skipants

Am I wrong in thinking this comment is absolutely bonkers? It's basically a conspiracy theory.

When I lead teams and thought of how to motivate them to get certain things done, like code quality, I found it best to frame why certain things got done as a mixture of constraints and incentives. ie. What was preventing people from doing a thing and what motivated them to do thing.

You're basically arguing that there's no constraints to these problems and that people are incentivized to proliferate them. Do you distrust people that much?

Isn't it easier to surmise that there could be a lot of constraints and not a lot of incentives to solve these issues?

Or heck... just a shit ton of constraints than incentives?

I mean... there are people who are incentivized to keep drug use going: drug dealers and kingpins. And I'm sure there are some with their hand in governments. But there's no way that's the default.

That was the first thing that popped out and made me distrust the whole wiki; there's only One Right Way to store money (as integers[1], as you said) and it should have been explicit about that.

You can also use fixed-point if whatever you're using supports it but it's still technically integers.

Because it is.

The average (and above-average?) investor really does not understand tech.

I feel like it's the Emperor's new clothes reading this article and seeing the praise it's getting. This sentence doesn't even make sense:

These products use very low level Linux primitives like containers, Kubernetes, Firecracker microVMs, and networked protocols.

Out of anything that is a "low level linux primitive" I could maybe argue that networking? protocols fit the bill.

And it's obviously fully AI-generated! Which I wouldn't even care about if I could actually trust the content, which I can't!

I suspect that Canada isn't fond of how Americans view guns

I'm putting this into my overflowing bucket of internet comments that doesn't "get" Canadians. Sorry to be curt but, since Canada-USA relations has been more at the forefront, I've seen too many comments that just "don't get it" and it riles me up each time.

They've had the 2nd amendment since their country was founded. It has no bearing on relations between the two countries, both at a micro and macro level.

We respect that they are their own country and have their own ways of doing things, which isn't even the same across each state. We respect US sovereignty over their own laws. It's the lack of respect for ours by the current US administration that is upsetting.

That's basically all its come down to. Oh, and the tariffs don't help either.

Though it can be argued it is an example of a functor (the library is mapped over two countries).

Now that's a special kind of joke I can only find on HackerNews

It looks interesting but, like a lot of AI, looks correct but is not. Most of northwestern Canada says you can get there by road. If you look at Google Maps, there's no roads there for quite awhile. I see one highway between Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk but that's about it.

Pretty cool distro! I switched to Bazzite myself but I've also seen a lot of popularity for CachyOS for gaming rigs.

People that haven't read Black Swan and bet on every "sure bet" they can see

pigouvian taxes are both a stronger disincentive and help cover externalized costs.

if this moves nicotine to the black market then the people/government will still pay the cost without receiving any taxes on it at all

Despite this promising start, the conservation experiment wasn't to last, after a rival juice manufacturer called TicoFruit sued Del Oro, alleging that its competitor had "defiled a national park".

... why does TicoFruit even care? Did they just see their competitor do something that might be good for people and sue them out of spite?

These are two pages telling two different things, albeit with the same stats. The information is presented by OP in a way to show the results of the Microsoft acquisition.

I think that's a fair criticism for issues where Linux devs might be blind to the friction a lot of Linux distros come with, but I don't think it's universal for all devs and for all features, all the time.

Personally, although I'm not a Linux maintainer, I am a dev and I love doing work that makes UX better for everyone.

1) Kernel-level DRM for multiplayer games (looking at you, Marathon)

This finally forced me to quit League of Legends (this is a buff)

Is your argument that the world isn't deterministic and so we should also apply nondeterminism to filtering json data?

As a Canadian: hard agree. Beer without head is gross.

Huh. I have the opposite opinion. I'm monolingual English for all intents and purposes but I gathered that opinion from quite a few sources, including:

- We had to take spelling tests in school

- English speakers make (generally light) fun of other's spelling or grammar mistakes in a casual setting

- In a professional setting, a lot of time is taken to proofread our own emails

- There's de jure spellings for every word

- Some online communities are really weird about pointing out grammar and spelling mistakes (namely Reddit)

Language is meant to be a fluid, evolving thing but I always felt like English was treated the opposite way. Maybe that's also why it's the de facto Lingua Franca.

I do think, and hope, that this rigidity will change thanks to AI. I've started to embrace my mistakes. I care a lot less about capitalization and punctuation in my Slack messages, for example.

HA! I guess it's not as enforced as I expected.

A bit of a tangent, but I just want to say how, as a Canadian, I'm getting a lot of joy reading about this restaurant. It's a hilarious facsimile of a Canadian restaurant for a couple reasons:

- There's nothing Canadian about a pancake house. We love pancakes but they aren't really ingrained with our identity. Maple syrup on the other hand, is EXTREMELY important to a lot of Canadians. Serving table syrup instead of real maple syrup is an affront. I found a Reddit thread[1] where a user espouses "tons of free syrup" you were given at RCPH. That's NOT a good thing if you ask me!

- In Canada (and I assume other British Commonwealth countries) you aren't legally allowed to have "Royal" in the name of your business without Royal consent from the Governor General of Canada[2]

Just a bit of Canadiana sparked by your comment I thought I'd share. I always get a kick of the small but conspicuous cultural differences between Canada and USA. They give me that Ingluorious Basterds "number 3" moment.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/newyorkcity/comments/1ajujhi/who_re...

[2] https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/royal-sy...

I agree.

This:

I suspect that removing half of the bus stops in a city will piss people off and cause even less ridership.

is thrown out but how do we know it's true? That commenter throws it out as their opinion but my opinion is the opposite -- the stated preference will be that people think it's bad but the revealed preference will show even more ridership as travel times improve.

It wasn’t always this way: “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country”

Perusing the code, the translation seems quite complex.

Shout out to https://github.com/vosen/ZLUDA which is also in this space and quite popular.

I got Zluda to generally work with comfyui well enough.

I like that a lot -- going to start using it

I'm pretty sure the OP is talking about this thread. I have it top of mind because I participated and was extremely frustrated about, not just the AI slop, but how much the author claimed not to use AI when they obviously used it.

You can read it yourself if you'd like: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46589386

It was not just the em dashes and the "absolutely right!" It was everything together, including the robotic clarifying question at the end of their comments.

Really? Even with your AI generated article I took my own time to read and reply sans AI and you can't even respond to my comment without it? Thanks.

The concept is good

Unfortunately, it's not. Once you read through the slop the implementation is still getting a pass/fail security response from the LLM, which the premise of OP's article is railing against.

A couple small things:

1. as many have harped about, the LLM writing is so fluffed up it's borderline unreadable. Please just write in your own voice. It's more interesting and would probably be easier to grok

2. that repo is obviously vibe-coded, but I suppose it gets the point across. It doesn't give me much confidence in the code itself, however.

And a big thing:

Unless I'm misunderstanding, I feel like you are re-inventing the wheel when it comes to Authorization via MCP, as well as trying to get away with not having extra logic at the app layer, which is impossible here.

MCP servers can use OIDC to connect to your auth server right now: https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/tutorials/security/auth...

You give the following abstractions, which I think are interesting thought experiments but unconventional and won't work at all:

    Ring 0 (Constitutional): System-level constraints. Never overridable.
        Example: "Never self-replicate" "Never exfiltrate credentials"

    Ring 1 (Organizational): Policy-level constraints. Requires admin authority to change.
        Example: "No PII in outputs" "Read-only database access"
    
    Ring 2 (Session): User preferences. Freely changeable by user.
        Example: "Explain like I'm five" "Focus on Python examples"

    # Generate (Pass filtered tools to LLM)
    response_text, security_blocked = self._call_llm(
        query, history, system_prompt, allowed_tools, tools
    )

     Standard RBAC acts as a firewall: it catches the model’s illegal action after the model attempts it.

The best you can do is inject the user's roles and permissions in the prompt to help with this, if you'd like. But it's kind of a waste of time -- just feed the response back into the LLM so it sees "401 Unauthorized" and either tries something else or lets the user know they aren't allowed.

I'm sorry, but as a resident of Ontario and a developer this whole posting just enrages me. I don't want to discourage OP but you should know there's a lot just incorrect here. I'd be much more relaxed about that if it all wasn't just one-shotted by AI.

As someone who has thought about, planned, and implemented a lot of RBAC... I would never trust the security of a system with RBAC at that level.

And to elaborate on that -- for RBAC to have properly defined roles for the right people and ensure that there's no unauthorized access to anything someone shouldn't have access to, you need to know exactly which user has which access. And I mean all of them. Full stop. I don't think I'm being hyperbolic here. Everyone's needs are so different and the risks associated to overprovisioning a role is too high.

When it's every LEO at the nation level that's way too many people -- it is pretty much impossible without dedicated people whose jobs it is to constantly audit that access. And I guarantee no institution or corporation would ever make a role for that position.

I'm not even going to lean into the trustworthiness and computer literacy of those users.

And that's just talking about auditing roles, never mind the constant bug fixes/additions/reductions to the implementation. It's a nightmare.

Funny enough, just this past week I was looking at how my company's roles are defined in admin for a thing I was working on. It's a complete mess and roles are definitely overprovisioned. The difference is it's a low-stakes admin app with only ~150 corporate employees who access it. But there was only like 8 roles!

Every time you add a different role, assign it to each different feature, and then give that role to a different user, it compounds.

I took your comment at face value but I hope to god that Flock at least as some sort of data/application partitioning that would make overprovisioning roles impossible. Was your Texas cop tracking an abortion a real example? Because that would be bad. So so bad.

I often employ this pattern in Ruby using `.tap` or a `begin` block.

It barely adds any functionality but it's useful for readability because of the same reasons in the OP.

It helps because I've been bitten by code that did this:

  setup_a = some_stuff
  setup_b = some_more_stuff
  i_think_this_is_setup = even_more_stuff
  the_thing = run_setup(setup_a, setup_b, i_think_this_is_setup)

Instead doing something like this tells the reader that it will be used again:

  i_think_this_is_setup = even_more_stuff
  
  the_thing = begin
    setup_a = some_stuff
    setup_b = some_more_stuff
    run_setup(setup_a, setup_b, i_think_this_is_setup)
  end

radicalized me to believing we needed programming and computer science to be different majors.

Some universities offer Software Engineering as a BEng as well as CompSci as a BSc. At least in Canada.