HN user

steve_taylor

1,475 karma
Posts10
Comments548
View on HN

It was closed-book. Take-home, closed-book seems like an oxymoron anyway.

A lot of the cheating students would have concluded that other students are going to cheat and get a much better result, so they might as well do the same.

The fault lies squarely with the professor.

But there's one performance-related area where the Framework pulls ahead—a little—and that's sustained performance. When running a heavy workload like HPL (a FP64 HPC task, that taxes the CPU and RAM constantly for many minutes), the Framework's fans allow it to throttle less than the Neo.

People are seeing big gains in sustained performance on MacBook Neo with a simple thermal pad mod. The disadvantage is the underside of the Neo can get hot, but that's not an issue if it's sitting on a desk instead of your lap.

I was all in on Svelte and SvelteKit until I started encountering CSS weirdness caused by a bug that the Svelte developers said is "by design", namely that components' CSS isn't removed from the document after the last instance of that component is no longer rendered. This resulted in a situation in which styles became dependent on the navigation path the user takes, leading to weird an unpredictable layout issues. I couldn't stomach solving this by using Tailwind.

Then Svelte 5 came along and made Svelte more like React. At first, there were just a few simple runes, but then the runes started proliferating like crazy to solve other runes' problems. At that point, Svelte was dead to me and I went back to React/Next.

The right path for Svelte to take would have been to continue to refine Svelte 4.

There's nothing stopping you from setting up your free (as in freedom) slice of cyberspace for you and your friends, for now.

Looking at all the new and proposed laws coming through, I don't think we'll have those basic freedoms all that much longer.

I don't agree with this take in the article. One person with Claude Code can replace a team of devs. It resolves many issues, such as the tension between devs wanting to focus and devs wanting their peers to put aside their task to review their pull requests. Claude generates the code and the human reviews it. There's no delay in the back-and-forth unlike in a team of humans. There's no ego and there's no context switching fatigue. Given that code reviewing is a bottleneck, it's feasible that one person can do it by themselves. And Claude can certainly generate working code at least 10x faster than any dev.

The problem with that is that sites/apps will retain the identifier, either to use the Digital ID for login (not just one-time age verification), because they want to retain as much information as possible for later usage or sale, or because a government told them they have to retain it so all their social media activity can be easily linked to them.

My money is on the chats being end to end encrypted and separately uploaded to Facebook.

If governments of various countries have compelled Meta to provide a backdoor and also required non-disclosure (e.g. a TCN secretly issued to Meta under Australia's Assistance and Access Act), this is how I imagined they would do it. It technically doesn't break encryption as the receiving device receives the encrypted message.

When you're a low-tier video streaming company, you look for cost savings such as writing the same app as few times as you can get away with, so typically you end up with the same web app running on Tizen, webOS, VIDAA, PS4, PS5 and quite often Fire TV and even Xbox. Even Amazon's new Vega OS with its React Native way of building apps has a WebView escape hatch.

These TVs typically have really slow SOCs – certainly not fast enough to run a web app the way a typical dev write a web app these days.

So instead of addressing their runners being extremely slow to the point that a reasonable person would think it's deliberate in order to extract more billable minutes, they're charging customers for using an alternative. Makes sense.

It doesn't have to be that effective. The point was to get the law passed. Now that it's in effect, there will be iterative steps to make it effective. I think it will eventually lead to all social media users in Australia having to authenticate with their Digital ID, which will be made available to private sector integrators in the 2nd half of 2026.

Digital ID is optional by default. Service providers that integrate with the Digital ID can apply for an exemption to make it mandatory. Given the mandatory nature of age verification checks for social media, the fact that social media is typically free to use and ad-supported and the cost of age verification would be prohibitive for smaller apps without significant VC backing, an argument for exemption could be made on the basis that their legal obligation can't otherwise be fulfilled without a prohibitive upfront cost.