HN user
Founder and CEO at RideCell (YC W12) YC Badge: 0x185d9b2d3cb7d6d50da7746b8e63caf66a83c840
This seems like an important post. It looks like these letters are occasionally used to as a tactic, and i can see how such a tactic can really scare employees in a country where legal bills can climb really fast.
Super useful succinct crystallization!
Your statement is technically correct (and mirrors my initial feelings) but the comment below that notes that we accept many other abstractions seems more “meaningful” in the larger scheme of things.
For instance, a software engineer who also understands how to design microprocessors would indeed in my own evaluation be a “better engineer” than me (someone who does not). Yet, I wonder if they would be meaningfully more productive than a good software engineer who “just” understands how microprocessors work..
The current administration's actions are for sure signaling a distinct lack of predictability or stability.
The U.S. is either harming itself erratically, or systematically enforcing control on US based businesses in a way that is historically more synonymous with, say, China.
A lot of us worry it is the former. I wonder if it's better or worse if it is the latter. The US, having seen that Europe and the world seem to tolerate interference by CPC based on opinions expressed by Alibaba or Chinese car companies, may have decided that it's fair game.
If you re-read my comment, I am not saying that.
It seems to be observably true that expressing opinions critical of the administration, even about one's own business, leads to further harm from government right now in the U.S. in a country which is supposed to have strong freedom of speech rights.
It's obviously unfortunate that this is the case.
It's also a shame that this is happening when the folks regulating AI have a tech industry background.
The administration seems to be clearly signaling "stop resisting". I am not sure how you read me as saying that.
Unfortunately saying it in the press is going to make it even harder for them in the current environment. I know this administration gets non-trivial support from the valley, but what to most outsiders seems like "targeting businesses based on personal vibes" is going to do long-term harm to the U.S.
I hope those who represent technology in government, especially the AI head David Sacks are giving this due consideration.
Buying state owned enterprises and running them more efficiently to double their valuation (or more) has been a reliably profitable business in many countries. This suggests to me that government bureaucracy, lack of accountability etc. could result in “at cost” trending to $100 or more if government buys private companies, or starting close to $100 if government starts a new one.
Option-shift-hyphen
Thanks for sticking up for my humanity ;)
My favorite part of the paper is that the “attack” isn’t just exploiting a bug — it’s exploiting how different components interpret the same input. Modifying an executable as it’s loaded into memory is one example, but the deeper pattern is the mismatch.
What’s interesting about the malware in this post is that it goes one step further: instead of exploiting mismatches, it corrupts the computation itself — so every infected system agrees on the same wrong answer!
More broadly: any interpretive mismatch between components creates a failure surface. Sometimes it shows up as a bug, sometimes as an exploit primitive, sometimes as a testing blind spot. You see it everywhere — this paper, IDS vs OS, proxies vs backends, test vs prod, and now LLMs vs “guardrails.”
Fun HN moment for me: as I was about to post this, I noticed a reply from @tptacek himself. His 1998 paper with Newsham (IDS vs OS mismatches) was my first exposure to this idea — and in hindsight it nudged me toward infosec, the Atlanta scene, spam filtering (PG's bayesian stuff) and eventually YC.
https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~adrian/731-sp04/readings/Ptacek-N...
The paper starts with this Einstein quote "Not everything that is counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted", which seems quite apt for the malware analyzed here :)
Super cool! We live in the future my friends :)
This is god's* work OP! Thank you!
* Or gods' work if you are polytheistic, or $god's work with "god" as a variable for all other belief systems on the Unix shell ;)
This was an interesting and thought provoking read. I appreciate the author's openness in sharing all that they did.
I have just recently discovered Watts, but I think he may have agreed.
“Watts left formal Zen training in New York because the method of the teacher did not suit him. He was not ordained as a Zen monk, but he felt a need to find a vocational outlet for his philosophical inclinations. He entered Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, an Episcopal (Anglican) school in Evanston, Illinois, where he studied Christian scriptures, theology, and church history. He attempted to work out a blend of contemporary Christian worship, mystical Christianity, and Asian philosophy. Watts was awarded a master's degree in theology in response to his thesis, which he published as a popular edition under the title Behold the Spirit: A Study in the Necessity of Mystical Religion.
He later published Myth & Ritual in Christianity (1953), an eisegesis of traditional Roman Catholic doctrine and ritual in Buddhist terms. However, the pattern was set, in that Watts did not hide his dislike for religious outlooks that he decided were dour, guilt-ridden, or militantly proselytizing—no matter if they were found within Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism.”
—- From the Wikipedia page.
Causality, in all my experience of human relationships in real life, in books, even in movies, is rarely single factor, and often goes in both directions :)
A marriage certificate is not a 100% vaccine against what imho are the shared root causes of divorce and unhealthy home environments - like mutually incompatible or self-centered human beings (absence of love as a noun), lack of commitment (absence of love as a verb).
With or without marriage - partners with a shared world view do well if (a) both partners want happiness for the other as much as they want it for themselves and (b) both openly expect to be a good partners to each other for life, even as both partners inevitably change, grow, fall short, succeed, fail etc.
We don’t have to call (a) “love” and (b) “marriage”, but these remain the most common shared names for these concepts in many societies.*
IMHO though, since we are very much imperfect animals and social animals, society having a shared expectation that couples strive for (a) and (b) matters - and I would be willing to consider all the ways in which this can be done.
* - We also face the separate and important problem that we have harmful definitions of these words in some sub-sections of human society -
Where we probably agree:
I would agree that it is the commitment that matters.
Where we may agree:
Social norms really do impact human behavior. Marriage is a social norm supporting long term commitment. In communities where it has been replaced with another social norm supporting commitment (eg my well-off friends in Europe), it has become less relevant.
I also posit that adults in committed coparenting relationships constitute a small minority of unmarried adults in America (vs. France for example where a majority of my friends with kids match your description).
Where we probably disagree:
In my observations of close friends in loving relationships with children, previously in loving marriages, are now divorced and in respectful and functional coparenting but not cohabitating relationships.
For a considerable amount of time, they are functionally single parents. In most cases parents and siblings of one ex-spouse are unlikely to want to support the other ex-spouse with in-person child support.
The bright exception to this rule seems to be divorced co-parents who live in close proximity or in one instance in the same duplex and are good friends.
Like Matt, I am a supporter of the state providing a solid safety net on basic needs (food, health care, self-improvement, safety) to ALL its and pay for it by taxing the well-off citizens more than the average although unlike him, I would not describe myself as a socialist.
Marriage is many things, but amongst them, it is also a safety net for the children of that marriage. At its best, it brings the resources of two extended families and friend networks together to support the couple and the children. I wonder if Matt would agree with the view that Marriage is the most “atomic” form of socialism (which he seems to support)
I understand his critique of the stats, but I wonder if Mr. Bruenig disagrees with the author’s points of view.
In particular I wonder what he thinks would be best for his own kids. He seems to be, per wikipedia, married to a high-school friend (sweetheart?) for almost a decade with two kids.
While I do not think his personal actions have any bearing on the accuracy of his statistical critiques of the author, it does seem like his revealed preferences support the author’s points of view. I would be shocked if he believes the health of his marriage has no bearing on the overall wellbeing of his kids.
Regardless, I wish him and his wife a long and happy marriage, because I believe that would be the best outcome for both of them and their kids.
Working hard to ensure you don’t repeat the mistakes of your parents already makes you a good parent - one who cares and strives.
I worry too, especially about the weaknesses I share with one of my parents. Occasionally though, I find that my inward focus on my concern about a mistake I might make causes me to focus less on my kid or his concerns in an important moment. Since I learned this, I try to be present enough to react to life while it’s happening, instead of ricocheting painful memories while life is happening!
The good news is that loving parents who strive to continuously do better serve as a good example for their kids, even when they fail. Life is hard and full of failures. Even when you fail, and even if you fail frequently, showing your kid that you’ll keep striving to do better - now that may be the most valuable lesson of them all.
makes sense. thanks.
Thanks. While steep, I’ll happily pay for the procedure if the risks are minimal and the impact on his quality of life is likely to be meaningfully positive.
Sincere question: my relatively non-aggressive-at-sales vet, whose office has beocome a bit more aggressive recently, said this month that my nearly 12 year old dog has had a tooth fracture for over a year - and it needs a $X,000 removal relatively soon, for which he would have to go under anaesthesia and stay the day.
Pup has been eating fine, and continues to eat fine, including relatively hard stuff (no bones or bully sticks but softer dental chews). He does have an accumulation of plaque on said tooth which indicates he favors the other side, and despite the hard pitch, I doubt the vet is lying about a fracture.
The literature online is very equivocal about whether tooth removal is needed and says some fractured teeth are fine and don't cause pain.
Any advice / information sources you trust on how to triage this situation?
In my experience not wanting to mask unless there is a meaningful sense of risk is a phenomenon equally strong in India (for example) and so I do not believe it has to do with the western propaganda.
If you visited India after the first wave, most people masked, enforced by the police - as they should have. Soon after the 2nd wave (which was bad but resulted in near-endemicity(?)) - after vaccines where widely available and well accepted in India -and to this day, you will see a vast vast majority in India don't mask. A visible minority mask everywhere and are not looked down upon or derided because of it. There is no meaningful propaganda either way right now.
A few loosely coupled thoughts on the subject - mostly to flesh out my own thinking
(tldr - in which I conclude that we agree on the goal but disagree on “which was easy to implement”, after thinking through my own educational / economical history at some length ;))
I benefited from:
* a nearly free and (luckily) high quality school education from kindergarten through 12th grade - most schools were not that great in my time, I lucked out (with parents who strived / persisted until they got me into the right one) * a nearly free but terrible education for my bachelors in engineering in India * a largely discounted and excellent post-graduate education in the US, paid for by my work as a research assistant, which I had to compete for, and that paid the equivalent of $375/month after taxes for working 20 hours a week with a full course load from which I paid my living expenses (in the early oughts - so i was poor :)), but came with a tuition waiver.
Here’s how it has led me to approach this subject:
* I definitely agree that the ideal of nearly free education for everyone that wants it is the right one for a richer society like America to strive for, but subject to some basic rules(eg maintain non-abysmal grades that reflect at least basic effort)
* Free just means someone else is paying for it - and that has its limits. In a free / subsidized college world, major states in India had (have?) so few engineering colleges that if you got less than 99%, you couldn’t study technology - at all! Barring a stroke of luck (family moving to another state where I at least got into a pretty bad engineering college) , I would have had to study economics instead of engineering.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/delhi-uni...
* Around the time of the article above (maybe a few years before) India started allowing private colleges to charge more. This has made education a lot more expensive in India on average, although I believe a similar number of “free seats” still exist, but the number of “seats” to study popular fields has gone up by on order of magnitude, and that has enabled a LOT more people to study what they want, but incomes have grown a lot too for white collar workers. For many (not all) fields, folks are able to take a loan and pay it back.
* If, for instance, the US government paid for just “degree granting post-secondary institutions” expenses, it would instantly become the #2 budget category just below social security and above health, medicare, “income security” and defense.
* It seems that 65% of US adults over 25 do not have a bachelors degree. It seems likely many of them will not support using their tax dollars to create a new #2 budget liability - despite the “chicken-or-egg” dynamic - that if the education was free, many of them would have a degree, and might support it.
They implemented a great component of those ideas. Seems like cause for at least some celebration, right? :)
Sorry to hear about Bob. We must do better as a city and a community to prevent this kind of tragic and senseless loss.
Public schools: https://twitter.com/garrytan/status/1634079933432745986?s=20
This is an hour away from the tech capital of the world.
Shameful that the state of California or the FBI don't seem to care about this. Meanwhile we have to organize to fight self inflicted problems like banning algebra in high school.
“ The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines released *thousands of tons of sulfur dioxide* into the stratosphere, temporarily lowering average global temperatures by about 1 degree Fahrenheit, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.”
“ Make Sunsets was planning to…release anywhere between 10 and 500 grams of sulfur dioxide in January”
I hope it doesn’t take years for someone to test the theory with a few tens of grams of this substance unless even that amount can cause harm.
Here’s a corollary that has worked for me and that I want to share - if, in general your startup feels like freedom - even if it has required you to work long hours for many years -(as all startups do for at least a while) - long hours that most people equate with chains - then it’s not only ok to keep doing the startup but it’s perhaps advisable - that at those inevitable moments when you do feel like a failure you don’t give up - that you give yourself enough time to try all the things you’d want to. It is ok to fail at a startup and not give up because the mindbendingly frustrating thing about startups is that even when you are succeeding you experience a lot of failure, and success rarely seems to precede at least one period that feels like utter failure.
I realize the tone of this advice may seem contradictory to my comment above, but it’s not. If a particular set of responsibilities that feel like chains to many / most people in the world feel like freedom to you - then by all means - keep enjoying the freedom, don’t let the world define it for you, and don’t give up when the roller coaster hits a low.