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

434
hpr_transcripts/hpr4439.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,434 @@
Episode: 4439
Title: HPR4439: Rejecting a show ?
Source: https://hub.hackerpublicradio.org/ccdn.php?filename=/eps/hpr4439/hpr4439.mp3
Transcribed: 2025-10-26 00:43:47
---
This is Hacker Public Radio Episode 4,439 for Thursday the 7th of August 2025.
Today's show is entitled Rejecting a Show?
It is hosted by Cannes Fallon and is about 23 minutes long.
It carries an explicit flag.
The summary is, the reason given is using HBR as a means to push a particular product
or view.
This show contains information that may be difficult for some people to hear.
Please take the appropriate precautions when listening to this show.
I repeat.
This show contains information that may be difficult for some people to hear.
Please take the appropriate precautions when listening to this show.
Thank you.
The following is a discussion on the male list.
It is being read here and it exceeds the limit that can be possibly read on the community news show.
The first post is from Cannes Fallon.
Start on post.
Hi all.
This is to inform you that I'm rejecting a show on the grounds that it falls under hate speech
slash pams as using HBR as a means to push a particular product or view.
This came to light when I was scrubbing through the audio when posting the show.
This is allowed by the policy we do not vet, edit, moderate or in any way censor any of the audio submit.
We trust you not to upload anything that will harm HBR.
Aside from checking snippets for audio quality slash pams checking, we have a policy that
we don't listen to the shows before they are aired.
The show itself would best be described as a religious sermon.
Given that in a particularly sensitive topic, I have consulted with some HBR elders, who
have publicly shared their belief or lack their own, to get their opinion.
They unanimously agreed that it is pams, in the sense of, using HBR as a means to push a particular product or view.
The point has been made that it could be of interest to hackers, however the full policy is.
There is no restriction on how long the show can be, nor on the topic you can cover as long as they are not pams,
and are of interest to hackers, so that doesn't apply in the case of pams.
There will always be someone, who will click on a spam link, or the business model would not work.
We are a tech podcast dedicated to sharing knowledge, and we are not topping anyone talking about their views on religion, politics, sex, distro on editor on choice, etc.
At in part on, who we are, and it informs us as people.
However this is also a hacker space, not a place on worship.
At set I have been happy to see many shows, where people have been working on something for their place on worship,
and have received support and assistance from people, who were not on that faith.
We are a welcoming community that offers positive feedback, and encourages respectful debate.
So if you have something to say then say it, ideally in the form of a show, and I'm currently posting yet another three shows from the Reserve queue.
Links are provided in the post.
End on post.
In the next post can reply saying, start on post.
For not to mention that, if anyone wants the transcript, end being me, and I'll forward on a redacted version.
End on post.
The next post is from Brian K. Averett, start on post.
I'd like a transcript please.
Brian in Ohio.
End on post.
The next post is from Jim Lennard, start on post.
After reading the redacted transcript, I can confidently say it is proselytizing, which is not at all appropriate for HDR.
The show consists of reading aloud some Bible verses, summarizing them, and ending.
Subject matter aside, there's no attempt to provide commentary, insight, or suitability on purpose for hackers.
So the decision to reject it is 100% warranted IMO.
Proselytizing is sometimes a right of passage for newly converted people on some religions.
I believe the submitter wants simply using HDR as a broadcast platform to attend.
So, again, correct to reject this.
End on post.
For an explanation of prosatism we refer to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Quote.
Prosatism is the policy of attempting to convert people's religious beliefs.
Carrying out attempt to instill beliefs can be called proselytination.
Prosatism is illegal in some countries.
Some broad distinctions between Christian evangelism and prosatism,
regarding prosatism as involuntary or coerced.
The two terms can also be understood to merely be synonyms.
End quote.
The next post is from Ken Fallen start on post.
Can the people who requested a transcript please give your feedback to the list?
End on post.
The next post is from Claudia Omer under start on post.
Hi, all.
So, I'd been thinking about this one for a bit before I replied.
I even had a talk with Ken about this because I personally think it should be allowed.
Even though it was rough reading the transcript whisper generated,
having seen something similar generated for other forms of belief,
or non-belief systems didn't really change my mind much.
And something being submitted with a similar structure as what was generated,
I wouldn't have had an issue with it.
Despite my Christian beliefs, I am open to hearing such things from other religions,
or even humanists to get a perspective on things,
and to understand why I believe, or don't believe, in such things,
part of my hacker mentality, I guess.
The only possible idea is with what would generally be considered occultic,
with some exceptions, it depends on context, but I digress.
If it was on something that really didn't interest me, or something I'm spiritually adverse to,
I would have stopped and skipped the episode entirely.
If maybe a disclaimer, or a better description of what was being discussed,
allowing the listener to choose whether, or not to listen to the content,
would have been better.
Still, there have been other episodes in the past that have posted a particular title,
and summary on what the content would be, and then talking maybe five minutes about it,
and going on a tangent for the rest of the episode on things that weren't what the title,
or some are mentioned, and yes, there was some proselytizing during that tangent,
more political than religious.
I was with that being grouped by the title, but I listened anyway until I just called them
anymore.
I guess that's me, though.
However, the title, and summary on this episode were clear,
and I didn't feel that anything was being pushed.
However, if it does violate the rules for HDR,
then I can see the insight on my disagreement on it in this instance.
Of course, this would then have to apply to all episodes on similar structure,
or anything that pushes a particular product, or new.
Some people have submitted episodes reviewing certain products that they have,
and I haven't felt no episodes as being pushing something on me.
I can't remember if anything was recommended on any of those,
but will the recommendation episode be considered as spam for pushing a particular product,
or new, even if it was of interest to hackers?
I know that one episode from that one submitter did,
and without a clear title, or summary, why,
then, was that allowed?
If it was before the rule was in place, I understand,
but then it has to be a rule for all, not some.
Thanks for taking the time to read my rambles,
go and be.
Claudio.
And on post.
The next post is from cmart 387 start on post.
Below is my response to care after reading it.
Though, reading the Wikipedia definition of spam,
I missed the use of commons that basically make it a deleted list of what is spam,
and the multiple unsolicited messages appear to modify only one of those points.
One, spamming is the use of messaging systems to send multiple unsolicited messages,
spam, to large numbers of recipients for the purpose of commercial advertising,
to non-commercial advertising free and prohibited purpose,
especially fishing, for simply repeatedly sending the same message to the same user.
I'm a bit ambivalent today, as Claudio points out there are other shows that,
push a new, it could be an interesting series of shows hearing people's reactions.
King has it.
Asterisk original response code Asterisk I would consider this
proselytizing, which fits the WKIP definition of spamming.
spamming is the use of messaging systems to send multiple unsolicited messages,
spam, to large numbers of recipients for the purpose of commercial advertising,
non-commercial proselytizing, or any prohibited purpose,
especially fishing, or simply repeatedly sending the same message to the same user.
spam, however, appears to require repeated, multiple messages to be sent,
Wikipedia gives the example of someone repeatedly posting messages on a message board.
Since this episode is a single submission, and not 10 times,
it doesn't seem like it fits the spam definition.
I could see there being an argument that it's not of interest for hackers.
Unfortunately both grounds, spam, or not of interest to hackers,
are somewhat subjective, even though I think the right answer is a no.
It's frustrating and I personally would write up with new express,
but HBR is just not the right menu for it.
Other thoughts.
One, I don't know if we would find it acceptable for putting a disclaimer at the beginning of the episode,
if it was posted.
At Woodful Field, they're not editing on the submitted audio.
We already inserted intro.
Two, we could always tighten up the language on what is allowed to help in similar cases in the future.
End of post.
The next post is from my great start on post.
Religion for absolutely no place on HBR info.
And then religious speech attenuates any other faith apart from that of the speaker doubly so.
Keep the one thing that has killed more people since time immemorial of HBR.
End of post.
The next post is from my great start on post.
I didn't find the content offensive so much as irrelevant to HBR,
and therefore not valid material.
A show, in which some of it proudly proclaims their religious affiliations,
on whatever flavor, while describing the tech tools they used to spread,
the word would get the HBR tick in the box in my view,
because it covers browned likely to be of interest to the minority of HBR listen as new to
some mistakeable tech content.
There is, of course, a gray area here.
Should every show without some demonstrable tech content or angle be bad?
Never been plenty over the years, and often may be very enjoyable listening to.
Tech content should still not be the ultimate determinant, though.
If, for an ample, somebody reviewed a distro, and then said in all seriousness,
that if you do not use XY Madlyux, then you deserve to die painfully, and rot in hell,
the tech aspect of the show surely would not save it.
A slightly extreme example, I know, but I think it illustrates my point.
End of post.
The next post is from Joshua Nutt start on post.
It is not often I weigh in on subjects, but rejecting shows is one I pay extra closer attention to.
I read through the transcript, and every weekend at this show does not belong on HBR.
Outside of my own beliefs about religion, this very much reads like a sermon, proselytizing.
While some may feel it is of interest on hackers, I personally don't.
Josh Sashadodo.
End of post.
The next post is from Haji Sarasthat on post.
I'm going to be honest, I'm on two minds about this.
One on hand, I can understand at this subject,
Josh Kodzash be on sash, some sash interest to sash, some sash hackers, but I ain't one of them.
I'm not sure if I'd able to spam outright.
I'm also worried about the justification of, using HBR as a means to push a particular product,
or new, as that seems like a pretty low barter cross to reject shows.
My other mind, which is deeply personal, and admittedly flawed,
thinks that this episode is at best in bad taste, and at worst just outright offensive.
As someone of a face that is not Christianity, I'd be open to a discussion,
or debate about religion, and hacking as an episode, if it were well done.
What I'm not open to is throwing Bible quotes over the world like grenades, and calling that a show.
It's frankly a new point I've had to endure my entire life living in the US,
and I don't fancy doing so anymore.
Hopefully this final opinion is more practical.
I would still reject the show, but I would do so simply because it could damage HBR.
If I were a potential HBR listener slash subscriber,
and download an episode to evaluate whether I want to keep listening,
and slash or contribute, and hear a podcast that is someone talking about Christian's
scripture, that would be the first, and last time I would have anything to do with it.
I can't imagine I'm alone in that feeling.
Hedge.
End of post.
The next post is from the end.
The start of post.
My view is that the show shouldn't be posted to HBR feed, because it is not of interest to hackers.
It's a Bible study like an Bible study you'd find in church.
As far as I can tell from the transcript, the post didn't explain why they are presenting it to an audience on hackers,
and didn't give it a treatment that might be of interest to hackers.
It's a plain Bible study prevented us, if the audience can be assumed to be interested in Christian's scripture.
A useful comparison might be, if you imagine an HBR show about the Kansas City Chiefs,
that reads just like one of the roundtable shows on TV.
Everyone would agree that it is not of interest to the HBR audience.
Shows that are not of interest to hackers are likely to deal with subjects that are controversial,
and that people tend to be very passionate about, because no other hot takes for which people seek an outlet.
So, maybe there could be an amendment stating that shows featuring controversial subjects,
such as politics or religion or health or strictest standard of being of interest to hackers.
At way we don't have to man controversial subjects outright,
but we set a higher bar for them in order to prevent abuse.
The end of post.
The next post is from Windigo Start of Post.
You can count me among the conflicted.
I think this show is clearly of interest to hackers, even if it is not a standard topic.
We've had unusual shows before, and I hope we will again.
But I think this show does approach, I'm slashing a particular product,
or new, a little too close for comfort.
The post seemed to mostly be sharing their understanding on some biblical verses,
but does seem to tailor a message towards recruitment near the end,
but is at very different from a post explaining their views on a project or distribution,
and inviting others to try it.
Would my opinion be different if this episode were regarding the text of another religion,
like Moro's Trionism or Jediism?
It does feel like we should reject this show,
new to the proselytizing style of the episode,
thanks to Josh App for the apt term.
If the post wanted to record a more objective episode,
explaining their interpretation of different Bible verses,
I feel like that would be different.
Still, it feels like a tough call.
We can always use more shows.
Colin.
Windigo.
End of post.
The next post is from Kenforth and Start of Post.
Nice thinking like a janitor here.
We all agree that it would be of interest to at least some hackers.
So we are arguing about, if it's spam, or better yet spamming.
I still say it's spamming in the sense of,
using HDR as a means to push a particular product, or new.
What makes me sure of it is that in our eye 20 years of podcasting,
and with all the religious folks here on HDR,
no one has sent in a show like this before.
So a janitor might ask, why did that post send it in our, and like this?
Ignorance.
Ah, not adding that.
Trolling.
All the nice people here assume that the person posting it in a genuine believer,
but a janitor has to ask, if they are posting for the roles,
hard to prove, and no point asking,
let's give them the benefit of them out.
Devotion.
The need to spread their message out ways, the values,
and norms of a community built up over 20 years.
Looks like, using HDR as a means to push a particular product, or new, to me.
I do get that calling a religious text,
Pam, is not ideal.
And I asked a risk-a-risk appreciate the tolerance the devout among us have shown in this discussion.
So perhaps we need to replace, we trust you not to upload anything that will harm HDR,
with, we trust you not to submit anything that go against the goals, norms, and values of HDR.
Same rules apply to the janitors when applying this.
First we discuss the issue with the posts, keeping the auditors informed.
And if that doesn't resolve it we bring it to the male list to discuss.
Thoughts.
End of post.
The next post is from Jim Leonard's start of post.
In response to Windigo when he said,
still, it feels like a tough coil.
We can always use more shows.
Colin.
To compensate, I will be uploading two shows to account for rejecting the religious one.
It doesn't seem like a tough coil to me at all,
while some hackers may be interested in religion, religion is not an appropriate general topic
for all general hackers.
And while there might have been some sort of spin at God and being applied,
something like, how these Bible verses apply to modern hacking,
that wasn't done.
Without such spin, the show is simply proselytizing, which is pushing a view.
It seems incredibly obvious to me that the show should have been rejected, and it was.
It's unfortunate that the discussion of the merits of a religious show has taken up way,
way more time than the time that uploader spent on recording, and uploading it.
I don't feel this conversation thread should continue,
with any remaining energies spent recording, and submitting shows that
asterisk or asterisk appropriate for a hacking audience.
End of post.
The next post is from Steve Sainer's start of post.
At this point, I am not convinced that, based on the current policies and practices of HBR,
that the episode in question should be rejected.
For full disclosure, I assume that my world view is more or less adjacent to that of the
contributors, based only on the transcript.
I therefore was not offended by the content, but I can understand why others might be.
Nonetheless you can filter my comments through this disclosure, if you so choose.
One reason given for why this show might be rejected is that it doesn't align with HBR content.
That it isn't of interest to hackers.
However, the criteria that a show should be of interest to hackers has been purposefully
left extremely wide open.
I feel that it has been implied many times that there really is no matter what can be considered
of interest to hackers.
And, while most episodes do include some element of tech, or what you might consider
hacker material, many examples can be found at don't.
And the fact that this contribution is religious in nature can't be an exception to
that and unless there is a policy that it's at.
Another major reason given for why this show should be rejected is that it qualifies as
Pam.
And specifically it has been said that what makes it Pam is that it is, using HBR as a means
to push a particular product or new.
My first question is, where does that definition of Pam come from exactly?
I can't find many references to it on the HBR website.
But, assuming that it is a good and valid definition of Pam,
I wonder how it applies to the episode in question.
What product or new is being pushed?
I find no words to the effect on.
You should believe this, or if you don't agree then you are.
The listener isn't advised to join a particular religion or denomination.
There is no direct admonition against a different religion,
from what I read, a contributor not quoting some verses,
and commenting on what I mean to them.
If that is pushing a particular product or new, then what HBR episode is not guilty of the same?
At said, I do know that in religion and politics emotions can run very high,
and people often do get carried away, and do push agendas, and views,
and in doing so often penetrate those you have different views.
So I can see why this contribution may feel like that,
but I don't think that transcripts are either objectively any different
and reading words about the nature of Linux, and then commenting on what that means to them,
and why they like it, and then encouraging others to try it.
Another definition of Pam that has been mentioned is that the contributor posted this episode
just for kicks to see what kind of response may get, or to troll the community.
Again, I know that trolling is common with religious or political messages,
so I can see why this episode may feel that way,
but I get no objective sense on that from the transcript.
This is, however, a place where listening to the audio might give a different impression,
but don't want to deliver it or betray that kind of motivation.
So, as stated a firm, I have not yet earned a reason that compels me,
under the policies, and practices on HBR, to say that this episode should be rejected.
At said, I do share some of the sentiment expressed by others,
that I don't really want to see HBR become full on this kind of content,
even if I agree 100% with what is being said,
I don't generally feel like HBR is the place where I would choose to share it.
Many forums do have explicit rules against the posting of religious,
or political content to deal with this,
and I wouldn't be opposed to HBR developing a slightly more restrictive definition
of what is of interest to hackers.
And I was perusing the HBR website to remind myself of what is,
and isn't stated regarding censorship, and Pam,
I found several references to episode 2, 210 colon,
on Freedom of Speech, and censorship.
I listened to that episode, and was reminded of a previous episode
that was posted, and accepted, but did generate some controversy.
I just don't see how this episode is fundamentally different than that one.
Best regards Steve.
And on post.
The next post is from Kenforth and start on post.
High Steve.
Fair points.
To be 100% clear I consider every post to be a potential troll,
and everything, and anything sent to HBR to be a potential threat.
This comes with having to work from a position in 2010,
where we were blocked across the internet,
due to our site being overrun with Pam.
We are now a welcoming community that offers positive feedback,
and then courage is respectful debate,
but that doesn't happen by itself,
and we all have a role to play keeping it search.
We've had to deal with our fair share of issues over the years,
and the choices we made then may not have been the best in hindsight,
but I hope you accept that they were made in good faith at the time.
At said, there are some shows on the podcast
that I personally am very uncomfortable with,
and some new express,
that do not reflect well on the HBR community.
In the past we could let it go,
secure in the knowledge that they were unlikely to be discovered.
That is no longer the case,
as can be seen by the recent Spotify copyright claim.
The increased use of AI means that all our shows are available for scrutiny,
and that we are a podcast, and not a podcast hosting platform
this reflects on all of us,
with the implications that may bring.
Therefore, if there are any shows that are on the site,
which you feel harm HBR,
first see, if a response episode is sufficient to address the grievance.
If not, then please bring it to the attention of the janitor at HBR,
and we will see, if the concerns are rounded based on the same criteria,
if the show was being posted today.
And on post.
The next post is from start on post.
Hi. I have not read, nor requested, the transcript.
Based on the description, and arguments I can smash the janitor,
I am fine, and agree with the decision.
However, I want to share an open thought I have.
Beside the judgment of the content, and reasoning described I can below,
the smash can smash should the decision take into account
the previous interaction slash participation at the post,
thus that win HBR.
I mean, if the post, S, before foreign ample,
thus given shows, which clearly are on Hacker's interest,
given relevant comments on other shows,
interacted with HBR Atmatrix,
master non-etc, in a positive Hacker way,
would not be taken into account for decision for this particular episode,
or for that matter the opposite,
if such interactions have been of a very non-hacker way.
This in relation to, if this rejected show was the first known interaction
with HBR, I'm a post, S, or in each show for the only reviewed on its own merits,
regards Henrik Henrin, and on post.
Okay, that's all the feedback I'm on writing.
Tune in tomorrow for another exciting episode on Hacker,
public radio exclamation.
You have been listening to Hacker Public Radio,
as Hacker Public Radio does work.
Today's show was contributed by a HBR listener like yourself.
If you ever thought of recording podcasts,
you click on our contribute link to find out how easy it really is.
Hosting for HBR has been kindly provided by
an honesthost.com,
the internet archive, and our sings.net.
On the Sadois status, today's show is released under Creative Commons,
Attribution 4.0 International License.