lee/hpr-knowledge-base
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Initial commit: HPR Knowledge Base MCP Server

Browse Source 
- MCP server with stdio transport for local use
- Search episodes, transcripts, hosts, and series
- 4,511 episodes with metadata and transcripts
- Data loader with in-memory JSON storage

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Lee Hanken
2025-10-26 10:54:13 +00:00
commit 7c8efd2228
4494 changed files with 1705541 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

699
hpr_transcripts/hpr3129.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,699 @@
Episode: 3129
Title: HPR3129: Followup on HPR3122
Source: https://hub.hackerpublicradio.org/ccdn.php?filename=/eps/hpr3129/hpr3129.mp3
Transcribed: 2025-10-24 17:28:55
---
This is Hacker Public Radio episode 3,129 for Thursday, 30 July 2020. Today's show is entitled
Follow-Up on HPR-3122. It is hosted by Zen Flota 2
and is about 36 minutes long
and carries a clean flag. The summary is
Follow-Up on HPR-3122 and more percent more undescribed.
This episode of HPR is brought to you by an honesthost.com.
Get 15% discount on all shared hosting with the offer code
HPR-15. That's HPR-15.
Better web hosting that's honest and fair at an honesthost.com.
Follow-Up on HPR-15.
Follow-Up on HPR-15.
Follow-Up on HPR-15.
Follow-Up on HPR-15.
Follow-Up on HPR-15.
Follow-Up on HPR-15.
Follow-Up on HPR-15.
Follow-Up on HPR-15.
Follow-Up on HPR-15.
Follow-Up on HPR-15.
Follow-Up on HPR-15.
Okay.
Make sure I've got my recorder going. It looks like it is.
I decided to do a follow-up episode and one of my own episodes,
Hacker Public Radio 3122.
Devon Review, Dash, and Commentary.
With a subtitle, Devon Review, plus I talk about Race,
which I've clearly posted run on the top of that,
that show.
And I thought I would do a follow-up on that show
and add a few extra things that I forgot to add
that have cropped up that have been made aware to me
about the Supreme Court decision
to basically nullify the state of Oklahoma
and restore the territories,
the Indian territories to full national state,
that in addition to everything else I said in Hacker Public Radio 3122,
apparently the royalties of the oil and gas revenue
will be in question themselves because the Indian nations own all those royalties,
they own all the mineral producing segments of that land.
And so there probably will be a lawsuit against the state of Oklahoma
and the United States government for allowing their oil and gas resources
to be sold in the open market.
They're going to want their money back, in other words.
So that is pending and that will be coming up as well,
which is even bigger than talking about severance taxes and stuff like that.
I mean, that's going to be trades of dollars for the staff.
And who knows what the settlement will be on that I don't care to speculate,
but there will be some form of lawsuit.
So that will be a shock to both the United States
and the state of Oklahoma and will the state of Oklahoma survive that?
I just don't know.
Can you bankrupt a state?
Again, if we look at New York City and New York State,
well, they're not bankrupt.
If we look at the United States of America and the way they print many and run the debt up,
they're not bankrupt either. So I don't know.
These are all just funny things.
I thought I would review some of the commentary.
I did get some comments from my show hacker public radio 30122.
And I thought I would just read through them and address her,
choose not to address them.
And I won't even read the names of the people that posted it,
but the first comment was politics.
This podcast is more about American politics than a dev one,
Debbie, and to be honest, and that's true.
It is.
I did not put percentages in my title.
Maybe I should do that.
I don't know what you're implying, but...
Certainly, there's been some titles posted to hacker public radio
and other places, YouTube, for instance,
which may not be perceived as relevant to the actual show content.
That's true.
Next comment is from someone who says that
it purposely misleading episode is the title of his comment.
For all listeners, there is two minutes of discussion about dev one
and the remaining 32 are political commentary.
I will no longer trust or listen to this contributor.
All right, we'll move on.
The next post is one that says updated show notes.
We do not listen to shows prior to posting,
to ensure hosts are given the freedom of speech.
Now, obviously, this is from an administrator of hacker public radio.
The administrator goes on to mark a reference of a particular page
of hacker public radio that explains their policy on not monitoring.
Monitoring content.
Moderating.
Let me just pronounce that correctly.
As noted by the commentators,
the show notes do not accurately reflect the content of the episode.
I have therefore updated the show notes to more accurately reflect the content discussed.
Well, let me be specific to that comment.
I didn't put any show notes in.
The show notes were put in by someone else,
and they grabbed apparently a reference from Wikipedia about dev one
and posted it in there.
But no, I never posted any show notes.
I left that blank.
I put it in none or something like that.
I didn't put it in any of it all,
so no, sir, I did not misrepresent that show at all.
I didn't even talk that.
Anyway, the hacker public radio moderator also said that,
well, he did say that they updated the show notes to more accurately reflect the content.
What was posted was a significant portion of the show relates to the US Supreme Court decision
in the case of McGurt versus Oklahoma,
and speculation as to possible ramifications.
Well, that's true,
I did not post that either you did,
and I chose not to post it,
because this has been carried out in the news on a half a dozen professional journalists
on a bit shoot, on library, on YouTube.
It has not gone mainstream,
but I chose not to post this specific court case,
because most people will read through that as I have,
and not make a lot of sense of it.
I mean, you could read through it,
and it talks about the technical arguments
that they were going to put in front of the Supreme Court,
but it really doesn't help.
It just confirms that it happened.
It doesn't actually explain the ramifications of what all this means.
For that, you have to be a trial lawyer,
or someone of a legal background,
and do a journalism show,
and discuss all the ramifications of it,
and I'm just basically reiterating what I've been listening to on these shows.
But in so many of the cases,
when something like this gets started,
the actual jagged line for what did happen,
or what they'll actually do, for instance,
one of the other possibilities that I need to put out there is the possibility
that the Indian nations might decide not to do anything,
and just decide, well, we'll just stay the same way we were,
and it'll be basically an ungoverned territory like US possession.
You've got to remember that the Indian nations were never states.
They're not applying for statehood.
They're autonomous nations,
and in part of the write-up,
and also the commentary that I've heard,
they're indicating that there will still be federal jurisdiction
over these Oklahoma territories.
And even that is in question,
because there doesn't seem to be any indication
that the Indian nations in question gave any grant
or signed any agreement that they would be ruled by the federal government.
In other words, be a part of the federal government as a possession.
That is also in question.
And again, there'll be another court case over that.
So whether or not we will fall under federal law,
and you know, digital money, copyright, and everything,
federal income taxes the whole nine yards is in question.
Whether or not we'll remain, excuse me,
a possession of the United States of America is in question.
Just to lay that out there.
But I did want to clarify that,
because some statements were made that are misleading.
And again, I did not put in that show in the show notes
anything more specific other than the title for the show,
which is dev1review slash or dash and commentary.
And the subtitle, which you're required to put in,
dev1review plus I talk about race.
Again, as I recall, I put in none for the show notes.
All the show notes that you read here, people.
A bit of it was put in by a hacker public radio volunteer,
not me.
All I did was the audio.
And I want to make that very clear.
I also want to make it clear that they did it.
They handled this in a very professional manner.
And they are the rulers of this network.
So they'll do whatever they want to do.
And I can't stop them and control very anything else.
And don't necessarily want to.
But when I click on the link stuff you need to know.
And I'll just do so.
It says that we do not vet, edit, moderate,
or in any way sense or any of the shows on this network.
That is the first line from the link that I click on.
We do not edit.
That's what they're saying.
But they did.
They added all that stuff.
So I didn't put any of that in there.
And of course, the last comment is very interesting to listen.
Are very interesting to listen.
Probably more interesting than the episode about Devon to be honest.
Well, you know, let me just say something about that.
I'm back to running OpenVSD on the Dell Mini-10.
Because you know, I love it.
I'm running the I-36 version of OpenVSD 6.7.
And as with any distribution,
there's not much to talk about until they make a release.
And then maybe you could talk about a few of the new features.
But you know, I generally don't do that.
I think just having conversations like front porch conversations,
open and free speech is good.
And I believe that hacker public radio app helped that.
You know, my show wasn't blocked, cancelled,
or the audio edited anyway.
And I appreciate that.
But I did want to make true,
and just, you know, flat out right to say it,
that for all the people that are saying that my show notes
are misleading, I didn't enter any show notes.
And I just want to make that totally clear.
There are no show notes that were typed by me
on the keyboard when I submitted this show.
I just put it in none.
And I'll probably continue to do so.
Because I find the idea or the concept
that you're going to hold us accountable to show notes
that any one of the show producers
could make a mistake on
to be ridiculous.
I mean, if you don't like the commentator,
you don't listen to them, certainly.
But I don't see how a pre-added in text
is going to help you.
But anyway, maybe we should just make all of my shows
and mark them as what is the term here
is flagged as a clean and then released
into the CC by essay license.
They didn't change the flagging of it.
So really hacker public radio didn't do anything
other than just add the show notes.
I don't see a point to flagging my shows
as what was the term that they used.
Let me go ahead and click on his link again
and see what term they used for that.
A show that might be questionable.
Explicit, yeah, there it is.
The term explicit content.
I've always assumed that explicit content
would be either something of a mature,
perhaps sexual content, which I did talk about a pedophile
or using extremely bad foul language
or something like that, perhaps.
I also did click on and listen to the hacker public radio
2210 episode, which is recommended on the site,
where the author talks about some form
of either rock and roll music or maybe punk music
and how they had some bad graphical content
or something under wraps so that when somebody bought a CD,
they would be exposed to something
that they might have found objectionable.
I found the show interesting.
I'm not complaining about it.
But I'm not sure how that would apply to this situation
either other than he concludes saying
that most adults should have pants up
when they're listening to the show.
Let's be very clear that the internet
is not the public broadcasting band.
It's not like ABC, CBS, NBC,
or even the BBC, where the only way
a viewer can edit out content
is to basically turn the TV set off
and wait a half hour for the show to end
or change channels.
You can choose not to listen
anything that you want.
And as far as making it,
probably the only other exception
would be for children,
people playing the show openly for children,
which would require them to pre- edit it on their own.
And I would suggest that you do that
before you play it publicly anyway,
because, frankly,
what people find as objectionable
varies widely.
And I'm not criticizing
what people find as objectionable.
But when I go back through this commentary
like the one that's for listeners,
there's two minutes of discussion on Dev1
and the remaining 30-tier political commentary.
It's almost like he's making a complaint
about a misleading episode,
even though I was very clear
in my title that it was about those two subjects.
Dev1 review, plus I talk about race,
and it's right there in print.
Now, I'm not giving you percentages,
but it almost gives me the impression
that you're complaining about what I'm talking about
rather than the percentages of the content.
Either way, that's still legitimate.
If you choose not to listen,
that's fine.
Do a pre- edit,
or don't listen to many more,
whatever.
He's a free world.
I thought I would also take some time
to cover something that Brian Lenduk
here recently,
Brian Lenduk did on YouTube recently,
where he, Brian, was talking about
the bad points of being a non-imson of the internet.
For instance, you know,
Zing Zinfloor 2 is my handle here
in Hacker Public Radio.
Most people have a fictitious handle
like a hookah or
clat 2, which is a reference
from the movie The Day The Ears Did Still, I think,
or others.
Yet others like Ken Fallon,
Francis, does apparently not have
a pseudonym.
The first thing I'd like to say about
being anonymous is that
there's nothing really wrong with it,
because if you look at the banking world,
when you transfer funds,
or maybe sometimes when you transfer funds
with Bitcoin or Litecoin or one of these others,
you're using a number to do it,
or some other data block
that makes you anonymous.
Anonymous activity happens
in the government with Social Security numbers, for instance.
If you think about the number of ways
we can be anonymous, like with your car tag, for instance,
to most people you are anonymous,
only to the state you are not anonymous.
There are a multitude of ways that people have been anonymous
before the internet existed as a medium.
So I kind of disagree with Brian's comments
about why it's bad to be anonymous,
and I posted his first video to Gap,
and of course I got flack there too.
I get flack all the time.
And they were saying that Brian was basically just looking
for a way to where they could have corporate approved speech.
In other words, this is what they call cancel culture,
where they're going to control what you have to say.
And I sort of took the comment that the man made
that I'm misleading with two minutes of debut
and 30 minutes of political commentary
as somewhat cancel culture.
I was very clear on what I said,
and he's basically complaining that I did what I said
I was going to do.
He didn't like it.
Such as the case, Brian's complaint is,
I gather that a few people bother him based on his religion
or maybe based on the kinds of subject
he talks about with retro computing and stuff like that.
And he claims that he had to literally ban
a couple people off of YouTube for doing it.
Then he makes another video,
I'll post a link to that where he says,
basically the whole world came after him.
He got something over an 80% rejection
for his commentary in the first video about
why he thinks being anonymous should be basically illegal like this.
And continued to maintain his stance that he doesn't think
being anonymous is a good thing
or that protects your identity, you know, your privacy.
Well, certainly we could all make the argument
that if you gave somebody's full name over the internet,
there is a possibility that they could use that to access
your credit card information, which is about, again,
numbers, anonymous numbers or bank account information
or trash you out with the government
or do some other malicious thing,
which people are doing all the time.
We're doing it constantly.
I mean, cancel culture is a method
where we tear down people's independent thought
and let them know that free speech is not okay.
In other words, to be an American is not okay.
And that seems to be a trend or a mode globally,
not that I'm saying that hacker public radio in any way
indicated that free speech is bad, they haven't.
They have not canceled the show.
They have not edited my audio content
or even criticized me for my audio content.
So they are true to their word when you go
to their hacker public radio or stuff you need to know
about PHP, not moderated.
That they do not pre-listen to shows
and they do not edit them.
That's not to say that they don't defend themselves
in the case of the musician from Louisiana
and I've forgotten his name, who plates music on his.
I believe it was a Yamaha player piano here a year or so ago
that I intently listened to and the show was apparently deleted
because it would violate copyright,
the digital bullying copyright act.
And certainly if my territory, the one I live in now,
the National Forest, it was that we went to the Spring Court
back in 1972 and had that land around the Illinois River
declared as a national preserve, you know,
a national forest, the area that I live in
is in Florida, the part Native American person.
Certainly if the loss it goes through
and the Indian nations leaves the federal government,
we will not be obligated to follow the digital
bullying copyright act.
I'm certain of that.
We won't be obligated to follow any federal laws.
And therefore maybe at some point in the time
we can make a website which will allow people
to post musical content without fear of a lawsuit or reprisal.
And believe me, when you look at honey rights
and everything else, Native Americans have this magic ability
through their law and through their agreements
with the federal government to do things
that normal people cannot do and cannot get away with.
So maybe that'll be a possibility for the future.
So that might be one bright thing.
Let me pause this for a second,
because I did find a link from a young man who did a review
on some music.
I want to pull it up just a second here.
Okay, I have found the link.
Believe it or not, when I was playing Brian's videos
on YouTube, Brian Lindox videos,
I noticed this and the title of this YouTube video
was called The Girl from Ebeneva
is a far-worder song that you thought.
And it's done by Adam Neely.
And he goes in a detail about the melody chords
and how the song was composed,
getting into detail, I guess,
about Brazilian culture, Brazilian bossanofa.
Anyway, at the end of this video,
Adam mentions that on the CuriosityStream and Nebula,
for $15 per year,
apparently musicians can post
and replay more than, say, five or six seconds of clips of video
in order to do commentary like Adam Neely is doing on this song.
And so many of the songs,
he could only play, you know, four or five seconds
of the different versions of The Girl from Ebeneva
to make his points,
because the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
wouldn't allow him to play the full song.
But apparently on this CuriosityStream and Nebula thing
that he's pointing at,
which I will also post the link to that,
to Adam Neely's thing here,
you can do more than that legally, somehow.
So maybe they have the appropriate licenses to do it,
I don't know.
Anyway, that's just something that I picked up on,
while I was reviewing Brian Lunduk's content.
So at any rate,
somewhere in here, I was reading.
I think it was on Hacker Public Radio's
Need to Know page, maybe.
Here we go.
Yeah, I'll just read the entire page.
Your show will not be moderated.
We do not vet, edit, moderate,
or in any way censor any of the shows in the network.
We trust you to do that.
Aside from checking snippets for audio quality,
spam checking, which I'm not sure what he means by spam checking.
Maybe they get people that run advertisements on here or something.
We have a policy that we don't listen to shows before they're aired.
This is a long-standing tradition arising from the fact
that HBR is a community of peers who believe
that any host has as much right to submit shows as any other.
The second topic your show will be signaled
as containing explicit content,
given that we are an open forum,
which means you could put a show about just about anything on here,
for free speech, we signal all our shows as explicit
with the assumption that the listener will apply the required discretion
when playing the shows in public.
That said, the majority of our content is technical in nature,
and therefore is often considered appropriate for any audience.
Well, if it's an open forum,
the fact that the majority of your shows
is of a technical nature is just a point of fact.
Most of the people on here are talking about computer or technology,
but there are a few talking about redoing matchbox cars
or building bicycles or whatnot.
I mean, these show topics do vary all over the board.
So I don't think that they're trying to say
that the content of Hacker Public Radio
has to be of a highly technical nature,
or about computers or electronics,
or something of that nature that would be scientific.
If you feel that your show will be considered inoffensive
in every region of the world,
then you can signal that when you upload your show.
Well, you know, I don't have a poll
and it might be interesting to take a poll
from the Hacker Public Radio community
to just let me know directly in the comments
if you feel that the contents of this show
or the one titled Hacker Public Radio 3122
should be marked as explicit and white.
I mean, that might be interesting to read the results of that
to find out what the opinions of people are
as to what they think explicit shows are,
you know, what makes a show explicit
because just a term explicit
and trying to define that out,
again, it's a highly objective term
just as objective as this link
to McGurt versus Oklahoma
that was posted in here in my show notes
by Hacker Public Radio volunteers
because it doesn't really specifically state anything.
It just states the arguments that are going
in front of the Supreme Court.
It doesn't make any conclusions.
It's highly, it's all subjective.
Anyway, I think I'll let it go at that
because I think I've put out enough.
Those are two interesting subjects
that maybe we'll get some input back for the community on
and see what they have to say about it.
But the one thing that I do respect
about Hacker Public Radio, you know,
I understand is they need to protect themselves
from financial loss due to lawsuits
or having higher attorneys over things
involving like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
where you're playing music or something of that nature
where they could be sued and lose money in the process.
You know, it would cost them money,
it would cost them time out of their lives
to go and do this.
And in that regard, I also want to stipulate
that I did not ask Hacker Public Radio
to add these show notes to my show
about Dev1 or McGurt versus Oklahoma
because I specifically didn't want them.
I said none.
Again, the reason I didn't post the complaint,
which is what that is, is it's meaningless.
It does prove that it existed,
but they could get that from other media sources
if they bother to follow it.
But it also tells me one other thing
that was very important,
and I have to thank the Hacker Public Radio person
for doing it.
It tells me that it's the consensus
of most of the people on Hacker Public Radio
that they were totally unaware of this subject,
that they don't normally follow media sources
that cover major events like this,
and most of the public was not aware of the fact
that the state of Oklahoma is largely defunct,
and it's gone.
And we'll probably be sued out of existence here shortly.
They had no idea that this happened.
And so by posting this,
he's basically validating that the story is
at least true in that part.
I also want to state that I made no determinations
in the audio as to what direction I think they'll go.
I'm just listing out the pass as he has,
he lists here speculation as to possible reunifications.
That is just exactly the speculation.
It's just me repeating what other trial lawyers
and journalists have said in the industry
about this subject,
the possible avenues that they could go on.
And certainly if I see anything pop up in the Creek Nation
or Cherokee Nation governmental actions,
I'll bring them up on a show in the future.
But that's probably going to be a ways off.
I'm sure that they're all having private meetings
with their attorneys because most of these nations
are basically just a body of trial lawyers.
I went to college at Northeastern State University
in Tellac, Oklahoma.
And there was a large body of Cherokee lawyers
that I would associate with
and one of the community halls there
from way back when.
And basically these nations are just,
again, large groups of attorneys
that sue the federal government for benefits.
That's what their structure had been post the dissolvement.
And I know for a fact,
having talked to a couple of them this week,
no one from the Cherokee Nation anyway
was even remotely of the mindset
that they were going to be handed back their territory
and this their nation
in such a brief amount of time
is what just happened.
They've been making no plans on it
or having any discussions on it.
They just came into them out of the blue.
So if you think about it,
they've got like 5,000 frigging things
that they have to do now.
For instance, if you're a county in the state of Oklahoma,
like the county I live in,
which is Delaware County, by the way,
which is part of the national reserve
that I was referring to.
We've already been to the Supreme Court back in 1972
on that land.
All the laws of that county,
of Delaware County are, in fact,
based on Oklahoma laws.
So the each individual county
of which there are hundreds
will have to make decisions
whether or not the Cherokee Nation decides
on anything or the Creek Nation decides on anything
or the Pawnee or Chickasay
or Choctaw Nation decide anything.
They're going to have to make their own independent decisions
as to whether,
and maybe it'll be put to a vote
to whether they want to continue
to keep on their roles,
the state laws that they have decided
they're going to enforce in Passant.
Same thing holds true for cities
because cities are going to be in worse shape than counties
and that they are incorporated
with the state of Oklahoma.
And if the state of Oklahoma doesn't exist anymore,
then neither does you town legally.
So towns like Tulsa
and towns like Muscogee,
towns like Telequap,
towns like J. Oklahoma,
and several others
that I could mention
Hugo Oklahoma,
which is the home of Carl Albert,
the former Speaker of the House
from the 60s,
the men I used to write letters to
during the Vietnam War.
All of these towns
don't exist.
So what are you going to do about that?
So it just keeps panicking,
keeps getting worse.
I'm going to go ahead and cut it off
because I think that was enough of a share for this time
and I'm going to go ahead and post it
and thank everybody for your commentary.
It was very interesting reading
and I'm sure
everyone had fun doing it,
all of them,
even the people that apparently
don't like me.
Bye for now from Zen Floder,
your favorite magical
for a squirrel,
former human being,
converted into squirrel
by aliens in the 1960s
and you did hear me say that.
Good night folks.
You've been listening
to Hacker Public Radio
at HackerPublicRadio.org.
We are a community podcast network
that releases shows every weekday
Monday through Friday.
Today's show,
like all our shows,
was contributed
by an HPR listener like yourself.
If you ever thought of recording a podcast
and click on our contributing
to find out how easy it really is.
Hacker Public Radio was founded
by the digital dog pound
and the Infonomicon Computer Club
and is part of the binary revolution
at binwreff.com.
If you have comments on today's show,
please email the host directly,
leave a comment on the website
or record a follow-up episode yourself.
Unless otherwise status,
today's show is released on the road.
Create a comment,
attribution,
share a light,
3.0 license.