Spanish law enforcement agencies have begun profiling individuals who use Google Pixel smartphones running GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused operating system, out of suspicion that such measures indicate criminal intent, particularly for drug trafficking. The article underscores how powerful privacy tools, originally designed to protect users from both mass surveillance and commercial data collection, can paradoxically draw unwanted attention from authorities. This phenomenon exemplifies the broader societal conflict between digital privacy rights and the methods employed by law enforcement.

GrapheneOS distinguishes itself by offering security enhancements not found in mainstream Android, including storage encryption, granular permission controls, and features like a duress PIN that can instantly wipe the device. Despite these robust protections, the system maintains wide compatibility, enabling the use of mainstream apps—including banking applications—without significant compromise. The article draws a stark contrast to legislative efforts across Europe aimed at reducing the effectiveness of privacy technologies, noting the irony that regions previously victimized by spyware (such as Pegasus) now treat those who proactively secure their devices with skepticism.

Hacker News commenters critically examine the implications of associating privacy measures with criminality, arguing that privacy should be a presumed right rather than a red flag. Many note that the true danger lies in authorities defining what constitutes “something to hide,” potentially eroding civil liberties for all. The community discussion also praises the technical sophistication of GrapheneOS, its positive influence on Android security at large, and the societal irony of privacy-seekers coming under improper suspicion.

The central theme of America’s new AI action framework is its assertive focus on sustaining U.S. dominance in artificial intelligence, pairing technological innovation with economic and national security interests. The plan centers on three main pillars: aggressively accelerating domestic AI innovation, rapidly expanding foundational infrastructure (notably in energy and semiconductors), and projecting U.S. influence in global AI governance and technology standards. This approach reflects the government’s intent to drive AI leadership not only by enabling research and market activity but also by shaping the international environment where AI systems operate.

A key policy detail is the plan’s call for deregulation and support for open-source models, emphasizing rapid development while seeking to manage challenges such as misuse of synthetic media in the legal system and the risks inherent to large-scale deployment. On the infrastructure front, highlighted priorities include streamlining permits for semiconductor manufacturing, expanding and modernizing the national electric grid, restoring chip-production capabilities, and ensuring robust, secure data centers for defense applications. The underlying premise is that America’s energy system—largely stagnant since the 1970s—must catch up to meet the demanding power needs of AI, fostering debate about which mix of energy sources should support this transformation.

Hacker News commenters reflect a mix of skepticism and technical concern over the plan’s feasibility, especially regarding the speed at which government can “remove red tape” in high-stakes tech sectors. Many highlight the looming crisis of energy consumption tied to AI infrastructure, debating renewables against nuclear expansion and the timeline for grid modernization. The community is also animated by the legal ramifications of synthetic media, with jokes about a future where “deepfake forensics” becomes a standard legal credential. Throughout, there’s a recurring tension identified between bold national ambitions and the practical challenges—technical, bureaucratic, and ethical—of delivering on them, with some viewing the action plan as both visionary and at risk of bureaucratic overreach.

Recent experiments have challenged the long-standing culinary belief that resting cooked meat is essential for juiciness. Serious Eats' Daniel Gritzer, building on work from chef-scientist Chris Young and Meathead (AmazingRibs.com), demonstrated that what actually matters is precise temperature control rather than the traditional notion of muscle fibers reabsorbing juices. The key insight is that as meat rests, its internal temperature drops, vapor pressure decreases, and juice loss is minimized if slicing occurs at similar internal temperatures—making the claimed benefit of juice redistribution negligible.

A blind sensory test with carefully controlled pork chops found tasters could not reliably identify any difference in juiciness between rested and unrested meat when variables like slicing temperature and salting were standardized. The results indicate that resting's main function is about managing carryover cooking—the internal heat that continues to cook meat after removal from the heat source—rather than fixing juiciness. In fact, conventional resting times can risk overcooking smaller cuts due to excess internal heat, suggesting that the process should be adapted based on meat type, size, and the intended texture of the crust.

Hacker News commenters broadly welcomed this evidence-driven reevaluation, highlighting the practical value of aligning resting with temperature monitoring instead of rigidly following set time intervals. Many appreciated the myth-busting process, noting that “lost juice” on the plate is not truly lost and emphasizing that, for some cuts, skipping the rest may better preserve crust and texture. The discussion reflects a community eager to blend scientific rigor with hands-on cooking, with some expressing surprise at how entrenched culinary rules can persist even in the face of clear and replicable experimentation.

The article presents a detailed rebuttal to common misconceptions about Elixir, emphasizing its strengths in built-in scalability, fault tolerance, and modern productivity. Elixir, built on the Erlang VM, is highlighted for its ability to handle millions of lightweight concurrent processes, with preemptive scheduling and robust error handling. Major production use cases—such as WhatsApp and Discord—are cited, along with mature libraries like Phoenix for web development, LiveView for real-time UIs, Oban for background jobs, and Nx for machine learning, underscoring Elixir's capability as a full-featured, production-ready ecosystem.

One of the core arguments focuses on infrastructure simplification: Elixir’s runtime natively manages clustering, job distribution, real-time communication, and system upgrades, often eliminating the need for external orchestration tools or complex DevOps stacks. Productivity accelerators like the Ash Framework, declarative metaprogramming, and developer-friendly syntax are credited for reducing boilerplate and enabling maintainable code. The language’s functional, immutable design also positions it well for AI-assisted coding, as its clarity aids automation and reasoning by large language models.

Hacker News commenters were particularly drawn to Elixir’s holistic approach to distributed systems, noting the claim that Kubernetes and complex frontend stacks are often unnecessary when using the BEAM VM and Phoenix LiveView. The community praised Elixir’s potential for smaller, more stable teams, higher retention of talent, and alignment with infrastructure minimalism, but also debated the challenges Elixir faces around mainstream adoption and developer hiring. Many saw the article as a thoughtful endorsement that challenges industry conventions, with several users reflecting on their own positive experiences with Elixir’s stability, performance, and joys of functional programming.

The article’s chief revelation is that, after the Apollo 11 mission, Neil Armstrong and his fellow astronauts were formally required to complete a U.S. Customs declaration upon re-entering the country. The astronauts listed "moon rock and moon dust samples" as items acquired during their lunar journey, underlining a unique intersection where exceptional space exploration collided with standard government bureaucracy. The customs form, with its ordinary queries about plants, animals, and snails, became a quietly historic document—transforming the extraordinary into the oddly routine.

More than just a curiosity, the customs documentation illustrates systemic rigidity: earthbound regulations were applied literally—even to materials from another world. The form went so far as to cite “Moon” as the departure point and “Honolulu, Hawaii” as the arrival, with a “Declaration of Health” querying possible conditions that might “lead to the spread of disease.” The astronauts answered, “To be determined,” hinting at the unknown biological risks of lunar material. The article also briefly highlights camaraderie and humility through Armstrong’s subsequent connection with a UC aviation alumnus, emphasizing human moments behind technological milestones.

Hacker News discussions engaged deeply with the bureaucratic overlay, often with humor and insight. The community noted the absurdity and charm of treating a lunar return much like a typical international flight, with some focusing on technical anachronisms and the limits of existing public health frameworks. The presence of “snails” on the form alongside moon dust was a recurring theme for witty commentary, while others shared links to the scanned customs document, appreciating its value as a primary artifact from the early space age.