randomtoast

GTA SA, GTA III and Vice City are all running live inside the same process. VC renders into a GTA III texture, and GTA III renders into a GTA SA texture. Every layer is playable in real time. Built using modified re3/reVC and librw.

THIS ISN’T A VIDEO PLAYING ON A TEXTURE. THE FULL GAMES ARE RUNNING LIVE INSIDE GTA SA, IN THE SAME PROCESS, NOTHING IS STREAMED FROM ANOTHER PROGRAM.

That's badass.

kagi exists for quite some time

Let's talk turkey, does it really matter?

I think at one point in the future we can do a one-shot decompilation with one of the SOTA LLM models.

They 100 percent sit in Russia, which will 100 percent ignore this, even if their identity gets uncovered. So it's perfectly safe to continue for the operators.

The water cooling system then serves multiple functions, including acting as a radiation shield.

This type of approach carries a significantly higher operational risk compared to operating multiple Kubernetes clusters on separate VMs or physical hardware. If you eventually update the main Kubernetes cluster that manages the virtual clusters and something goes wrong, you could potentially bring down your entire fleet of Kubernetes clusters all at once.

You're telling me there's no "notify me when domain X becomes for sale" service?

I guess in today's age you would just schedule an agent to check the website every day.

Is open source and commercialisation an exclusive or?

Because Opus on $20 CC is a joke. The $19 plan on Kimi has actually workable usage limits.

The operators are likely based in Russia, and the US has no jurisdiction there. As a result, they can simply ignore any US actions and continue their operations.

How does this bring us closer to a 17000 qubit computer and how close are we?

There are two ways to be unhappy. Not getting what you want and getting what you want.

Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) is already insanely difficult. It introduces 2,500 questions spanning mathematics, humanities, natural sciences, ancient languages, ...

Here is an example question: https://i.redd.it/5jl000p9csee1.jpeg

No human could even score 5% on HLE.

The repository only exist for seven days and was likely written by Claude code, which makes it not very trustworthy for storing personal data.

Do you have any recommendations for CLI-based microVM solutions that support running multiple instances of Claude Code with "--yolo sandboxing" on Linux?

I find it somewhat amusing that it uses QEMU to emulate Linux in order to create a container with restricted permissions, even though it is already running on Linux with restricted permissions. I get the point while it is designed that way, but still funny.

I would prefer to have the prompt he used to generate the article. Similarly, for compiled binaries, I would rather have the source code that produced them, instead of just an .exe file.

If you think that the article is written by human or that is is unclear, please go ahead. Others here on HN also have pointed out that the author shoots out such lengthy blog posts every day. And you can also see the typical emoji AI slop here: https://www.ivanturkovic.com/services/

But I have no issue with your argumentation whatsoever, it is just that I think there is more than sufficient evidence, and you think there is not.

N=2 form the same author: https://www.ivanturkovic.com/2026/02/24/first-1000-lines-det...

AI is an in-context learner, not a standards enforcer.

The AI is not judging your code. It is learning from it.

Speed without structure is not speed. It is borrowed time.

This is not about premature optimization or over-engineering. It is about giving the AI the patterns it needs to work effectively on your behalf.

This is not a theoretical distinction. It is the single most important practical reality of working with AI coding tools in 2026.

Its not this, its that.

But here is the part nobody wants to hear: the reverse is equally true.

The result was transformative.

Here is why.

If you want I can provide N=3 with the same AI pattern and phrases again.

Phrases like: "identity crisis", "burnout machine", "supervision paradox", "acceleration trap", "workload creep" are just AI slop.

This is not a contradiction. It is the reality ...

That is not an upgrade. That is a career identity crisis.

This is not X. It is Y.

The trap is ...

This gap matters ...

This is not empowerment ...

This is not a minor adjustment...

Your typical AI slop rhetorical phrasing.

Phrases like: "identity crisis", "burnout machine", "supervision paradox", "acceleration trap", "workload creep"

These sound analytical but are lightly defined. They function as named concepts without rigorous definition or empirical grounding.

There might be some good arguments in the article, but AI slop remains AI slop.

I am by no means an expert in this field, but I do know that in the US, money is the primary source of power. Major tech companies have vast financial resources - so much so that their wealth surpasses the GDP of many countries. It's also clear that lobbying holds tremendous influence in the US. For instance, organizations like the NRA and NSSF wield significant power, which is why strict gun control measures are rarely enacted, regardless of the number of casualties from mass shootings.

1. Money translates to power

2. We know lobbying is highly effective

3. There are numerous national and international tax loopholes

I’m simply connecting these three points. Some might suggest that the government could intervene, but do you really believe Trump would challenge these major corporations while refusing to disclose his own tax returns? Absolutely not. So these companies have the required power, motivation and lack of resistence to make it happen.

I find it interesting that Germany is lit up like a candle, despite having relatively strict privacy laws. Nowhere else are there more buildings pixelated in Street View than in Germany.

Maybe you are right, but maybe the significant qualifications are on (1) in a way that make it meaningless.

There is a reason why large companies have entire departments dedicated to identifying and utilizing every available national and international tax loophole, all while working to maintain a positive public image.

No, that's not correct. I ask "Source?" when someone makes a claim that goes against popular belief, such as: "climate change is not impacting our planet." I do think "Source?" is generally considered a low-effort response, so it's the wording I guess, not the context.

No, I think both of the following statements can be true at the same time:

1. The audited financial statement meets all requirements and is accurate according to the relevant definitions, stating that the effective federal tax rate is 30%.

2. They pay an effective federal tax rate of 3%.

My intentions are sincere, maybe it is the wording.

The state would go bankrupt within a month or so.

That's why I often ask for "Source?" — because sometimes people seem to make up numbers. However, whenever I do this, I receive a large number of downvotes. Maybe it's not common on HN to back up claims with sources.