HN user
good luck, i'm behind 7 proxies
42% of the apps on LG's platform have these quasi-malware SDKs in them? Seems kinda bad, whether it's due to negligence or just pure incompetence? You'd think there might be legal consequences for a corporation that lets their app store turn into a malware delivery system?
None other than Einstein refused, all the way to his death, to accept a probabilistic interpretation in spite of all evidence pointing in that direction. [...] Of course there even remains the possibility that at some point in the future he may even be proven correct
To the extent that decoherence is the currently favored interpretation of quantum mechanics, that's basically now. In that picture, god does not play dice with the universe, rather the observers are themselves the dice.
You're describing "negligence", and "our legal and philosophical perspectives" are in fact quite familiar with it
Right? "Never attribute to malice what [... etc]" is always just a thought-terminating cliche these days.
TBH I have a hard time imagining how anyone, in the year 2026, thinks that we should default to assuming good intent behind words on the internet.
Any individual human (or frog, obviously) is getting out of the pot when it gets uncomfortable.
True stupidity requires a group of humans, all sitting in the pot, telling each other how lucky and special they are to have this wonderful pot, getting paranoid about outsiders who might disrupt their god-given pot-dwelling way of life, and mocking anyone who suggests that the pot might be getting a little too warm.
I want XBOX to be one of the few companies that entertains more than a billion people each day
Seriously, I cannot fathom why you would say this. Innumeracy? Narcissistic delusion? Stealth launch for a new industrial human cloning project?
IMO it's worth watching the video rather than reading someone's writeup of it. My favorite part is this (written) list of everything that went wrong [1] ... and how much of it is due to the intersection of hardware, software, vendors, and linux
Literally some of the first advertised uses for LLMs were both "You can feed it bullet points and it will compose an entire email" and "You can take long emails and condense them into bullet points!" They've been doing this since day 1.
for people to hold different definitions of words [...] is the single biggest reason for all arguments in recent human history.
IMO this extremely, extraordinarily true. And in my experience, it's somehow even more true for disagreements among scientists. Even though every scientific field is, in some sense, about defining a shared set of extremely precise jargon. (I recall two very well-respected scientists screaming at each other about the definition of "acidity" for instance)
Corollary: If a computer makes a business decision, the person who delegated the decision to the computer must be held accountable.
Consequence: All business decisions will eventually be delegated to computers via sufficiently convoluted and untraceable processes such that no manager can ever be held accountable.
If you don't want people to optimize against your filtering process, you have to make it somewhat nondeterministic.
I'm sorry, I'm not following this at all. When you say "better candidates are exponentially more likely to pass the filter", we're still are talking about a metric, yes? A metric that can be optimized? Why would switching from a hard cutoff to some sort of stochastic filter weighted by this metric discourage optimization?
This is, indeed, the next generation of AOP: they've managed to evolve it from "extremely complex and hard to understand runtime behavior" into "completely undefined runtime behavior". UB as a service. True innovation!
it could be reviewers and others intentionally trying to sabotage other people's work
Anyone with even a tiny bit of knowledge about the topic being discussed would know that everything I described happens after reviewers and editors approve the manuscript. At this stage, they have all long since ended their involvement in the process.
As with most conspiracy theories, this "theory" reveals much about you, but fails to say anything at all about the topic at hand. [1]
Right? A lot of journals make a big deal about submitting your manuscript in the proper format (sometimes even LaTeX if you're lucky) and then you get the galley proofs back and half the equations and citations now have typos in them.
The entire publishing process often feels like a chain of "you had ONE job"-type errors from the journals (presumably because they're wildly underpaying and overworking the people whose one job these things should have been).
Well, maybe no competition when we're talking about institutional access rights on dry land. However, for everyone else, there's quite a bit of competition out there in the high seas.
I am unable to comprehend the state of mind that would lead one to ask this question.
As a legal theory, "this default judgement against an anonymous AliExpress seller is binding on literally everyone in the world" kinda reminds me of the Dune nft bros' "we bought a book about Dune and therefore now own the intellectual property rights to Dune."
Except this one is apparently coming from actual accredited lawyers? (Who knows, I'm not a lawyer, maybe it really does work that way and Fender is the first company to figure out how to exploit this)
Whether you're a consumer, employee, or enterprise IT, in today's data-rich world, it can be difficult to tell if your information is really being stored securely.
I'm therefore proud to announce my new, AI-powered startup to help you navigate the modern privacy landscape. It's called Nope™. If you're concerned about privacy, make sure Nope™ is the first thing you think of.
It's easy to get started! Whenever you find yourself asking, "Is this company really storing my data securely?", your next thought should be: "Nope™"
So, um, the phrase "legally forced" really does not go with "happened easily".
Ignoring what "legally" forced entails, and just focusing on the mechanics of renaming stuff: Even if your code base can be updated with a simple "s/old/new/" regex (and, IME, this never, ever works as well as you thought it would, and always creates a long tail of manual grepping and editing), you still have to fix the docs, deal with breaking API changes, support multiple versions, provide upgrade paths, deal with confused users, etc. etc. etc.
And, um, confusingly, the examples you cite are actually even more complicated and work-intensive than what is being talked about in this article, because they also require URL / domain name updates, legal document changes, regulatory filings, etc. etc.
TLDR: the contention that "name changes happen easily" is not an accurate description of the situations you are citing.
Dunno, the old school "we'll get you started in the mailroom, and you can work your way up by gaining knowledge about the organization while demonstrating competence and professionalism" sounds like a pretty solid hiring strategy.
Although tbf I kind of doubt if this was ever really the case - probably this is imagined nostalgia for idealized bygone times. And given that this is a strategy that requires, y'know, long-term investment and planning, it's not like it's going to start happening anytime in the near future
tbh I think it's probably just commented out (and is about as likely to still work as any other commented-out code)
In contrast, I don't know that much about VMs.
But if you're making a big fundamental change to a system, I do know that it shouldn't start with a single "+279,276 -4,272" PR. It starts with a small patch with the core of the change so that everyone can understand what it does and how it works. (I mean, ideally, a change like this starts with documentation, discussion, diagrams, surveys of existing implementations, etc, before you start writing code)
You don't cram everything into a single 270K line PR, even (especially) with an LLM, unless you specifically don't want anyone else to look too closely at what you did.
liked the idea of the book and used the bulk of its text as lorem ipsum in a demo
I'm sorry, what? What exactly do you think is happening here?
did we inadvertently train AIs on idiotspeak.
Nope! That is - training on lowest-common-denominator, low-signal high-noise "idiotspeak" was not at all inadvertent.
Ah, they're using the wrong model, of course. "AI" hasn't failed, it's the users who are wrong.
Not to comment on the overall ethical situation (dunno what constitutes informed consent for an alzheimer's patient in Brazil, presumably it involves some legal guardian), but this is a doctor reporting on an individual treatment of their patient. It is not a research study. Doctors have wide latitude in treating their own patients, they do not require board approval to do so.
Really? Every time I do a search I feel like there are too many TEA frameworks for rust, and I have to figure out which ones to invest time into. afaict iced and xilem are probably the best current options
"Make no mistakes" is I thought a phrase used to make fun of "prompt engineering," not something people really do?
Executing normal python programs inside a cpython vm inside a wasm context inside a javascript process inside a sandbox inside a browser is - genuinely - extremely exciting! (Might as well run the browser inside a container inside a VM while you're at it though.)
If you are being attacked, causing your attacker to misdirect and otherwise waste their resources is almost universally regarded as a defensive action.
The attacker here was trying to use a software agent to run DOS attacks. Perhaps they were a "naive noob outsider", perhaps they misconfigured something. It is not generally the victim's responsibility to try to figure this out.
And it is definitely not the victim's responsibility to determine the attacker's state of mind if they don't even have any way to contact them. In this case, the attacker was using their software agent specifically to avoid interacting with the targets of their attack.