HN user
If the author is reading this, the hyperlink to the book in the first paragraph is broken. Looks like it's attempting to direct you to an absolute url that was meant to be relative.
<a href="https://books/face-with-tears-of-joy">I've struggled with this "responsibility" take. What does it mean in the context of an open source project? As far as I understand it, the original contributors of bugs are often not the ones fixing them (though they can be). Is it that if you write enough buggy code you get banned as a contributor? Is it that you're not allowed to say Claude ate my homework?
When the goal is "the funniest way", I think that's a hit :)
I don't think it's an abuse, RFC9110 defines 414 as a response for "refusing to service the request because the target URI is longer than the server is willing to interpret". Since adding a query string involves only adding characters, this seems fine; there's no stipulation as far as I can tell that all pages a server hosts must adhere to the same length. I'd be curious if any well-known clients interpret it that way though, and make caching decisions based on it. As far as I know, they shouldn't.
Obviously it's against the spirit of the thing, but I don't think it's wrong per-se.
I've never been in the position that I've had to deal with this. Is the best you can do in this situation to pull the files and optionally republish them to a robots.txt'd path (with authn/z, too)? I can't imagine you can get it pulled from search engines very quickly...
I've been waiting for something like this to come along. I keep hearing people say LLMs are a new abstraction layer, and I fundamentally disagree. We don't commit our compiled machine code, we commit our C. Yet, with LLMs, we commit our generated source code, completely throwing away the English language abstraction.
This seems to scratch that itch. The non determinism makes it probably not suitable for most uses, though.
As far as I'm aware, Pyroscope itself is not a profiler, but a place you can send/query profiles. OpenTelemtry is releasing a profiler, so they don't compare. One can be used with the other.
Very excited for this. We've used the Elixir version of this at $WORK a handful of times and have found it exceptionally useful.
Not sure how I feel about transcripts. Ultimately I do my best to make any contributions I make high quality, and that means taking time to polish things. Exposing the tangled mess of my thought process leading up to that either means I have to "polish" that too (whatever that ends up looking like), or put myself in a vulnerable position of showing my tangled process to get to the end result.
I don't love the concept, but I do wonder if it could be improved by using a skill that packages and install script, and context for troubleshooting. That way you have the benefits of using an install script, and at least a way to provide pointers for those unfamiliar with the underlying tooling.
Yep yep, makes sense. I was thinking about it running in headless mode (i.e. with --listen)
Neovim’s server defaults to named pipes or domain sockets, which do not have this issue. The documentation states that the TCP option is insecure.
Good note on pipes / domain sockets, but it doesn't appear there's a "default", and the example in the docs even uses TCP, despite the warning below it.
https://neovim.io/doc/user/api.html#rpc-connecting
(EDIT: I guess outside of headless mode it uses a named pipe?)
VS Code’s ssh daemon is authenticated.
How is it authenticated? I went looking briefly but didn't turn up much; obviously there's the ssh auth itself but if you have access to the remote, is there an additional layer of auth stopping anyone from executing code via the daemon?
A coworker raised an interesting point to me. The CORS fix removes exploitation by arbitrary websites (but obviously allows full access from the opencode domain), but let's take that piece out for a second...
What's the difference here between this and, for example, the Neovim headless server or the VSCode remote SSH daemon? All three listen on 127.0.0.1 and would grant execution access to another process who could speak to them.
Is there a difference here? Is the choice of HTTP simply a bad one because of the potential browser exploitation, which can't exist for the others?
I'm not very familiar with this layer of things; what does it mean for a GPU to drive a boot sequence? Is there something massively parallel that is well suited for the GPU?
It's even recognized by the Library of Congress!
https://www.loc.gov/static/programs/national-recording-prese...
This might be what finally gets me to ditch my i3+xfce setup. Anyone done a similar transition?
It is important to remember that CPUs scale their turbo with thermals. It's not a matter of needing to turn turbo on and off
The small coolers used by them are not recommended by Noctua for 9950X
Noctua's CPU compatibility page lists the NH-U9s as "medium turbo/overclocking headroom" for the 9950X [0]. I don't think it's fair to suggest their cooler choice is the problem here.
As in, Gemini users are interested in Tailwind? Is this suggesting that Gemini is suggesting tailwind, and people are using it? It's very weird
Can anyone make sense of the sankey chart under "Developers at all levels are exploring the evolving AI landscape through Stack Overflow"? How does "Large Language Model" flow into "Tailwind CSS 4"?
I'm a bit uneducated here - why was the other 1.1.1.0/24 announcement previously suppressed? Did it just express a high enough cost that no one took it on compared to the CF announcement?
We're agreeing. I'm saying that in a pre-LLM world, no one would do that, so we shouldn't do it here.
Yes, sorry :)
Yeah, that makes sense if you have full control over the agent implementation. Hopefully tools like Cursor will enable such "sandboxing" (so to speak) going forward
Where would you insert the second LLM to mitigate the problem in OP? I don't see where you would.
I'll be honest -- I'm not sure. I don't fully understand LLMs enough to give a decisive answer. My cop-out answer would be "non-determinism", but I would love a more complete one.
Heh - I hope I didn't suggest that you _should_ use eval in production. It's a catastrophically bad idea due to the unchecked power.
You do raise a good point that this is effectively eval, but I would also imagine that no developer is running `SELECT username FROM users LIMIT 1 |xargs "bash -c"`, either, even on their local machine.
We're agreeing, here. I'm in fact suggesting you _shouldn't_ use the output from your database as input.
I won't claim to be as well-versed as you are in security compliance -- in fact I will say I definitively am not. Why would you think that it isn't a meaningful difference here? I would never simply pipe sqlite3 output to `eval`, but that's effectively what the MCP tool output is doing.
It is also crazy to point that command at a production database and do random stuff with it
In a REPL, the output is printed. In a LLM interface w/ MCP, the output is, for all intents and purposes, evaluated. These are pretty fundamentally different; you're not doing "random" stuff with a REPL, you're evaluating a command and _only_ printing the output. This would be like someone copying the output from their SQL query back into the prompt, which is of course a bad idea.
Untrusted user input can be escaped if you _must_ eval (however ill-advised), depending on your language (look no further than shell escaping...). There is a set of rules you can apply to guarantee untrusted input will be stringified and not run as code. They may be fiddly, and you may wish to outsource them to a battle-tested library, but they _do_ exist.
Nothing exists like this for an LLM.