Fixed! The issue was specific to FreeBSD's clang setup. When compiling with --target=wasm32 and -nostdlib, clang on Linux/macOS still finds minimal freestanding headers for the wasm32 target, but FreeBSD's clang doesn't have these configured by default - even though stdint.h exists, it's not in the search path for cross-compilation targets.
The fix was adding freestanding stdint.h and stddef.h to webcc's compat layer using compiler built-ins (__SIZE_TYPE__, etc.). This makes webcc work consistently across all platforms without relying on platform-specific clang configurations.
I hope it works now for you - hit me up if there are still problems!
My father worked on the early 90's contract that implemented the speed camera's on the motorway. The future road map was to make these digitally automated. Dark Fibre was laid but the plans were scrapped as the government saw it as a waste of money. This is why we are stuck with the ludicrous system.
For a long while if you were changing lanes while speeding through the camera it couldn't capture the plate. Again the government didn't care. Of course now resolved with the archaic future technology we have now.
I'm not sure what the technology by which the data from the speed camera is downloaded has to do with identifying the driver?
The reason for this "ludicrous" procedure is that the police can identify the owner of the car (based on the license plate), but not the driver, so the owner has to say who was driving. And all of this has to be done in a way that will hold up in court, therefore snail mail. The same procedure exists in Germany (of course, the bureaucracy here has its ludicrous sides too) and I bet in other countries as well.
In Finland automatic camera fines (they're not exactly fines but I have no idea how to translate "liikennevirhemaksu" so work with me here) are the problem of whoever owns the car. If the owner wasn't the one driving the car, then it's up to them to inform the police who was actually driving
Interesting! If I translate it from Finnish to German, Google says something along the lines of "traffic violation fee". Usually you can't punish someone for something someone else has done, but maybe if you call it a fee (which doesn't imply punishment) instead of a fine, you can (at least in Finland)?
Reminds me of the fines for using public transport without a ticket in Germany: they're not called fines either, but "erhöhtes Beförderungsentgelt" ("increased transportation fee"). I'm sure there's a very good reason for this name too...
"Traffic vioaltion fee" is a great translation. As far as I understand the logic behind them, they're meant for relatively minor violations where a fine would be kind of overkill and specifically have to be "directed" at the right person.
The downside is that unlike fines which scale by income here – the term is "päiväsakko" or "day fine", a fine unit that scales with net income – the fees are fixed sums, so unless a person with high income really does something heinous with their car, they're not as likely to get 200k€ (really) speeding tickets.
So now if you're rich you can speed all you want and pay a relatively small fee for it, as long as you're not doing 200km/h in a school zone or something like that
> And all of this has to be done in a way that will hold up in court, therefore snail mail.
This needs to change. Snail mail is no longer reliable. Letters often get delayed by weeks or go missing altogether, but the law still assumes that justice is being done by it being sufficient to assume that a letter that was posted has been received within a few days. It's no longer true.
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just issue the fine to the owner of the car? The owner allowed the person to use their car and accepts that responsibility. If it was stolen, then just say so. Even in the case of fleets, someone is responsible for know who is operating the vehicle and when. The gov't shouldn't care about it any further than holding the owner responsible. If the owner doesn't want to rat out the actual driver, then the owner takes the hit on points/fines/whatever
> Kagi
This seems to be true, but more indirectly. From Kagi’s blog [0] which is a follow up to a Kagi blog post from last year [1].
[0]> Google: Google does not offer a public search API. The only available path is an ad-syndication bundle with no changes to result presentation - the model Startpage uses. Ad syndication is a non-starter for Kagi’s ad-free subscription model.[^1]
[0]> The current interim approach
(current as of Jan 21, 2026)
[0]> Because direct licensing isn’t available to us on compatible terms, we - like many others - use third-party API providers for SERP-style results (SERP meaning search engine results page). These providers serve major enterprises (according to their websites) including Nvidia, Adobe, Samsung, Stanford, DeepMind, Uber, and the United Nations.
I’m an avid Kagi user, and it seems like Kagi and some other notable interested parties have _already_ been unable to do get what they want/need with Google’s index.
[0]> The fact that we - and companies like Stanford, Nvidia, Adobe, and the United Nations - have had to rely on third-party vendors is a symptom of the closed ecosystem, not a preference.
Hopefully someone here can clarify for me, or enumerate some of these “third-party vendors” who seem like they will/might/could be directly affected by this.
[0] antibabelic > relevant https://blog.kagi.com/waiting-dawn-search
[1] https://blog.kagi.com/dawn-new-era-search
> [^1]: A note on Google’s existing APIs: Google offers PSE, designed for adding search boxes to websites. It can return web results, but with reduced scope and terms tailored for that narrow use case. More recently, Google offers Grounding with Google Search through Vertex AI, intended for grounding LLM responses. Neither is general-purpose index access. Programmable Search Engine is not designed for building competitive search. Grounding with Google Search is priced at $35 per 1,000 requests - economically unviable for search at scale, and structured as an AI add-on rather than standalone index syndication. These are not the FRAND terms the market needs
I believe they try to indirectly say they are using SerpApi or a similar product that scrapes Google search results to use them. And other big ones use it too so it must be ok...
That must be the reason why they limit the searches you can do in the starter plan. Every SerpApi call costs money.
And I can't prove correlation but they refused to index one of my domains and I think it _might_ be because we had some content on there about how to use SerpAPI
Kagi does not use Google's search index. From their post which made the front page of HN yesterday [1]:
> Google does not offer a public search API. The only available path is an ad-syndication bundle with no changes to result presentation - the model Startpage uses. Ad syndication is a non-starter for Kagi’s ad-free subscription model.
They then go on to say that they pay a 3rd party company to scrape Google results (and serve those scraped results to their users). So their search engine is indeed based on unauthorized and uncompensated use of Google's index.
But since they're not using/paying for a supported API but just taking what they want, they indeed are unlikely to be impacted by this API turndown.
Congrats on saying that in the most one-sided way possible. Google makes it literally impossible for them to pay for access to search results to make the product they want (customizable subscription search with no ads), and Google also is the de-facto globally sanctioned crawler because they are the only search engine anyone gives a shit about, and also sites need to be indexed by them to survive. In short, Google owns the river and sells the boats, and the public built a wall around it. Google is in a monopoly position in search.
They have a monopoly on their own search results. There's nothing stopping anyone from making their own (hell, a poster did so in the comments above). God forbid we aren't entitled access to the fruits of their labor; the reason you want it isn't because you can't make it (again, see above). It's because making it good is hard, and you want the good results without yourself putting in the effort to make it
They get results from another provider who has authorized access. Google doesn't provide search results to unauthorized requests as many on tor have experienced.
No. They pay SerpApi to scrape Google. And SerpApi is currently being sued by Google for unauthorized scraping.
Kagi did make comments for years implying that they had a deal with Google for search results, but their latest blog post makes it clear that is not true and was never true.
Google is a monopoly across several broad categories. They're also a taxation enterprise.
Google Search took over as the URL bar for 91% of all web users across all devices.
Since this intercepts trademarks and brand names, Google gets to tax all businesses unfairly.
Tell your legislators in the US and the EU that Google shouldn't be able to sell ads against registered trademarks (+/- some edit distance). They re-engineered the web to be a taxation system for all businesses across all categories.
Searching for Claude -> Ads in first place
Searching for ChatGPT -> Ads in first place
Searching for iPhone -> Ads in first place
This is inexcusable.
Only searches for "ChatGPT versus", "iPhone reviews", or "Nintendo game comparison" should allow ads. And one could argue that the "URL Bar" shouldn't auto suggest these either when a trademark is in the URL bar.
If Google won't play fair, we have to kill 50% of their search revenue for being egregiously evil.
If you own a trademark, Google shouldn't be able to sell ads against you.
--
Google's really bad. Ideally we'd get an antitrust breakup. They're worse than Ma Bell. I wouldn't even split Google into multiple companies by division - I'd force them to be multiple copies of the same exact entity that then have to compete with each other:
Bell Systems -> {BellSouth, Bell Atlantic, Southwestern Bell, ...}
Google -> {GoogleA, GoogleB, GoogleC, ...}
They'd each have cloud, search, browser, and YouTube. But new brand names for new parent companies. That would create all-out war and lead to incredible consumer wins.
Could probably argued that search access is an essential facility[1], though it doesn't appear antitrust law has anywhere near the same sort of enforcement it did in the past.
> If you own a trademark, Google shouldn't be able to sell ads against you.
This is frustrating even from a consumer perspective. Before I ran adblock everywhere, I couldn't stand that typing in a specific company I was looking for would just serve ads from any number of related brands that I wasn't looking for that were competitors.
what stops Kagi from indexing internet and makes them pay some guys to scrape search results from Google? one guy at Marginalia can do it and entire dev team at a PAID search engine can't?
I don't know about others, but we have special rules for Google, Bing, and a few others, rate-limiting them less than some random bot.
The problem is scrapers (mostly AI scrapers from what we can tell). They will pound a site into the ground and not care and they are becoming increasingly good at hiding their tracks. The only reasonable way to deal with them is to rate-limit every IP by default and then lifting some of those restrictions on known, well behaving bots. Now we will lift those restrictions if asked, and frequently look at statistics to lift the restrictions from search engines we might have missed, but it's an up hill battle if you're new and unknown.
As we've seen here on HN on the AI boom, it's not wonderful when a bunch of companies all use bots to scrape the entire web. Many sites only allow Google scrapers in robots.txt and the public will fight you hard if you scrape them without permission. It's just one of those things where it would be better for everyone if search engines could pay for access to the work that's done only once.
> Many sites only allow Google scrapers in robots.txt and the public will fight you hard if you scrape them without permission.
This just lets a monopoly replace the website instead of distributing power and fostering open source. The same monopoly that was already bleeding off the web's utility and taxing it.
I don't see any energy security for the future for the UK unfortunately. We sold ourselves short during the GW/Blair Neo-labour era. Scotland maybe, they have wind-farms but the UK likes to tax that. We've just started the era of paying for the cost of Brexit. It's hitting hard.
My weekly supermarket shop for the basic essentials (cheese, eggs, flour, vegetables) now come to around $60/80 a trip.
Parmesan Cheese is around ~£22-£45 ($30-$60) per kg compared to the US $7–$24+ per kg.
Why not? You've got abundant wind and solar. Once installed, even if for some reason you can't get new turbines or panels, you'll still have a decent amount of capacity.
Solar is hit & miss. The only capacity we really have is wind and those are only efficient to those near the sea or in the highlands. England, Scotland, Wales are governed by rain 80% of the year and with the sun we get, household solar rarely breaks even.
Just because we've got, if the government isn't supporting it's pretty much wasted. The renewable farms we do have are mostly funded by private investments firms. Scotland and Wales wants more renewable but the UK government says no.
mate, I dunno what your smoking, but it deffo does. I'm about 50% "paid off" and I had an expensive setup. Installed now the equivalent costs about 50% of what it did.
> Scotland and Wales wants more renewable but the UK government says no.
National grid say "holy shit I need to build more cables" then local people say "ewwww pylons" and shit gets more expensive. There is a bottleneck between england and scotland, which is partially being solved by https://www.nationalgrid.com/the-great-grid-upgrade
The whole boo england, poor scotland/wales thing gets tired super quick. its being solved, is it being solved fast enough? no, but thats because we have a raised a shit generation of empty politicians from across UK and NI. (and the co-dependent pundit class)
> The renewable farms we do have are mostly funded by private investments firms.
Mostly pension funds. but yes, private. However given the high turnover of (useless) polticians, and a civil service that has had all is expertise hollowed out and replaced by consultancy firms, I don't think public funding, without structural reform is a good idea (look at railways for example)
A quick search says the UK produced 18,314 GWh of solar last year. And this was mostly funded by private investment? It seems like for some infrastructure investment, the government is getting long-term renewable power. If the solar isn't making money, why is it growing 30% annually?
What is stupid about nuclear? It's a huge amount of clean, secure energy.
Would your preference be dependence on Russian/US oil natural gas? Would you feel the same if Russia invaded Finland/Baltics and US took over Greenland?
> What is stupid about nuclear? It's a huge amount of clean, secure energy.
It's not the stupidly of the reactor producing. I don't agree with it personally, but hey whatever, it's a thing. The stupidly of it is that we are small island.
Claim what you wish about how safe they are but like anything: errors and malfunctions. Cyber sabotage and all that.
If an reactor were to implode we're eff'd. We don't have landmass to facilitate the output waste in the UK and the waste we do currently produce has to be shipped elsewhere; sold for dark money.
> Would your preference be dependence on Russian/US oil natural gas? Would you feel the same if Russia invaded Finland/Baltics and US took over Greenland?
My preference would be my hand with a gun pointed at my temple and myself pulling the trigger. To dark?
Forgive me, but I don't think you're looking at UK energy policy with a pragmatic and realistic lens. The UK could always make a reactor safer and more secure. If you're dependent on gas, Russia or the US could just shut off the tap.
even accounting for fukushima/chernoble nuclear is between solar and wind in terms of human deaths. And new units are safer than both. EPR went 'just add one more thing' to be more expensive, AP1000 went passive safety way but westinghose imploded and they needed to ask Korea for help
An accident spreading hazardous substances over a large geographical area that are difficult to contain (or waste of this type) is unique to nuclear power; no renewable energy source poses such a threat.
Another problem is the urgency (due to the impacts) combined with the difficulty of modifying power plants as required by "lessons learned," in other words, bug fixes. Modifying or repairing solar panels or wind turbines is easier than working on a reactor and results in a smaller reduction in the plant's output. The effects of this are significant.
The number of victims (and more generally, the health impacts) of nuclear power depends on the method of analysis, which is controversial. This is true for Chernobyl and Fukushima, where the evacuation triggered by the nuclear accident officially caused 2,202 deaths (2019 count), and 2,313 according to the International Nuclear Association.
Even the maximum potential impact of an accident is debated.
The full impact of nuclear power will at best only be known after all dismantling is complete and the last cold waste is disposed of (before this deadline any mishap or stray waste can be costly), in a few thousand years.
renewables are still made from different substances, one of which is copper. One byproduct of copper is extremely toxic- arsenic, and it's spills are not that different in terms of dangers. That's the point. For nuclear at least, over time decay happens, esp for most dangerous isotopes, but for chemical waste - it's forever.
Nuclear still has higher capacity factor than any VRE.
Evacuation numbers for Fukushima are accounted in the stat. But it's also worth mentioning Japanese govt acknowledged most of the deaths are caused by extreme evacuation measures that werent needed, but govt ignored the data it had to enforce them. The panic against nuclear caused them, not radiation.
Arsenic: this only plays during mining (recycling is OK), and efficient measures are already in place (where and when was it a problem, and at which extent?)
> capacity factor
So what? Capacity factor (or another similar quantity such as physical efficiency, operating life, etc.) is a salient criterion in the case of equipment consuming materials or fuel without recycling them, or producing waste in quantity or in the long term that is dangerous... therefore does not concern nuclear power but hardly concerns renewables.
A low yield makes deployment more expensive but, considered alone, is not prohibitive: a mix of renewables producing adequately (quantity, permanence, impacts, total cost including recycling, etc.) is a good solution whatever its yield.
> most of the deaths are caused by extreme evacuation measures that werent needed
This is disputed and the real amplitude of the threat was not known during the nuclear accident. The tiny evacuation ordered was minimally cautious as experts predicted, during the accident, that the worst cast would imply evacuating up to 50 millions persons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naoto_Kan#In_media
There are some very recent arsenic spills events in copper mines...
Nuclear fuel can be recycled, just like renewables. It's mostly not done because it's cheaper not to, just like in renewables
The danger was known based on multiple data points. Japanese govt ignored them. And they acknowledged evacuation was not necessary in the way it was implemented
Capacity factor is important to understand how much firming you need
Indeed, but nothing comparable to the spills at Chernobyl or Fukushima.
> Nuclear fuel can be recycled
Only once, and France, an industrial leader in this area, only manages to recycle 10% of its reactor fuel this way.
> It's mostly not done because it's cheaper not to, just like in renewables
No, that's completely false. Closing the fuel cycle was considered the Holy Grail as early as the 1950s, because everyone knew that uranium deposits would greatly limit the expansion of nuclear power. The industrialization of reactors of the most promising architecture (fast neutron-breeders, sodium-cooled) as well as others, attempted at great length and expense in many countries, failed everywhere ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Notable_reacto... ), there is no ready-to-deploy model of such reactor, and this approach has been virtually abandoned, replaced by the pursuit of fusion.
> The danger was known based on multiple data points
Before the major nuclear accident at Fukushima, the formulas for calculating seismic risk (the tsunami was triggered by an earthquake) were incorrect because they neglected very old earthquakes. The cause was an inability to properly assess the risk. This inability was not universal, as some (for example, Y. Hirai in the case of the Onagawa nuclear power plant, which was closer to the earthquake's epicenter and withstood the earthquake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20...) did take the necessary precautions.
> They acknowledged evacuation was not necessary in the way it was implemented.
Arms-chair tacticians are verbose after the fact, but nowhere to be found when the problem was an ongoing challenge and experts described the worst-case scenario. The testimony of the prime minister at the time, referenced above, is perfectly clear.
> Capacity factor is important to understand how much firming you need.
No value is prohibitive, as there are many other pertinent parameters.
If either one of the two alternative government parties of the UK get in they will scrap all. Reform UK sets out plans to tax renewable energy, conservatives are all for the oil.
2030 is four years away & the next election is in 2029. The Labour party is unlikely to get in again, and if they do it'll be a miracle. Far-Right or Fascist Right.
Reform UK won't get enough seats to sit in parliament this election but if in the future, it's a dystopian vision I don't want to think about. Trump-XL, tax the EU, climate change doesn't exist, kick out asylum seekers, higher taxation to further screw Scotland and Wales. Heavily back pocketed by the US oil and tobacco industry, Nigel is foul MAGA of the UK.
Conservatives, sponsored by oil and pharmaceutical. Exxon, Esso, BP et cetera. They got their wish with Brexit, they made a bucket load of cash from that and they're the ones who scrapped the renewable industry in the first place. One of their aims is to scrap the NHS and make it privatised.
Similar to Trump and MAGA, Reform UK's popularity relies on Farage's cult of personality. Without him, they're significantly less of a threat. He's not a young man (not as old as some, but not young), and he smokes and drinks heavily; make of that what you will.
> A supermarket shop for the basic essentials (cheese, eggs, flour, vegetables) now come to around $60/80 a trip.
No it doesn't. Maybe if you are shopping at Waitrose. It is more expensive. But it isn't £45 for basics. I did an entire shop which will last me the week for £30 (in Aldi).
I shop at Sainsburys where I can. The main supermarkets for me are Morrison and kind of forced to use M&S.
Everyone has their super market preference. ASDA would be cheaper still. You can't disagree that prices have sky rocketed, shrunk in quantity and now lower quality.
I am not denying there is inflation and shrinkflation. However I kept my bill in check by doing the bulk of my shopping and cheaper stores e.g. Aldi (quality of most stuff is comparable to more expensive super markets) and only spending more when it makes sense.
The vast majority of the public doesn't understand what causes inflation or that there is a difference between monetary and price inflation and energy is part of that.
I think they are probably buying the most expensive of everything in the shop. I can get everything for about £30-40 in Aldi.
> I mean we really didn't it was a period of great productivity and a massive boost in living standards almost universally.
A huge amount of wealth was also created under Thatcher but also a huge amount of wealth inequality. Blair didn't really change anything initially and continued their policies.
Remember that period ended with the Global Financial Crisis and an large increase of deficit spending.
There is also other problems with the Blair government. There was our involvement in the war in Afghanistan/Iraq, some of the iffy terrorism legislation amongst other things.
I'll throw in a few of the billions I made when I read this paper by "Satoshi Nakamoto" in 2009 and decided to turn over my dozen SETI@home machines to mining his imaginary internet money.
I wanna sponsor 9front. Merge in whatever we can salvage from Inferno, make a 64-bit Dis runtime, and Inferno's version of Rio which is a lot more comprehensible.
I want a VM that can run diskless Linux microVMs so I can just run a Linux binary and have it open and display a GUI in a new Equis window.
Ladybird has quite a few corporate sponsors now and is progressing quite well. I built and tested the latest sources over the winter break and it sort of works already. I posted on HN from it.
It is unfortunate it doesn't even run on SerenityOS anymore.
This does at least partially eliminate the appeal. e.g. SerenityOS has its own decoders for PNG, JPEG and other image formats and they are not bad, but the boring libpng, etc. were adopted instead.
It should be a net positive if not everybody uses the same implementations of everything.
Brains are adaptive and as we adapt we are turning more cognitive unbalanced. We're absorbing potentially bias information at a faster rate. GPT can give you information of X in seconds. Have you thought about it? Is that information correct? Information can easily be adapted to sound real while masking the real as false.
Launching a search engine and searching may spew incorrectness but it made you make judgement, think. You could have two different opinions one underneath each other; you saw both sides of the coin.
We are no longer critical thinking. We are taking information at face value, marking it as correct and not questioning is it afterwards.
The ability to evaluate critically and rationally is what's decaying. Who opens an physical encyclopedia nowadays? That itself requires resources, effort and time. Add in life complexity; that doesn't help us in evaluating and rejecting consumption of false information. The Wall-E view isn't wrong.
I see a lot of people grinding and hustling in a way that would have crushed people 75 years ago. I don't think our lack of desire to crack an encyclopedia for a fact rather than rely on AI to serve up a probably right answer is down to laziness, we just have bigger fish to fry.
Please provide evidence that masses of people ever were critically thinking across general fields they were not involved in.
Everyone seems to take for face value there was a golden age of critical thinking done by the masses is at some time in the indeterminate past, but regardless of when you ask this question, the answer is always "in the past".
I surmise your thesis is incorrect and supplant this one instead.
The average person can only apply critical thinking on a very limited amount of information, and typically on topics they deal with that have a quick feedback loop of consequences.
Deep critical thinkers across vast topics are rare, and have always been rare. There are likely far more of them than ever now, but this falls into the next point
Information and complexity are exploding, the amount of data required to navigate the world we now live in is far larger than just a few generations ago. Couple this with the amount of information being presented to individuals and you run into actual physics constraints on the amount of information the human brain can distil into a useful model.
By (monetary) necessity people have become deep specialists in limited topics, analogies and paradigms don't necessarily work across different topics. For example, understanding code very well has very little bearing on if I grok the reality of practiced political sociology, and my idea of what is critical thinking around it is very likely to have a very large prediction mismatch to what actually happens.
> Who opens an physical encyclopedia nowadays?
I know plenty of people who binge wikipedia and learn new things through that. While Wikipedia is not always perfect, it's not like older printed encyclopaedia like Britannica were perfect either.
You have a point with trusting AI, but I'm starting to see people around me realising that LLMs tend to be overconfident even when wrong and verifying the source instead of just trusting. That's the way I use something like perplexity, I use it as an improved search engines and then tend to visit the sources it lists.
The UK is a joke and this is still a joke. The average person here are not pleased with the powers of Trump.
Signing such would be a political suicide, not that Labour has gained any favors by being power & personally, a middle finger to Tony Blair, War Criminal dickhead. I'm sure I will have Ofcom at my door for that statement.
https://i0.wp.com/scifiinterfaces.com/wp-content/uploads/202...
reply