-alternat...
In spite of having a full commit log (with GitHub verified commits!!!) of both the code AND the paper, both ArXiv and the journal didn't seem to care or bother at all.
I went all the way to contacting Stanford, the institution that the thief falsely pretended to be affiliated with, to get them to help me with this.
I am not supporting the theft, but it will make better sense when you realize that copyright holds little value in the real world outside of the court system. Next time, keep your repo private until you're ready to release everything together.
That's not their call to make. They have no right to host GP's intellectual property and refuse to take it down after being contacted by the rightful owner.
You're not paying any at all. Arxiv did not refuse to take it down. Arxiv did take it down even though they had no obligation to do so. Also, anyone can claim anything online, and it's the timing of papers that ultimately matters.
You have no idea how many emails were exchanged, attempts at explaining them what a commit log is, what verified commits are...to just refuse to do anything until Stanford weighed in.
It is incredibly condescending to say "arXiv is not a place for a copyright strike". as if I decided to start one.
If somebody gets robbed in front of a place of worship/whatever, would you scold the victim by saying that's not the place to get robbed?
Copyright, as in the right to prevent other people from making copies, indeed is meaningless unless you have lawyers
But plagiarism is a serious academic misconduct, that gets papers retracted, people fired from academic positions, PhDs rescinded, etc. It's not at all a copyright issue and would remain a gross misconduct even if copyright were abolished today
Most academic nutjobs tend to build a world of their own with gibberish papers. This dude instead decided to take others' work and has even gotten an identity theft charge on him.
For your question, fraudulent copyright infringement claims are plaguing most services hosting content (GitHub, YouTube, etc). Haven't seen it again on ArXiv so chances are it's a rare occurrence. So the admins probably weren't sure what to do. At least in the comments, they make it clear, it wasn't due to policy (as mentioned in the stolen paper) that yours was removed but essentially due to being forced by the claims.
What surprised me was that a journal in MDPI garbage land, published an expression of concern.
I figured this could get flagged, just like the post on DOGE trademark.
I’m pointing out that a legitimate discussion about the vulnerability of scientific repositories (arXiv) to policy/funding pressures was flagged on HN. This is ironic given HN's own guidelines state they welcome content that "gratifies intellectual curiosity" and represents "interesting new phenomena."
The fact that a discussion about potential threats to open scientific repositories could be flagged/censored on HN effectively proves the very point being discussed - how platforms meant for technical and scientific discourse can be compromised by non-technical factors.
For dang (HN's moderator): This kind of moderation appears to contradict HN's core mission. A discussion about safeguarding scientific repositories like arXiv is exactly the kind of substantive, technically-relevant content that should be welcome on HN. When even discussions about protecting scientific discourse get suppressed, it validates the original concern about vulnerability to censorship and control. It doesn’t matter what rationalization was used for censorship. If the threat exists to technical achievements, it must not be censored. Rules be damned.
The irony is particularly sharp given that HN and arXiv share similar goals of fostering intellectual discourse and technical/scientific advancement.
I guess this stuff is getting flagged as the discussions are devolving to politics. What I find more concerning is why the ostensibly educated population of HN readers wouldn't be unified on being on the right side of things.
I don't see how it's "devolving" into politics, because it fundamentally is about a political attack. It's as if someone is reacting to the library of Alexandria burning and getting told "now come on, don't make it political..."
I kind of agree with you. What I mean is, I guess, is it devolves into unproductive political discussion, lots of stuff being asserted, lots of emotion, and little in the way of facts and evidence.
Mods have extensively answered this question multiple times which this comment ignores. Can't be fucked doing a search.
This lack of respect sums it all up and why it should be flagged. Can't put the bare minimum in so why bother having a discussion to hear more brain farts we can read on Reddit?
[Edit] Surprisingly the comments other than this one are not bad for a change. There is a question why ArXiv would be affected that's not clear.
> The fact that a discussion about potential threats to open scientific repositories could be flagged/censored on HN effectively proves the very point being discussed - how platforms meant for technical and scientific discourse can be compromised by non-technical factors.
You should also known, that some of the accounts who posted some of these links who get flagged within seconds, got throttles set on them, that included how many stories they can post every 24 hours and that include actual number of comments or replies on threads, sometimes causing them to being unable to reply to an actual question from somebody. Some of these accounts have years here, and never had similar throttles put on them.
Moderating HN is a task I don't envy, and appreciate @dang work immensely...But like they say, transparency is the best disinfectant. Or maybe the usual mods are being overruled?
HN is not about what is "good". It is not a value judgement on your post or it's topic.
The guidelines have this at the top:
What to Submit
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
If you (or anyone) take a look at those and the links they point to, and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
Note it is not funded by the government, but it is one of many publishing operations at Cornell that is concerned about risks that come from being in the US. They take donations
Why do you feel that way? As a hypothetical, what would need to happen in the current political environment so that you don't feel that it's unsubstantiated fearmongering?
105 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 178 ms ] threadPeople are making sure they have off-continent backups of everything ...
But your points are more around the legislative issues than the funding which is valid but a separate issue.
On that I’ve been unpicking the tie in mess I got myself into for 2 years now. I have got control over my data but not always things I reference which is where this problem comes in.
Recently a relative died and I’ve seen how a simple non technical person is screwed already due to iCloud dependency etc.
But if it’s in the cloud then they don’t need to beat you with a hose. They just legislate that they can take it and then do it.
My data is safer if they have to beat me with a hose to get it first.
There are just different metrics of safety - there is also safety from revealing, and that is probably most safe if you control it all yourself, even though that increases risk of destruction and loss.
See the AP News incident this week where the White House banned AP from the WH press pool for publishing the words Gulf of Mexico. Seriously.
Or the weaponization of corruption charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams.
Private companies will not be exempt from the fascist retaliation. If Apple or Microsoft is hosting something they perceive as a threat, they will exert pressure to take it down - constitution or laws be damned.
The White House press pool thing has nothing to do with the DOJ or the justice system generally.
Dropping charges against your political opponents is not a hallmark of fascism. There is ZERO evidence of Trump putting pressure on third parties to take anything down.
On the other hand, the Twitter files proved that the Biden administration was pressuring Twitter to censor stories it didn't like, and it did the same with Facebook.
Sp what if he "alleges" that. The question is whether he is corrupt.
> Dropping charges against your political opponents is not a hallmark of fascism.
Of course not, dropping them against yourself and your movement is. As in "he who saves the country can violate no law", in the words of Trump.
AG Pam Bondi and Emil Bobe are openly admitting they are using this to pressure Eric Adams for political loyalty. It's straight up weaponization of the DOJ, don't be daft.
Read the letter from the acting prosecutor Danielle Sassoon who was pressed by the top of the DOJ to drop the charges. This is conservative, Federalist society, attorney who clerked for Scalia, by the way. Trump is using the charges for a quid pro quo. Tell me with a straight face this is not corrupt.
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/24535586...
And I didn't say the DOJ kicked the AP out, I said other departments. But it shows you the admin wants to punish orgs for freedom of the press. There's no defending kicking out one of the most reputable news orgs for using the words Gulf of Mexico. Petty tyrants.
Same with Trump's incessant lawsuits against news orgs that report on him. Including a pollster who didn't provide him favorable numbers.
Same with their orders of to strip publicly funded research of wrongthink by removing references to race, orientation or gender.
This admin is actively suppressing speech including in private organizations at a scale we haven't seen before. And this is only in the first month
Yes, there's a general funding purge in process, causing uncertainty about outstanding NSF grants. OP mentioning DEI specifically might be in reference to e.g. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2025/2/cruz-led-investigatio...
Some earlier discussions on that one in particular:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43048077
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43046466
Tao made some remarks on what this means in practice here: https://mastodon.social/@tao@mathstodon.xyz/1139100739588910...
Massive layoffs will hit the US Defense industry as no sane nation ever will buy again a US weapon.
Cloud vendors will have to split hard their operations or see revenue cut in half.
Basically, she got enough of Windows, mostly due to subscriptions, that there was news being shown in the browser, and some other related issues and she was incredibly happy with Ubuntu (which is of course American, but since it's free and gratis, it doesn't really matter, and there's always SUSE).
She liked the cleanness, the absence of distractors, how it was clearer what was in the cloud and what was on the local machine, that she wasn't paying any continuous fee for LibreOffice and the happiness this switch brought was huge.
The only reason people are still using Windows is gaming and that it's a default on the machines at computer- and electronics stores. They'd be happy with Linux, they'd be more productive with Linux and they'd be calmer with Linux.
Also, almost every corporation and similar large-scale deployment, for management and compatibility purposes.
Also, in many ways, Windows management components (Active Directory, Group Policy, etc.) have no competition:
First, you must have management systems: imagine you are deploying, configuring and managing a new application on 10,000 desktops, or just 1,000. You can't manually go to each desktop (just add up the time spent walking between desks!); you must automate it.
Second, most user applications provide management components for Windows and for no other platform. If they have something else, it's often an afterthought (and goodness forbid they stop developing it and you are left 'to your own devices').
Finally, there's usually no reason not to use Windows. Why create these risks and costs? The users care only about the applications - these aren't their home computers; the IT department handles the OS, etc. The network effect of the Windows standard is hard to beat.
There are exceptions: Some deployments are very simple and can be done on Linux, for example POS cash registers. Many applications now depend on web browsers, though even then you can have DRM and other issues, and you don't know what new application a user may need tomorrow. Macs are a standard in some places.
Another directory services / management system that does the same thing as - or likely worse then - the original. All that work and at best you haven't moved an inch forward, you haven't helped the business' bottom line ... what did you do? How do you explain that to the CEO?
https://www.port389.org/
Heh.
I ran Linux as my desktop since... approximately the turn off the millennium, with a brief downgrade to Windows from when the Rift S came out until I finally got around to switching back last year.
I should probably see about finding time to upgrade my laptop away from the os it came with as well as some point...
I don’t think the US defense industry is worried. Do you know any sane nations around here?
In general it’s not like war is about who’s right or moral. It’s more about who can bring more and better weapons to the fight.
I suspect, though I'm not sure, that the point was more that a nation that rejects science in favor of a different kind of ideological purity (lack of virtue signaling as its own kind of virtue signaling) is a nation whose weapons are no longer likely to be the better ones.
In fact, the latest news is that Trump is expanding our circle of friends when it comes to advanced weapons, offering India the opportunity to purchase F-35s.
This is an exaggeration. The larger European military powers spent enough on defence to be able to operate without US assistance in a range of circumstances (e.g. the Falklands war). But Europe did not anticipate having to defend itself against Soviet aggression without US assistance.
In fairness, it would have seemed crazy, not so long ago, to think that the POTUS would be on friendlier terms with the leader of a Russian dictatorship than with the democratically elected leaders of France and Germany. But here we are.
The Falklands conflict was almost half a century ago. It is doubtful that the UK could respond today like they did in 1982.
The video "The Navy With More Admirals Than Warships"[1] addresses that exact scenario, and talks about the current woeful state of the British Navy today.
You are right to question who your allies are.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po9duwvipB0
"You have the watches. We have the time." There are many ways to win a war.
A change of administration in the next few years, will not mitigate the taboo that has been broken.
The US sells 120 billion dollars a year of weapons: https://www.state.gov/fiscal-year-2024-u-s-arms-transfers-an...
European nations switching entirely to domestic military production within 4 years is as realistic as Trump's plan to make the US auto industry fully domestic within a few months, which is not very.
Cloud vendors already offer ways to ensure your data never leaves the EU, for larger enterprises.
Which Linux distro is Europe going to be on, top-to-bottom? The one controlled by Google?
The real shift may be to move closer to China.
Is that sarcastic? arXiv is legal and mainstream, used by professionals; sci-hub is illegal.
The simple reason was that I got conditioned to doing that because the login wall to doing it legitimately was often too painful. At a certain point my workflow switched to checking scihub first, then going the legal path if scihub failed.
It saves a lot of time, and I suspect it is a lot more common than most people think.
[0] https://annas-archive.org/
https://info.arxiv.org/about/funding.html
Edit: my mistake. I’ve always heard it referred to as a “state school” which is true given its land grant status and SUNY affiliation, but it is private.
"Cornell is a privately endowed research university and a partner of the State University of New York."
Engineering, Arts and Science, Architecture, Hotel Administration
are private, while:
Industrial & Labor Relations, Agriculture and Life Sciences, Human Ecology
accept public funding. That info might be ~20 years out of date though.
"In 2023, arXiv received a $5 million grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF Grant 2311521 | “Frameworks: arXiv as an accessible open access research platform”). Distributed over five years (performance conclusion: 2028) this grant’s goal is to create a more discoverable and accessible arXiv to advance scientific innovation."
That's $1 million/year.
Total revenue in 2023 was $2,690,592.
I disagree with your parent's dismissal of the worry, but I don't see what this adds to the discourse.
https://discover.dtic.mil/
https://www.osti.gov/
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/
https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/ (This one seems particularly difficult to archive.)
https://eric.ed.gov/
All are great resources and it would be a shame if any of them were eliminated.
I think that one thing we’ll see that is common with manipulative people, is that we’ll see an argument formed that talking about things like this at any level will be considered pushing back on the manipulation and then it will be rationalized to “cut off” the critical thinkers by swamping the signal. When that happens here, perhaps sooner than later, you’ll jnow things are fixin’ to get interesting.
Having worked with that agency, they have a fair number of people who don't directly have much to do with the nuclear weapons enterprise at all. Those include their social media team, recruiters who try to push going into the weapons community, and the like. There are also the normal administrative paper-pushers that flourish in Federal and state agencies.
Getting rid of some of those people seems like a bad idea when NNSA is a black box that says "scary nukes here", but really isn't once you look inside a little bit. The job of recruiting people should be left to the companies that run the Labs. We don't need a social media team to publicize a statutorily-required agency. We could probably prune a bunch of admins and have little impact on the enterprise after a little bit of shakeup. Etc.
The loss of institutional knowledge for managing an arsenal of nuclear weapons has serious consequences for security.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/14/climate/nuclear-nnsa-firings-...
> Some of the fired employees included NNSA staff who are on the ground at facilities where nuclear weapons are built. These staff oversee the contractors who build nuclear weapons, and they inspect these weapons.
> It also included employees at NNSA headquarters who write requirements and guidelines for contractors who build nuclear weapons. A source told CNN they believe these individuals were fired because “no one has taken anytime to understand what we do and the importance of our work to he nation’s national security.”
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/14/nx-s1-5298190/nuclear-agency-...
> Just days before, officials in leadership had scrambled to write descriptions for the roughly 300 probationary employees at the agency who had joined the federal workforce less than two years ago.
> Managers were given just 200 characters to explain why the jobs these workers did mattered.
Like they’ve done more damage to businesses with the tariff threats to Canada and Mexico than they’ll ever save in these “cuts”. Republicans first budget under “Trump priorities” is 4.5 trillion dollars of DEFICIT spending. None of the proposed tax plans balance anything, 100% in the red. They’ve left our networks open to foreign adversaries and weakened NATO.
…but there’s always somebody who says “yeah, but that’s not what they MEANT”. I don’t get it.
It is crazy. It is completely reckless. I’m not saying it’s ok or that I agree. I’m simply pointing out that this is a clear and obvious negotiation tactic. It’s a pattern that Trump and Musk have both followed over and over in their career.
I’m saying, if you don’t want the cuts, DON’T FALL FOR IT. DON’T LET THEM ANCHOR HERE. Congress has the power of the purse, not DOGE. These 50% cuts will be as real as self driving Teslas.
Allow me to share a horror story:
I was the victim of a pretty bizarre super in-your-face academic theft. Someone snooped a half-finished paper draft of mine off GitHub and...actually got it published in ArXiv and a "real" journal: https://forbetterscience.com/2023/10/30/stephensons-alternat...
In spite of having a full commit log (with GitHub verified commits!!!) of both the code AND the paper, both ArXiv and the journal didn't seem to care or bother at all.
I went all the way to contacting Stanford, the institution that the thief falsely pretended to be affiliated with, to get them to help me with this.
Stanford contacted ArXiv, and ArXiv then: 1. Removed the thief's upload: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.14810 2. Allowed the thief to copyright strike MY (!!!!) own research: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.04214
How does this make any sense? You remove somebody's stolen content, and then allow the thief to copyright strike it? what the fuck...
You have no idea how many emails were exchanged, attempts at explaining them what a commit log is, what verified commits are...to just refuse to do anything until Stanford weighed in.
It is incredibly condescending to say "arXiv is not a place for a copyright strike". as if I decided to start one.
If somebody gets robbed in front of a place of worship/whatever, would you scold the victim by saying that's not the place to get robbed?
Incredible.
But plagiarism is a serious academic misconduct, that gets papers retracted, people fired from academic positions, PhDs rescinded, etc. It's not at all a copyright issue and would remain a gross misconduct even if copyright were abolished today
For your question, fraudulent copyright infringement claims are plaguing most services hosting content (GitHub, YouTube, etc). Haven't seen it again on ArXiv so chances are it's a rare occurrence. So the admins probably weren't sure what to do. At least in the comments, they make it clear, it wasn't due to policy (as mentioned in the stolen paper) that yours was removed but essentially due to being forced by the claims.
What surprised me was that a journal in MDPI garbage land, published an expression of concern.
I’m pointing out that a legitimate discussion about the vulnerability of scientific repositories (arXiv) to policy/funding pressures was flagged on HN. This is ironic given HN's own guidelines state they welcome content that "gratifies intellectual curiosity" and represents "interesting new phenomena."
The fact that a discussion about potential threats to open scientific repositories could be flagged/censored on HN effectively proves the very point being discussed - how platforms meant for technical and scientific discourse can be compromised by non-technical factors.
For dang (HN's moderator): This kind of moderation appears to contradict HN's core mission. A discussion about safeguarding scientific repositories like arXiv is exactly the kind of substantive, technically-relevant content that should be welcome on HN. When even discussions about protecting scientific discourse get suppressed, it validates the original concern about vulnerability to censorship and control. It doesn’t matter what rationalization was used for censorship. If the threat exists to technical achievements, it must not be censored. Rules be damned.
The irony is particularly sharp given that HN and arXiv share similar goals of fostering intellectual discourse and technical/scientific advancement.
"Reality has a well-proven bias leaning towards whatever I so happen to believe"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Reality_has_a_well_known_lib...
This lack of respect sums it all up and why it should be flagged. Can't put the bare minimum in so why bother having a discussion to hear more brain farts we can read on Reddit?
[Edit] Surprisingly the comments other than this one are not bad for a change. There is a question why ArXiv would be affected that's not clear.
You should also known, that some of the accounts who posted some of these links who get flagged within seconds, got throttles set on them, that included how many stories they can post every 24 hours and that include actual number of comments or replies on threads, sometimes causing them to being unable to reply to an actual question from somebody. Some of these accounts have years here, and never had similar throttles put on them.
Moderating HN is a task I don't envy, and appreciate @dang work immensely...But like they say, transparency is the best disinfectant. Or maybe the usual mods are being overruled?
The guidelines have this at the top:
What to Submit
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
--
Please note the part about politics.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43051836
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42978389
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42911011
If you (or anyone) take a look at those and the links they point to, and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
https://info.arxiv.org/about/donate.html