Readit NewsHi HN
I built *cleverb.ee* to solve my own research pain: too many tabs, too much messy sourcing. Gemini and OpenAI deep research tools weren't getting the balanced/unbiased quality I desired.
*What it does*: • Reads webpages, PDFs, Reddit posts, PubMed abstracts, YouTube transcripts. • Plans with Gemini 2.5 Pro, acts with Gemini 2.5 Flash, summarises with Gemini 2.0 Flash (or you can use any Local LLM or Claude) • Outputs a fact-checked, cited Markdown report with live token usage tracking.
*Tech*: Python + Playwright + LangChain with MCP tool support. AGPL-3.0 licensed.
*Why open source?*: I wanted full transparency at every agent step and easy pluggable data sources.
Quick install:
```bash git clone https://github.com/SureScaleAI/cleverbee cd cleverbee && bash setup.sh
Would love feedback — especially what critical research sources you’d want integrated next!
Can you specify ? The default heavy reliance on Reddit and YouTube, rather than trusted publications (e.g. Scientific American, NYTimes) and scientific publications, is worrying given widespread misinformation in certain scientific fields (e.g. nutrition, health, economics)
Quanttek commented on The booming, high-stakes arms race of airline safety videos thehustle.co/originals/th... · Posted by u/gmays
Right, and GP suggested a better way to accomplish that would be to take a train from Geneva to Zurich, and then fly from Zurich to SFO.
I've actually done that exact route once, and the train experience was much nicer, and took about the same amount of overall time.
That's exactly my point! Take the train to Zurich, then fly out of there and you'll get both a better experience and emit less carbon
Quanttek commented on The booming, high-stakes arms race of airline safety videos thehustle.co/originals/th... · Posted by u/gmays
> My 55-minute flight from Geneva to Zurich didn't land on its first attempt.
I know this is not the point of the article but why would you take a flight from Geneva to Zurich? It's less than 3h by train, which if you count the time it takes to get to Geneva airport and go through security, probably becomes a much smaller difference.
And for that, you're emitting ~100kg of CO2 [1]
[1]: https://curb6.com/footprint/flights/geneva-gva/zurich-zrh
> Salting is protected activity, lying about your employment history to salt is also protected activity, and firing someone for salting is an unfair labor practice.
Huh... TIL
The idea is pretty easy: If an employer could simply ask you about past union activity (or activity indicating it, such as certain training) and then fire you for lying about your employment history when you omit it, then the protection for unions is effectively neutralized.
Unlike what other commentators imply, this judgment doesn't legitimize just inventing degrees or qualifications. It's closer to omitting that 2-month job that didn't work out
On the flip side, in this war many of the Gaza combatants are either irregular forces or militants deliberately wearing civilian clothing.
So if some guy in a track suit and flip-flops uses an anti tank grenade launcher, discards the empty tube, walks away, and gets lit up, then the next day the Internet is awash with videos of the “IDF murdering a civilian!”
For reference, I think both sides are in the wrong in this conflict, and Israel more than Gaza.
However, the Internet is full of armchair international law experts that are being played like a fiddle by Hamas’ propaganda arm.
Speaking of international laws of combat: no protections apply to non-uniformed combatants pretending to be civilians. None. They can be tortured, executed on the spot, whatever.
If you want protections to apply to you, then wear a uniform or never go anywhere near a gun.
> Speaking of international laws of combat: no protections apply to non-uniformed combatants pretending to be civilians. None. They can be tortured, executed on the spot, whatever.
Speaking of "armchair international law experts", this is completely wrong.
BLUF: Failing to distinguish does not deprive you of fundamental guarantees of humane treatment, including the prohibition of torture and summary execution - both of which are war crimes.
The individual obligation to distinguish is linked to Prisoner of War (POW) status - those who do not distinguish, do not get the protections of that status. That is the only consequence of the failure to distinguish. All those persons who are not POWs are automatically civilians, as made clear by the residual clause in Article 4(4) Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV). While civilians can be interned for "imperative reasons of security", they are entitled to their own detailed treatment obligations (Articles 79-135 GC IV). In any case, even if they are somehow not entitled to that treatment, the fundamental humane treatment guarantees of Art 27 GC IV [1] and Art 75 Additional Protocol I [2] (which, as customary law, applies to all parties to a conflict) nonetheless apply. If we argue that it is a non-international armed conflict (which knows neither POW status nor the obligation to distinguish), Common Article 3 [3] similarly obligates humane treatment. Humane treatment is also a norm under customary law [4].
Under these rules, you cannot torture people and you cannot summarily execute people [4]. Read the provisions yourself. In fact, summary execution and torture are actual war crimes [5]. If you want to punish a person, you need to give them a fair trial (IHL does not prohibit the death penalty).
You seem to be hinting at the Bush-era "illegal enemy combatant" theory but even the Bush Admin never argued that those persons are not entitled to humane treatment (it was mostly about fair trial rights), and the US (as its lone defender) has long since abandoned the position.
Whether Hamas is actually subject to such an obligation to distinguish is highly controversial. On one level is the issue of conflict classification, since POW status and the obligation to distinguish only exist in the law of international armed conflict (IAC). If we accept that there is an IAC (e.g. because of the military occupation), then the question still arises if Hamas somehow "belongs" to the State of Palestine or if they should just be seen as civilians directly participating in hostilities or as being in a parallel non-international armed conflict between Hamas and Israel. In turn, if we accept that there is an obligation to distinguish applicable to Hamas, then Israel also needs to treat Hamas fighters that distinguished as POWs (and, as set out above, if they failed to distinguish, as civilians).
[1]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...
[2]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/arti...
[3]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...
[4]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule87 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule89 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule90
[5]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule156
Em. From the foreword:
> First, the interpretive Guidance is an expression solely of the ICRC's views. While international humanitarian law relating to the notion of direct participation in hostilities was examined over several years with a group of eminent legal experts, to whom the ICRC owes a huge debt of gratitude, the positions enunciated are the ICRC's alone. Second, while reflecting the ICRC's views, the interpretive Guidance is not and cannot be a text of a legally binding nature.
The purpose and of the Interpretive Guidance is to provide recommendations, as the document itself states, in an attempt to persuade states. It does not claim to be authoritative.
I did not assert that it would be legally binding. However, it is considered to be quite authoritative by lawyers, including military lawyers. The two most controversial parts concern the idea of "continuous combatant function" to define members of an armed group, which some want to see defined more narrowly or more broadly (latter: US), and recommendation IX. However, the criteria for direct participation on hostilities are widely accepted as the authoritative interpretation by States and scholars of that term in the Geneva Conventions.
Of course, the document itself would not make a statement on its authoritative nature since, despite the broad consultation with experts, they cannot predict the wider reaction.
But presumably if you can target the building e.g. at night when nobody is there, that's preferable to targeting it during the day when there may be more civilian workers.
Exactly! The key difference is that the worker still count as civilians in the calculus that considers whether an attack is proportional (anticipated military advantage vs expected civilian effects) and whether the attacker took all feasible precautions to avoid and minimize civilian loss, including attacking at night, using tailored weaponry, giving a warning, …
Not sure in what world Merz's coalition could ever be considered centre-left. It's a coalition of the conservative party (which moved much further right under his leadership) and the centrist Social Democrats (who equally moved to the right/center under current and former leadership). Calling them "centre-right" could perhaps be acceptable, all while "conservative" is also a widespread label.