Social Maps: a user reviews and ratings service for points-of-interest (e.g. cafes) in OpenStreetMap.

I’ve been trying to reduce and eliminate my reliance of the Big Tech and the lack of user reviews and ratings was always a big pain point for me each time I tried to switch away from Google Maps.

I’ve started building a service where users can write reviews and rate “places” (POIs) in OpenStreetMap database, such as a cafe, a museum, or a shop. It’s a quite straightforward CRUD app with bunch of OpenStreetMap-specific features such as logging in with OpenStreetMap and querying places by their OpenStreetMap metadata.

It’s still in active development but it has good docs, a great API reference (including an OpenAPI spec), a demo app with the entire planet imported and queryable, and an early stage Android SDK.

https://app.socialmaps.org/

https://docs.socialmaps.org/

https://codeberg.org/socialmaps

I wonder if it's just Elon realising that xAI can't beat OpenAI and thus deciding to give all his compute capacity to Anthropic instead.

Certainly an interesting day for xAI.

Building datacenters plays to his strengths. It's a good partnership if he can stomach it.

As long as it keeps Altman awake at night, it's all good I believe for Elon.

I would think that stomaching Musk would be the hard part. Just goes to show how compute-constrained Anthropic is at this time.

He literally did a Nazi salute on stage, twice! Check the video, and tell me what you see.

edit: https://giphy.com/gifs/elon-musk-nazi-salute-8W0ItVv7T1kRdwb...

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

https://old.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/1i7w4nz/comparison_of...

meh, he's no Graham Platner

See, if you have philosophical/morale standards and don't just subscribe to tribalism, then you could say: f both those morons.

Could you join me in that statement?

> I definitely cringed when Zig moved to Codeberg!

If anything Codeberg’s legal structure (being a non-profit) and vision makes it a lot more aligned with the objectives of free and open source projects than GitHub in the long run (which has always been the case but it’s just abundantly clearer today).

I think “for-profit corporations providing high quality public services for free” was a zero interest-rate phenomenon and never sustainable.

Codeberg's achilles heel for me is not supporting custom domains for repos.

For Codeberg Pages you mean?

> The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

You can open the link and see it for yourself; what other "verification" do you need?

How did you verify that they previously existed on the Apple maps?

ps. your domain is misconfigured for your website, the www prefix is missing so only b....org works, but the link in your HN bio, doesn't.

> I wrote SQLite, and I think it should be pronounced "S-Q-L-ite". Like a mineral. But I'm cool with y'all pronouncing it any way you want. :-)

https://stackoverflow.com/a/49656730

So it’s actually not -lite but -ite. =)

> Most of the privacy claims (of all type of apps) are essentially garbage anyway

I think that’s a sweeping generalisation.

And sweepingly true.

How so? Reproducible builds are a thing.

So are networks

So? If the app is using reproducible builds and is also audited not to contain any backdoors, what do networks have to do with it?

> The wallets “definitely [look like] someone with some degree of inside info”, said Ben Yorke, formerly a researcher with CoinTelegraph, now building an AI trading platform called Starchild.

Ben Yorke is the only expert I see mentioned in the article, so it'd be a lot more accurate (and a lot less sensational) if The Guardian changed its title to "... says one expert" (but it wouldn't sound as interesting then, would it?).

> Eight accounts, all newly created around 21 March, bet a total of nearly $70,000 (£52,000) on there being a ceasefire. They stand to make nearly $820,000 if such a deal is reached before 31 March.

Not to sound privileged but $800k doesn't sound like that much of money for someone that has access to that kind of insider knowledge, especially considering the risks.

All things considered, I feel like the same people could make much bigger bets using trad-fi instruments than Polymarket so I don't understand what's so significant about Polymarket "whales".

In the end people just betting on TACO.

> $800k doesn't sound like that much of money for someone that has access to that kind of insider knowledge

I think you over-estimate by a large margin how much congressional staffers and/or Pentagon employees make, many of whom could have access to this kind of information in the course of their duties.

> especially considering the risks.

What risks?

1. This isn't insider trading of securities.

2. This administration is laughably corrupt.

You don’t have to be an insider to know that the US wants to broker a peace deal now that they’ve gotten themselves deep in the shit. Also, how could a Washington insider know if a peace deal will actually be brokered they have to negotiate with the other party after all.

Betting on a ceasefire isn't the interesting part, placing a five digit bet on a ceasefire by March 31st using brand-new accounts is.

Do you have any other plausible explanation for this behaviour? I can't think of any, if it's just like your average WallStreetBets gambler, why would they be making these bets from brand-new accounts?

Why wouldn't you constantly create new accounts for each bet? Isn't that like privacy/safety 101 for crypto?

Conspiracy theories are once again gossip for men. Interestingly, you can put your money where your mouth is in this case open your own account and make your own bets since you seem convinced. might as well cash in. Which gives me an idea … if only I had enough cash sitting around…

I'd rather set my money on fire than gamble, thank you very much.

Unironically, I'd love to have a captcha here for comments and submissions.

Ironically (morisettan or otherwise), modern AI can crack some captchas better than humans.

If you're interested in "private AI", see Confer [0] by Moxie Marlinspike, the founder of Signal private messaging app. They go into more detail in their blog. [1]

[0] https://confer.to/

[1] https://confer.to/blog/2025/12/confessions-to-a-data-lake/

I don't get how this can work, and Moxie (or rather his LLM) never bothers to explain. How can an LLM possibly exchange encrypted text with the user without decrypting it?

The correct solution isn't yet another cloud service, but rather local models.

The model is running in a secure enclave that spans the GPU using NVIDIA Confidential Computing: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/solutions/confident.... The connection is encrypted with a key that is only accessible inside the enclave.

Within the enclave itself, DRAM and PCIe connections between the CPU and GPU are encrypted, but the CPU registers and the GPU onboard memory are plaintext. So the computation is happening on plaintext data, it’s just extremely difficult to access it from even the machine running the enclave.

How is it then much different than trusting the policies of Anthropic etc? To be fair you need some enterprise deal to get the truly zero retention policy.

Enclaves have a property that allows the hardware to compute a measurement (a cryptographic hash) of everything running inside it, such as the firmware, system software such as the operating system and drivers, the application code, the security configuration. This is signed by the hardware manufacturer (Intel/AMD + NVIDIA).

Then, verification involves a three part approach. Disclaimer: I'm the cofounder of Tinfoil: https://tinfoil.sh/, we also run inference inside secure enclaves. So I'll explain this as we do it.

First, you open source the code that's running in the enclave, and pin a commitment to it to a transparency log (in our case, Sigstore).

Then, when a client connects to the server (that's running in the enclave), the enclave computes the measurement of its current state and returns that to the client. This process is called remote attestation.

The client then fetches the pinned measurements from Sigstore and compares it against the fetched measurements from the enclave. This guarantees that the code running in the enclave is the same as the code that was committed to publicly.

So if someone claimed they were only analyzing aggregated metrics, they could not suddenly start analyzing individual request metrics because the code would change -> hash changes -> verification fails.

Thanks for explaining :)

> First, you open source the code that's running in the enclave, and pin a commitment to it to a transparency log (in our case, Sigstore).

This means you have reproducible builds as well? (source+build-artifacts is signed)

Also - even if there are still some risk that the link is not 100% safe, maybe it's safe to assume vendors like yourself going through all that trouble are honorable? (alternatively - they are very curious of what "paranoid" people would send through LLMs :sweatsmile:)

We don't have reproducible builds because we attest the full OS image that we run, which is the Ubuntu image. Unfortunately bit-by-bit reproducible binaries for OS images is kind of an unsolved problem, because it requires the hundreds of package maintainers across all dependencies to eliminate any sources of non-determinism in the compilation. Things like timestamps and file reordering are very common and even one of these changes the entire hash.

So we do the next best thing. We decide to trust Github and rely on Github Actions to faithfully execute the build pipeline. We also make sure to pin all images and dependencies.

They explain it in Private inference [0] if you want to read about it.

[0] https://confer.to/blog/2026/01/private-inference/