Unlurker|Replay|About
Building more with GPT-5.1-Codex-Max (openai.com)
•
These 2 sentences right next to each other stood out to me: > a new step towards becoming a reliable coding partner > GPT‑5.1-Codex-Max is built for long-running, detailed work Does this not sound contradictory? It’s been the shorter form work that has built what little confidence I have in these as a coding partner - a model that goes off and does work without supervision is not a partner to me.
•
"Starting today, GPT‑5.1-Codex-Max will replace GPT‑5.1-Codex as the default model in Codex surfaces." Wow, I spent last weekend using a tag-team of Claude and Codex and found Codex to more often get better results (TypeScript physics/graphics application). I probably only wrote a few hundred lines of code out of many thousands; it did a really good job. Now I guess I'll ask the new Codex to review the work of the old!
•
so this was arctic fox it seems, lot of us ended up downgrading to codex 5.0 because of the token burn was too much, i see codex max is a step up which is welcome but still unsure if they solved that github issue around tool use that impacts tokens going to wait and see after being burned by 5.1 before i upgrade back to 0.58 gemini 3 has been a let down tbh to see agentic coding wasn't a top priority im sticking with codex for now and using gemini 3 for frontend
•
I still want something no one has, which is the ability to launch agents in different git worktrees simultaneously and check the results out on my main branch for testing when they are finished.
•
OpenAI likes to time their announcements alongside major competitor announcements to suck up some of the hype. (See for instance the announcement of GPT-4o a single day before Google's IO conference) They were probably sitting on this for a while. That makes me think this is a fairly incremental update for Codex.
•
all i care about is performance on metr benchmark
•
That was quick
•
Whenever one of them releases a milestone release the rest start publishing big milestones too. I'm waiting for Opus 5 next.
•
My first thought was "they must not be seeing as many Claude Code conversions as they hoped"
LLMs are bullshitters. But that doesn't mean they're not useful (blog.kagi.com)
•
LLMs are both analytical and synthetical. Provide the context and "all bachelors are not married". Remove the context and you are now contingent on "is it raining outside". We can leave out Kant and Quine for now.
•
The problem I have with LLM-powered products is that they’re not marketed as LLMs, but as magic answer machines with phd-level pan-expertise. Lots of people in tech get frustrated and defensive when people criticize LLM-powered products and offer a defense as if people are criticizing LLMs as a technology. It’s perfectly reasonable for people to judge these products based on the way they’re presented as products. Kagi seems less hyperbolic than most, but I wish the marketing material for chatbots was more like this blog post than a overpromises.
•
Summary using Kagi Summarizer. Disclaimer, this summary uses LLMs, so the summary may, in fact, be bullshit. Title: LLMs are bullshitters. But that doesn't mean they're not useful | Kagi Blog The article "LLMs are bullshitters. But that doesn't mean they're not useful" by Matt Ranger argues that Large Language Models (LLMs) are fundamentally "bullshitters" because they prioritize generating statistically probable text over factual accuracy. Drawing a parallel to Harry Frankfurt's definition of bullshitting, Ranger explains that LLMs predict the next word without regard for truth. This characteristic is inherent in their training process, which involves predicting text sequences and then fine-tuning their behavior. While LLMs can produce impressive outputs, they are prone to errors and can even "gaslight" users when confidently wrong, as demonstrated by examples like Gemini 2.5 Pro and ChatGPT. Ranger likens LLMs to historical sophists, useful for solving specific problems but not for seeking wisdom or truth. He emphasizes that LLMs are valuable tools for tasks where output can be verified, speed is crucial, and the stakes are low, provided users remain mindful of their limitations. The article also touches upon how LLMs can reflect the biases and interests of their creators, citing examples from Deepseek and Grok. Ranger cautions against blindly trusting LLMs, especially in sensitive areas like emotional support, where their lack of genuine emotion can be detrimental. He highlights the potential for sycophantic behavior in LLMs, which, while potentially increasing user retention, can negatively impact mental health. Ultimately, the article advises users to engage with LLMs critically, understand their underlying mechanisms, and ensure the technology serves their best interests rather than those of its developers. Link: https://kagi.com/summarizer/?target_language=&summary=summary&url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.kagi.com%2Fllms
•
This post is a little bizarre to me because it cherry picks some of the worst pairings of problem and LLM without calling out that it did so. At pretty much every turn the author picks one of the worst possible models for the problem that they present. Especially oddly for an article written today, all of the ones with an objective answer work just fine [1] if you use a halfway decent thinking model like 5 Thinking. I get that perhaps the author is trying to make a deeper point about blind spots and LLMs' appearance of confidence, but it's getting exhausting seeing posts like this with cherry picked data cited by people who've never used an LLM to make claims about LLM _incapability_ that are total nonsense. [1]: I think the subjective ones do too but that's a matter of opinion.
•
I don't think the author did anything wrong. The thesis of the article is that LLMs can be confidently wrong about things and to be wary of blindly trusting them. It's a message a lot of non-technical people, in particular, need to hear. Showing egregious examples drives that point home more effectively than if they simply showed an LLM being a little wrong about something. My family members that love LLMs are somewhat unhealthy with them. They think of them as all knowing oracles rather than confident bullshitters. They are happily asking them about their emotional, financial, or business problems and relying heavily on the advice the LLMs dish out (rather than doing second order research).
•
The problem is, I'm not expected to be a bullshitter, and I don't expect others to be either (just say you don't know!). So delegating work to a LLM or working with others who do becomes very, very frustrating.
•
> that doesn't mean they're not useful yeah actually it does mean that
•
Its so nice to see this echo'd somewhere. This has been what I've been calling them for a while, but it doesn't seem to be the dominant view. Which is a shame, because it is a seriously accurate one.
•
The headline feels like a strawman. LLMs are very useful. They are just not reliable. And they can't be held accountable. Being unreliable and unaccountable makes them a poor substitute for people.
•
I've come to cease all "inquiry" type usage of LLMs because of this. You really can't trust anything they say at all that isn't verified by a domain expert. But I can let it write code for me, and the proof is in the PR. I think ultimately the real value in these things is agentic usage, not knowledge generation.
•
Every time people post these 'gotcha' LLM failures, they never work when I try them myself. E.g. ChatGPT has no problem with the surgeon being a dog: https://chatgpt.com/share/691e04cc-5b30-800c-8687-389756f36d8f Neither does Gemini: https://gemini.google.com/share/6c2d08b2ca1a
•
Hi, author here! One issue with private LLM tests (including gotcha questions) is that they take time to design and once public, they become irrelevant. So I'm wary of sharing too many in a public blog. The surgeon dog was well known in May, the newest generation of models have all corrected against it. Those gotcha questions are generally called "misguided attention" traps, they're useful for blogs because they're short and surprising. The ChatGPT example was done with ChatGPT 5.1 (latest version) and Claude Haiku 4.5 is also a recent model. You can try other ones that Gemini 3 hasn't corrected for. For example: ``` Jean Paul and Pierre own three banks nearby together in Paris. Jean Paul owns a bank by the bridge What has two banks and money in Paris near the water? ``` This looks like the "what has two banks and no money" puzzle (answer: a river). Either way they're largely used as a device to show how LLMs come up to a verbal response by a different process than humans in an entertaining manner.
•
These are randomized systems, sometimes you'll get a good answer. Try again a couple times and you'll probably reproduce the issue. Here's what I got from ChatGPT on my first try: This is a *twist* on the classic riddle: > “A surgeon says ‘I can’t operate on this boy—he’s my son.’ How is that possible?” > Answer: *The surgeon is the boy’s mother.* In your version, the nurse keeps calling the surgeon “sir” and treating them as if they’re something they’re not (a man, even a dog!) to highlight how the hospital keeps making the same mistaken assumption. So *why can’t the surgeon operate on the boy?* *Because the surgeon is the boy’s mother.* I got a similar answer from Gemini on the first try.
•
I don't understand this at all. What fundamental limitation of a mother prevents her from operating on her son?
•
It's a classic riddle from the late 20th century when surgeons were rarely female.
•
Isn't that Gemini 3 and not 2.5 Pro? But nondeterministic algorithms are gonna be nondeterministic sometimes. Surely you've had experiences where an LLM is full of shit?
•
I don't have a problem with more obvious failures. My problem is when the LLM makes a credible claim with its generated text that turns out to have some minor issue that catches me a month later. Generally I have to treat LLM responses as similar to a random comment I find on Reddit. However, I'm really happy when an LLM provides sources that I can check. Best feature ever!
•
I have had an issue using Claude for research; it will often cite certain sources, and when I ask why the data it is using is not in the source it will apologize, do some more processing, and then realize that the claim is in a different source (or doesn't exist at all). Still useful, but hopefully this gets ironed out in the future so I don't have to spend so much time vetting every claim and its associated source.
•
This is like the LLM era version of the search bubble that prevented people from having the same search results for ostensibly identical searches. Also keep in mind that LLMs are stochastic by design. If you haven't seen it, Karpathy's excellent "deep dive into LLMs like chatgpt" video[0] explains and demonstrates this aspect pretty well: [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xTGNNLPyMI
•
Same goes for many people.
•
And yet, we’re all still employed, so obviously these systems are not yet analogous to humans. They mirror human behavior in some cases because they’ve been trained on almost every piece of text produced by human beings that we have access to, and they still aren’t as capable as the average person.
•
Obviously, they learned from people. That could also be why they sound so confident even when their wrong, people online sound incredibly confident, even when we're debating topics we know nothing about.
•
> You should not go to an LLM for emotional conversations I'm more worried about who's keeping track of what's being shared with LLM's. Even if you could trust the model to respond with something meaningful, it's worth being very careful how much of your inner thoughts you share directly with a model that knows exactly who you are.
•
Or its just leaking private information in a multitude of other ways [1] [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/11/oddest-chatgpt-leaks-yet-cringey-chat-logs-found-in-google-analytics-tool/
•
Good article, I just shared it with my non-technical family because more people need to understand exactly this about AI.
•
Yes, I enjoyed the article as well and good for the non-technical reader. I think of framing AI as having two fundamental problems: - Practical problem: They operate in contextual and emotional "isolation" - no persistent understanding of your goals, values, or long-term intent - Ethical problem: AI alignment is centralized around corporate values rather than individual users' authentic goals and ethics. There is a direct parallel to social media's failure - platforms optimized for what they could do (engagement, monetization) rather than what they should do (serve user long term interests). With these much more powerful AI systems emerging, we're at a crossroads of repeating this mistake...possibly at catastrophic scale even.
•
The problem is we can't label them as such. If they're bullshitters, then let's call it a LLBSer. It has a nice ring to it. Good luck with your government funding asking for another billion for a bullshitting machine bailout.
•
They are literally called "Large Language Model". Everybody prefers the term AI because it's easier to pretend they actually know things, but that's not what they are designed to do.
•
"BS in Computer Science" hits different
Questions for Cloudflare (entropicthoughts.com)
> look at the uptime of card networks, stock exchanges, or airplane avionics. In fact, I'd say... airplane avionics are not what you should be looking at. Boeing's 787? Reboot every 51 days or risk the pilots getting wrong airspeed indicators! No, I'm not joking [1], and it's not the first time either [2], and it's not just Boeing [3]. [1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/04/02/boeing_787_power_cycle_51_days_stale_data/ [2] https://www.theregister.com/2015/05/01/787_software_bug_can_shut_down_planes_generators/ [3] https://www.theregister.com/2019/07/25/a350_power_cycle_software_bug_149_hours/
•
> Reboot every 51 days or risk the pilots getting wrong airspeed indicators If this is documented then fair enough - airlines don’t have to buy airplanes that need rebooting every 51 days, they can vote with their wallets and Boeing is welcome to fix it. If not documented, I hope regulators enforced penalties high enough to force Boeing to get their stuff together. Either way, the uptime of avionics (and redundancies - including the unreliable airspeed checklists) are much higher than anything conventional software “engineering” has been putting out the past decade.
> It is unfair to blame Cloudflare (or AWS, or Azure, or GitHub) for what’s happening > Ultimately end-users don’t have a relationship with any of those companies. They have relationships with businesses that chose to rely on them Could you not say this about any supplier relationship? No, in this case, we all know the root of the outage is CloudFlare, so it absolutely makes sense to blame CloudFlare, and not their customers.
•
Don't we say that about all supplier relationships? If my Samsung washing machine stops working I blame Samsung. Even when it turns out that it was a broken drive belt I don't blame the manufacturer of the drive belt, or whoever produced the rubber that went into the drive belt, or whoever made the machine involved in the production of this batch of rubber. Samsung choose to put the drive belt in my washing machine, that's where the buck stops. They are free to litigate the matter internally, but I only care about Samsung selling me a washing machine that's now broken Same with cloudflare. If you run your site on cloudflare you are responsible for any downtime caused to your site by cloudflare What we can blame cloudflare for is having so many customers that a cloudflare outage has outsized impact compared to the more uncorrelated outages we would have if sites were distributed among many smaller providers. But that's not quite the same as blaming any individual site being down on cloudflare
•
> Don't we say that about all supplier relationships? No always. If the farm sells packs of poisoned bacon to the supermarket, we blame the farm. It's more about if the website/supermarket can reasonably do the QA.
> Do you think it’s fair to blame me? Absolutely, yes. Where's your backup plan for when Visa doesn't behave as you expect? It's okay to not have one, but it's also your fault for not having one, and that is the sole reason that the lemonade stand went down.
•
> Where's your backup plan for when Visa doesn't behave as you expect? I don’t have (nor have to have) such a plan, I offer X service with Y guarantees paying out Z dollars if I don’t hold up my part of the bargain. In this hypothetical situation if Visa signs up I assumed they wanted to host their marketing website or some low-hanging fruit, it’s not my job to check what they’re using it for (in fact it would be preferable for me not to check, as I’d be seeing unencrypted card numbers and PII otherwise).
It's a bit odd to come from the outside to judge the internal process of an organization with many very complex moving parts, only a fraction of which we have been given context for, especially so soon after the incident and the post-mortem explaining it. I think the ultimate judgement must come from whether we will stay with Cloudflare now that we have seen how bad it can get. One could also say that this level of outage hasn't happened in many years, and they are now freshly frightened by it happening again so expect things to get tightened up (probably using different questions than this blog post proposes). As for what this blog post could have been: maybe a page out of how these ideas were actively used by the author at e.g. Tradera or Loop54.
•
> how these ideas were actively used by the author at e.g. Tradera or Loop54. This would be preferable, of course. Unfortunately both organisations were rather secretive about their technical and social deficiencies and I don't want to be the one to air them out like that.
Anubis is a piece of software not a CDN service. You realize to run a CDN you have to buy massive amounts of bandwidth and computers? DIY here belies a misunderstanding of what it takes to be DOS resistant and also what it takes to actually have CDN deliver a performance benefit.
•
This is a great idea for Anubis, funding future development and it being an alternative CDN. Customers on the enterprise plan can either use Anubis's Managed CDN or host Anubis themselves via a enterprise license! They can directly receive tech support from the creator of Anubis. (as long as they pay on the enterprise plan) I don't see a problem with this and it can turn Anubis from "a piece of software" into a CDN.
•
Has anyone from the Anubis project said anything about aspiring to transform into a CDN?
? I don't remember telling anyone to trust the reviews? I think it is healthy to try alternatives to Cloudflare and then come to your own decision.
•
I'm not saying you did, but for me things like what I mentioned are red flags. They also use C#—another red flag. There's OVH, Hetzner, DigitalOcean, etc—all are private companies that aren't on Wall Street.
"I don’t know. I wish technical organisations would be more thorough in investigating accidents." - This is just armchair quarterbacking at this point given that they were forthcoming during the incident and had a detailed post-mortem shortly after. The issue is that by not being a fly on the wall in the war room the OP is making massive assumptions about the level of discussions that take place about these types of incidents long after it has left the collective conscience of the mainstream.
•
The article makes no claim about the effort that has gone into the analysis. You can apply a lot of effort and still only produce a shallow analysis. If the analysis has not uncovered the feedback problems (even with large effort, or without it), my argument is that a better method is needed.
It's a detailed postmortem published within a couple hours of the incident and this blog post is disappointed that it didn't provide a comprehensive assessment of all the procedural changes inside the engineering organization that came as a consequence. At the point in time when this blog post was written, it would not have been possible for them to answer these questions.
•
Part of my argument in the article is that it does't take long to come to that realisation if using the right methods. It would absolutely have been possible to identify the problem of missing feedback by that time.
Adventures in upgrading Proxmox (blog.vasi.li)
•
See also "Upgrade from 8 to 9": * https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Upgrade_from_8_to_9 And "Known Issues & Breaking Changes (9.1)": * https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Roadmap#9.1-known-issues
•
"Very helpful tips for a smooth Proxmox upgrade!" "Clear and practical steps—thanks for sharing!" "This guide is a lifesaver for sysadmins upgrading Proxmox.
•
Related ongoing thread: Proxmox virtual environment 9.1 available - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45980005 - Nov 2025 (56 comments)
•
> As an aside... Because one node didn't start, and my Proxmox cluster has only two nodes, it can't reach quorum, meaning I can't really make any changes to my other node, and I can't start any containers that are stopped. I've recently added another Zigbee dongle, that supports Thread, and it happens to share same VID:PID combo as the old dongle, so due to how these were mapped into guest OS, all my light switches stopped working. I had to fix the issue fast. Lesson in here somewhere. Something about about a toaster representing the local intelligence maxima?
> Running docker inside LXC is weird. Knowing when to use a vm and when to use a container is sometimes an opaque problem. This is one of those cases where a VM is a much better choice.
•
Proxmox FAQ calls running Docker on LXC a tech preview and “kind of” recommends VMs. At the very bottom of the page. https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/FAQ > While it can be convenient to run “Application Containers” directly as Proxmox Containers, doing so is currently a tech preview. For use cases requiring container orchestration or live migration, it is still recommended to run them inside a Proxmox QEMU virtual machine.
•
The way I understand it is that Docker with LXC allows for compute / resource sharing, where as dedicated VMs will will require passing through the entire discrete GPU. So, the VMs require a total passthrough of those Zigbees, container wouldn't? I'm not exactly sure how the outcome would have changed here though.
•
I can't speak for the author, but they said they have a Coral TPU passed into the LXC & container, which I also have on my Proxmox setup for Frigate NVR. Depending on your hardware platform, there could be valid reasons why you wouldn't want to run Frigate NVR in a VM. Frigate NVR it works best when it can leverage the GPU for video transcoding and TPU for object detection. If you pass the GPU to the VM, then the Proxmox host no longer has video output (without a secondary GPU). Unless you have an Intel Arc iGPU, Intel Arc B50/B60, or fancy server GPU, you won't have SR-IOV on your system, and that means you have to pass the entire GPU into the VM. This is a non-starter for systems where there is no extra PCIe slot for a graphics card, such as the many power-efficient Intel N100 systems that do a good job running Frigate. The reason why you'd put Docker into LXC is that's the best supported way to get docker engine working on Proxmox without a VM. You'd want to do it on Proxmox because it brings other benefits like a familiar interface, clustering, Proxmox Backup Server, and a great community. You'd want to run Frigate NVR within Docker because it is the best supported way to run it. At least, this was the case in Proxmox 8. I haven't checked what advancements in Proxmox 9 may have changed this.
•
I have Frigate and a Coral USB running happily in a VM on an N97. GPU pass through is slightly annoying (need to use a custom ROM from here: https://github.com/LongQT-sea/intel-igpu-passthru ). I think SRIOV works but haven’t tried. And Coral only works in USB3 mode if you pass the whole PCIe controller.
•
Am I crazy or is converting a dockerfile into LXC something that should be possible?
•
In the new Proxmox VE 9.1 release this should be possible, from the changelog: > OCI images can now be uploaded manually or downloaded from image registries, and then be used as templates for LXC containers.
•
This seems like a niche issue, running Docker in LXC for years with dozens of images without a problem.
Build vs. Buy: What This Week's Outages Should Teach You (toddhgardner.com)
•
> Here’s the thing, if your core business function depends on some capability, you should own it if at all possible. If I'm building something that allows my customers to do X, then yes I will own the software that allows my customers to do X. Makes sense. > They’ll craft artisanal monitoring solutions while their actual business logic—the thing customers pay for—runs on someone else’s computer. So instead I should build an artisanal hosting solution on my own hardware that I purchase and maintain? I could drop proxmox on them and go from there, or K8s, or even just bare metal and systemd scripts. But my business isn't about any of those things, its about X. How does owning and running my own hardware get me closer to delivering on X?
•
There's no easy answer, but you should definitely model what happens when X goes down if you depend on X. It may even be a rational decision to take the downtime if the cost of avoiding it exceeds the expected cost of an eventual downtime, but that's a business decision that requires some serious thought.
What this outage teaches you is that when a third party vendor fails and the internet breaks you can point the finger at them with no issues. If your shit breaks and everyone else's shit is still working that's a problem.
•
> you can point the finger at them with no issues. yeah sure, if your business is one of the 500 startups on HN creating inane shit like a notes app or a calendar, but outages can affect genuine companies that people rely on
Instead we need a startup that builds over every cloud provider. Think of a web server for example. AWS has EC2, GCP has its own equivalent and Azure has its own and so on. What if we had a startup that virtualizes a layer on top of these such that we AWS has an outage, you lose 1/3rd of your operating capacity, when Azure has an outage you lose 1/3rd of your operating capacity. In order for you startup s virtual webserver to go down, all of AWS, GCP and Azure wil have to go down simultaneously. Basically build on top of everyone s cloud service into one single unified virtual layer that offers end products to consumers. A 6GB RAM server that the end consumer purchases has 2GB of RAM running on AWS, 2GB on Azure and 2GB on GCP. I am sure we can also strategize something along the same lines for a database server with the added question of the database sharding strategy at play
•
In practice, you're better off just having one cloud but if you ever reach the point you care about this, you're better off running some cloud-agnostic platform like Kubernetes in a multi-cloud setup (i.e. one cluster per cloud) and then load-balancing or failing over via DNS.
•
> A 6GB RAM server that the end consumer purchases has 2GB of RAM running on AWS, 2GB on Azure and 2GB on GCP. That'd be very inefficient usage of compute. Memory access now has network latency, cache locality doesn't exist, processes don't work. You're basically subverting how computers fundamentally work today. There's no benefit. I know Kubernetes and containers has everyone thinking servers don't matter but we should have less virtualization, not more. Redundancy and virtualization are not the same thing.
You can't build your own Cloudflare in any meaningful sense. You can choose not to have the functionality Cloudflare provides because you prioritize the risk of a Cloudflare outage as more important than the benefits Cloudflare gives you, but that probability tree is probably going to land in Cloudflare's favor for 99.99% of businesses. If you can build a system with redundancy to continue working even if Cloudflare is unavailable then you should, but most years that's going to be a waste of time. I think you'd be better off spending the time building good relationships with your customers and users so that in the event of an outage that's beyond your control they trust your business and continue to be happy customers when you're back up and running.
•
Exactly, CloudFlare falls squarely in the "Buy" category. This is not a product you just build, you'd overpay massively for global capacity. In general I think people are overreaction to the CloudFlare outage and most of these types of articles aren't really thought all the way through. Also the conclusion on Jurassic Park is wrong. Hammond "spared no expense" yet Nedry was a single point of failure? Seems like they spared at least some expense in the IT department
Outdated Samsung handset linked to fatal emergency call failure in Australia (theregister.com)
•
Wireless Telco: "Telstra also warned last month that older, non-upgradeable Samsung devices could fail Triple Zero calls Which can be less of a problem if there are full-digit emergency numbers that could be saved as a contact (preferably quick-dial). Auto-call routing can fail if you're on one side of a regional border but are connected to a cell on the other - and local EMS can't forward calls to the neighboring EMS (or just suck at it). I used to live on a border and local EMS was 3-digit only. The only way to get to the correct EMS was to call their non-emergency number and get forwarded - but only after getting scolded first for not calling the 3-digit number.
•
Handset Manufacturer: "We strongly encourage customers to keep their mobile devices updated with the latest software" Which might be an easier sell if tech updates didn't continually sabotage user experience, including handset updates.
•
I'm trying to imagine a conversation with a Bell engineer in the 80s explaining that, in the future, a 4-year old phone won't be expected to call 911 any more.
•
These phones couldn’t do the thing in question even when 0 years old, due to a bug, and failure to fix that is the reason for getting blocked from the networks
Wow, that list on the Samsung site is concerning. The S21 is a 2021 phone. Absolutely realistic people would still be using it, and outside of a tired battery I'll bet it's performing just fine.
•
My S21 Ultra is the best phone I've ever had. I bought it a couple of months from when it was newly released and it just will not die. I've traveled with it, played all the games, thousands of photos, used it for nearly a year while I was doing gig driving (so plugged in and screen on for hours at a time), dropped countless times, and the screen has no cracks and the battery still lasts more than a day with regular use. For the past few years every new Samsung smartphone has piqued my interest, and the second my S21 dies I will buy whatever Samsung flagship happens to be the latest, but it just will not die.
•
Same. I have now turned my s21 ultra into a full on gaming console with the following emulators installed on it: drastic, melonds, m64plusfz, citra, snes9x, super8plus, redream, superpsx, ppsspp, duckstation, aethersx2, ppss22, cemu, dolphin, eden, sudachi, citron. And even winlator. It plays everything below switch flawlessly. Even on switch it'll run literally everything I have thrown at it from BoTW to ToTK to Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, albeit with poor performance. But lighter switch games like Super Smash Bros Ultimate or even the newer Super Mario Bros Wonder run flawlessly. Hollow Knight runs flawlessly. I have an OLED steam deck, but I LOVE the portability of this phone. I play with it using the bsp d8 pro controller as well as the xbox series s controller using a magsafe case and a magsafe clamp that attaches to the controller. Phone works great for 3ds emulation as well. Also the battery charges so quickly after a gaming session. It really is a wonderful gaming device.
•
I literally just upgraded from that a month ago, and only because of the degraded battery (which I was fine with but I was going on a trip and didn't want the headache). There's dozens of us, Jerry!
>"Customer safety remains our highest priority," said CEO Iñaki Berroeta. It's fun to imagine a world where a lie like this could be a legal liability. I mean an actual court case, where evidence is brought and the claim is tested. "Is customer safety a higher priority than shareholder value?" and "why don't you support old devices" and then Samsung would need to produce internal evidence to try to make their case. Nothing like that will ever happen, but I can dream.
•
I think it would be a worse world then the one we live in today where we allow some leeway for exaggerations. As it is everyone and everything are overly careful of saying anything that might have legal implications. One outcome of that are new laws that are almost incomprehensible.
Is this puffery or not? I don't know, IANAL, but maybe? I checked and Puffery is legal in Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery
•
You don’t need to tell people that you are not a lawyer. That is the default.
Emoji evidence errors don’t undo a murder conviction (blog.ericgoldman.org)
•
In the same vein was an incident where an improperly localized phone in Turkey caused a sent message to arrive with different characters, with very different meaning, and the fallout was two deaths [1], discussed here [2] [1] https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=73 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9900758
I’m not sure I understand this comment. Emojis are a form of communication. Communications can and are evidence used in court. If someone drew pictures related to guns, and then was accused of a gun crime, that evidence would be used. If someone communicated non-verbally to someone by drawing their finger across their throat and then pointing at the person, who later alleged they were attacked by that person, that would be evidence. Emojis are simplified pictograms used as shorthand to communicate, like acronyms or initialisms are simplified representations of multiple words, like someone saying “RIP to you for what you did” could be a threat. If someone sent an email threatening someone else, the court should not present that email incorrectly as raw HTML code. If a WhatsApp message was sent with text bolded for emphasis, it shouldn’t be shown to the jury in plain text. So I don’t understand this derisive attitude towards "emoji evidence."
•
I am just despairing the state of the species. We're communicating through comic pictograms like we're reverting to a neolithic state.
An obvious problem is Apple renders the firearm emoji as a water pistol, and everyone else renders it as an actual pistol.
•
What is it these days that perfectly normal words and things get censored? As far as harmful social phenomena go this is very small, but it's so silly.
•
Because there's a concerted effort to "denormalize" and stigmatize the perfectly legitimate activity of owning a firearm for lawful purposes like hunting, collecting, and sport shooting. Just one more front in the culture wars.
•
I don't agree. It's more like an extreme fear of causing offence, which is one of the greatest crimes any public official or company can commit in todays day and age. You can definitely fit it in to the ongoing war against culture, but you are reaching a bit. I can't even blame Big Tech for it. It probably makes them more profit to be proactively timid. When that stops being true so will they.
I dunno, the SoftBank emoji from 25 years ago is pretty much the same face as Apple's is now. https://emojipedia.org/softbank/2000/loudly-crying-face
•
"The SoftBank emoji designs heavily influenced Apple's original emoji font which was designed to be compatible with this set when launching in Japan, due to iPhone being a SoftBank-exclusive phone when first released." Would be why.
Launch HN: Mosaic (YC W25) – Agentic Video Editing (mosaic.so)
I just clicked the link and encountered a non-scrollable, dark, fixed content pane with loads of flickering images and scrolling text with random font sizes without much meaning. I felt imprisoned, subjected to unexpected suffering, can't scroll away, got scared and raced for the window close button, and then breathed easy.
•
I had the same reaction. About what you would expect from a team steeped in the Tesla mindset.
•
Please don't cross into personal attack. We're trying for the opposite on this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
•
thanks for the feedback — you can head directly to https://edit.mosaic.so to try the actual canvas interface
•
seems like the landing page is detracting from the main product, this is good feedback so thanks! For now, avoid the scaries and head directly to https://edit.mosaic.so to try the actual canvas interface
•
I've put the /edit and /docs links in the first sentence above to soften the blow as well :)
•
Since video is your thing, I feel like you need to just make a very edited demo reel and put all your energy into trying to get people to watch that video. Meaning, remove almost all text and bloat from the site and just show us all the cool stuff the product does for/to video editing. Distill it to 60-120 seconds and put that on your landing, hell put it on auto play if you want to, so long as it's clear that is the one thing I'm supposed to be paying attention to
•
yeah I think a demo reel of a BEFORE vs AFTER immediately somewhere in the hero even or right below it would be helpful
•
They really managed to handcraft a unique user experience, that's for sure.
•
we did but the landing page seems to be detracting from it — head directly to https://edit.mosaic.so to try the actual canvas interface
Mosaic team dev here Hanging in the comments all day and pushing updates as fast as we can -really appreciate the feedback!
•
Is there a way to keep up to date on updates and new announcements? TIA.
I don’t need to imagine, I do it haha but again I was being tongue in cheek. I personally would love an effective tool that can mark and favorite clips for me based on written prompts. Would save me an awful amount of time!
•
curious — what kind of content do you edit?
The problem is, any video demo of a tool like this is just an entirely unrelated video.
•
can you clarify what you mean here? check out this demo video: https://screen.studio/share/SP7DItVD
> you can upload all your footage from your travel, and prompt it to "make a 2 minute highlight reel of your trip to Japan" In relation to the demo requests below, I think this would be a good example of how an average person might use your platform.
•
for a demo, check out this one that I put together using 81 clips from a skydiving trip we took in Monterey, CA: https://edit.mosaic.so/links/c51c0555-3114-45f4-ab8f-c25f172f21ab
Europe is scaling back GDPR and relaxing AI laws (theverge.com)
•
Poor Europe - lobbyists make sure that Europe stays weak. That statement includes Ursula by the way.
Incredible to see the 180 both from EU and also from the HN sentiment. HN was cheering on as EU went after Big Tech companies, especially Meta. Meta is no perfect company, but the amount of 'please stick it to them' was strong (I reckon that is still a bridge too far for a lot of folks here). Even extreme proponents of big tech villanery in the US (Lina Khan's FTC) is also facing losses (They just lost their monumental case against Meta yesterday). What I really want to see is Meta getting irrelevant ON MERIT. People stop using Meta products, and then I want to see it die. But not by forcing the hand - that's bad for everyone, especially the enterpreuer / hacker types on this site
•
This is a proposal from the EC. Whether the EU accept it is not clear.
There has been a change in the community here over the last decade, we've lost a lot of the hacker spirit and have a larger proportion of "chancers", people who are only in tech to "get rich quick". The legacy of ZIRP combined with The Social Network marketing.
•
The truly "eternal" September. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
Then I propose you should support https://noyb.eu/ Their track record is pretty good.
•
If you support them (I do, they do great work), please set up a yearly subscription. Predictable revenue is very valuable for organizations.
So far so good - and I say this as one voting remain. The only gripe I have is that our domestic doomers were even more stupid than the EU ones. Ours were the progenitors of many of EU dumb ideas. So even outside EU, we in the UK not only did not repeal the utterly imbecilic laws we inherited. No - we added even more stupid laws. Consequence being people are put in jail for writing stuff on the Internet. I hope someone puts in jail the lawmakers that voted for these laws. To the cheering of and with public support, it must be said. It was not without consent, it was not only bi-party, but omni-party consent.
•
The UK was known for bureaucracy even before they joined the EU. The idea that the red tape would vanish was always silly.
> One change that’s likely to please almost everyone is a reduction in Europe’s ubiquitous cookie banners and pop-ups. Under the new proposal, some “non-risk” cookies won’t trigger pop-ups at all, and users would be able to control others from central browser controls that apply to websites broadly. Finally!
•
Related ongoing thread: Europe's cookie nightmare is crumbling. EC wants preference at browser level - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45979527 - Nov 2025 (80 comments)
Can we get the do-not-track header instead? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track Because that made more sense than the cookie banner ever did. Edit: it looks like there is a legal alternative now: Global Privacy Control.
•
Or a new, opt-in "Do-Track" that means consent to tracking, and anything else means tracking is not allowed. Why should it opt-out?
So they finally admit that it was a mistake. Even EU government websites had annoying giant cookie banners. Yet, some how the vast majority of HN comments defend the cookie banners saying if you don't do anything "bad" then you don't need the banners.
•
Cookie banners are made obtrusive by the people running CMPs as they want to make it as hard as possible to stop collecting the data
•
Funny thing is that I often will go out of my way to find the least permissive settings if the banner is obnoxious or has a dark pattern.
It worked to highlight the insane amount of tracking every fucking website does. Unfortunately it didn’t stop it. A browser setting letting me reject everything by default will be a better implementation. But this implementation only failed because almost every website owner wants to track your every move and share those moves with about 50 different other trackers and doesn’t want to be better.
•
The cookie law made this worse. I used to use an extension that let me whitelist which sites could set cookies (which was pretty much those I wanted to login to). I had to stop using it because I had to allow the cookie preference cookies on too many sites.
•
50 is not even close. Those banners often list up to 3000 ”partners”.
You can just set your browser not to send whichever cookies you don't want to. Cookies are a client-side technology. Why does the government need to be involved?
•
Because it's not like the browser has two thousand cookies per website, it only has one and then they share your data with the two thousand partners server-side. The government absolutely needs to be involved.
Not all cookies are bad for the user, for instance the one that keeps you logged in or stores the session id. Those kind were never banned in the first place. Blocking cookies locally doesn't allow you to easily discriminate between tracking and functional cookies. And even if the browser had a UI for accepting or rejecting each cookie, they're not named such that a normal user could figure out which are important for not breaking the website, and which are just for tracking purposes. By passing a law that says "website providers must disambiguate" this situation can be improved.
•
Cookies that keep you logged in or maintain a session don’t need consent
How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity (joanwestenberg.com)
•
> You get certainty in an uncertain world. You get a community that will defend you. You get a simple heuristic for navigating complex issues. This is what faith used to provide. I say this as a not religious person: Maybe societies really need something like religion to channel irrationality?
•
We've been trying religion for as long there have been humans. Tends to suffer from the same shortcomings: very easy to subvert and abuse by adversial agents (grifters, sociopaths, etc) and increases in-group/out-group thinking. We need something new.
•
> One friend became “convinced” that every major news story was manufactured consent. Another started treating political disagreement as evidence of moral corruption. A third began using the word "liberal" as if it was a personality disorder rather than loose coalitions of sometimes contradictory beliefs. Uh.... The vast majority of new stories from major outlets ARE manufactured consent.
More succinctly: The Nash equilibrium of public discourse on social media is extremism and polarization ... ... because for each individual, the way to get more clicks and influence is by becoming more extreme and polarizing. Sigh.
•
Idk, I’m a big critic of social media (don’t use any but hacker news). Really do think it has lots and lots of problems. But what’s polarized me isnt that. It’s just reading regular news and caring about the world.
We are at this point where we need to “Turn on, tune in, drop out” again. This mass media circus of social media and influencers doesn’t help anyone except their own self centred interests. Fair to say this is easier in Europe where we don’t have the propaganda firehose but I think it’s time to switch off US friends
•
> this is easier in Europe where we don’t have the propaganda firehose quite ironic, given that we're talking about cognitive dissonance amongst other things
As a long time proponent of reasonable-ism I disagree with a lot of this. The assumption that a lot of our problems stem from 2 sides just seeing an issue differently is just nonsense in this day and age. The big Problem, is that one side has slid heavily into authoritarianism, and the other side is completely ill-equipped to fight it. On any particular issue, the right will say whatever gets them more Power, and the left will bring out some sort of philosophy professor to try and pick apart the nuances of the conversation.
•
For real. Honestly, the idea that people are good and caring and just see things differently is the comforting lie. I really really want to believe it. You get to feel happy about humanity, smarter than all the hysterical people, etc, It took so so so much evil from the Republicans to convince me that they are Not a reasonable side, do Not warrant any consideration, and that people who follow them Are morally corrupt.
If all your relationships fail in the same manner, it is likely that the problem is you. > One friend became “convinced” that every major news story was manufactured consent. Another started treating political disagreement as evidence of moral corruption. A third began using the word "liberal" as if it was a personality disorder rather than loose coalitions of sometimes contradictory beliefs. Manufactured consent is a real thing, with mounting evidence that it's becoming increasingly prevalent. The ownership structures around major news outlets are worrisome and what many considered 'reliable' for years are now showing seriously problematic habits (like genocide erasure - lookin' at you, NYT.) Liberalism has come under completely valid scrutiny as we've seen fiscal policies implemented by Clinton and Obama blow up in our faces. No, we don't think Reaganomics is anything but a grift, but many of us see the grift in NAFTA and the ACA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley and have begun to question the honesty of centrist liberal economic policies because we are seeing them fail catastrophically . > The incentive gradient was clear: sanity was expensive, and extremism paid dividends. Author is doing something subtle here - without making a defense or interrogation of the statement, they are saying "Not being liberal / centrist is extremism, and thus invalid". I call bullshit. I have not profited or benefited from my "extreme" leftist views. If anything, I take a risk every time I talk about them out in the open. My comment history is going to be visible to all future employers. Should the government continue it's rightward slide I'll have a target painted on my back that I put there. I don't believe the things I believe because it's convenient , I believe them because in my estimation, we are operating on a set of failed systems and it's important that we fix them because they present a real and present danger . We have Trump because Biden was utterly incapable of facing the actual problems people are having with the economic prosperity gap. If you don't address the actual hardship in people's lives, you leave the door open for a huckster to make those promises for you. Most will take the unreliable promise of a better tomorrow over being lied to about whether they even have a problem. You don't need a PhD in economics to know that whatever the GDP might be you're still broke and you can't afford to feed your kids.
•
Breaking people raises the GDP. It wasn't that Biden was incapable, I mean besides the dementia his party and the media hid from its viewers, he was capable of fixing the problem for the less than billionaires. The problem is believing the other party has an alternative. The problem is belief in the other. Who we believe the other is. The other isn't anyone who doesn't have power over you. The problem is believing people who say someone who doesn't have power over you is the other. There is only the powerless and the powerful.
•
Totally agreed with all points. Thanks for writing it up so elegantly
The real grift has been in echo chambers changing peoples vocabulary such that we can use the same words but talk right past eachother, allowing extremely moderate positions to be reframed as extreme and making what ought to be minor disagreements unresolvable. People making an "I can see both sides" argument are completely missing the point - the issue is that most people can't see both sides, and even when they go out of their way to look at the other side's argument, they come away even more convinced that the other side's argument is dumb because it is dumb, if it is assumed everyone is speaking the same language. People haven't all suddenly become insane, or dumb, or unreasonable; we've just taken for granted that people geographically close to us using the same vocabulary would mean the same things, and thus we never developed the skills to translate between people who are in fact living in wildly different worlds possibly in the same household. And much of this is by design - pointing out how dumb someone else is, and complaining about the burden of dealing with these dumb people, takes so much less effort than actually doing the work to build consensus and make changes.
•
one of the first steps in any color revolution is changing the language to confuse everyone, so it's not surprising that it's so common
A better solution to this would be to fragment within social media platforms. Allow users to post any content that's legal within their local jurisdiction. And give other users easy tools to create their own "filter bubbles" so that they don't see content which they personally consider insane or offensive. This would allow the social media platforms to sidestep political debates about censorship.
•
Sounds like bluesky
What is basic decency? Is it indecent to advocate for atheism or if a women posts a picture of herself not wearing a burka? Many people in certain countries would say so. Personally I think those people are insane, and that maximal freedom of expression is the most important human right, but the fundamental problem is that there is no consensus on what constitutes basic decency.
•
You're correct that decency is a nicer word for conformity. Social discord avoids violence, but creates repression. I think the compromise is basically liberalism. Let people make their own communities. Let people switch communities, criticize other ones non-violently, enforce their own w/ democratically determined rules, etc.
Nah, the solution is deanonymization. People with no shame, and with strong anti-social tendencies should not be given a safe space.
•
You said it brother! We should make everyone who disagrees with baxuz where name tags on their chest in the real world too. So we can know who they are. We can even put the names on a bright yellow six sided star. That way everyone can see them clearly.
Yes Both are significantly different but still fail to provide the most basic service: access to clean water I can trivially get access to plenty of clean drinking water in most “wild” places in the world, in fact that’s like the third core thing you learn in survival schools (of which I’ve attended many).
•
You're doing the thing that the article is talking about. Neither are average examples. I don't know about Tehran, but you have to really be cherry-picking to make a data set where Flint ends up as an average case of municipal water quality.
•
Stoked you took a survival class though! I'm not being sarcastic, it sounds fun.
Yes, it's easy to cherry-pick an obviously absurd position that could be articulately argued. But the point is that you are definitely wrong about some things and should generally keep an open mind. Even intelligent people are wrong about certain things, and in fact their propensity for rationalization can lead them into some absurd positions. But some of those positions turn out to be right, like the Earth orbiting the Sun, for example.
•
The grandparent's point is that articulate prose is irrelevant to the strength/correctness of the argument or intelligence of the author. I would take it a step further and include that it has no bearing on the morality of the author. The original claim was: > But exposing yourself to articulate versions of positions you oppose does something valuable: it makes you realize that intelligent people can disagree with you without being monsters or morons. In truth, it does no such thing. Articulate arguments serve neither as proof the person making it isn't a monster nor that they are particularly intelligent or knowledgeable about that which they argue. Though, I would also point out that monsters can occasionally be right as well.
•
For example, the author is articulate and wrong about needing to give consideration to republicans :p
Not every internet comment is a disagreement with what it's replying to. The entire "media intended for voluntary casual consumption" industry is rife with these sorts of "gotta keep doing what you're known for" traps. Pretty much every industry with minimal product differentiation is like this to varying extents. Sorry my examples weren't completely devoid of exceptions <eyeroll>. Anyway, two can play this stupid game. Why is it such a problem that I'm alleging this content is basically scratching the same itch in the same way as tabloids but for different demographics? Why do you feel the need to make this out to be an attack on everyone rather than a narrowly targeted "the world do be the way it is" criticism?
•
I don't really think its a problem and didn't indicate as such. Its why I was asking questions, trying to reconcile arguments, and overall not trying to assume one way or the other. But I can see I somehow have wasted your time regardless, sorry about that! For everything else, sorry, I really don't know what you are saying, but your kind of righteous anger at the author is something I can certainly respect even if I am not quite sure what context you are coming from here. "Media intended for voluntary casual consumption" seems to be a pretty wide net.. what are you trying distinguish with that phrase? Media whose consumption is compulsory and not casual.. Maybe like educational/job training videos I guess? Instructional manuals? Also, what is the author here known for, that they have to keep doing? Really trying to parse here, is it maybe just "being intellectual"? Small aside, but it's easier to talk to my cat recently then to try and use any form of prose to communicate something successfully on HN. The breakdown of communication is almost surreal these days and I don't even know what to point to. Threads get like 3 levels deep and it just becomes a mess! While never perfect, this used to be such a great place for deep discussion, whats changing?
However, there are fewer articulate (and internally consistent) defenses of flat earth theory, than say… particle physics. In my experience. Plenty of timecube style ones, however.
•
Yes, and this is not just due to the intelligence of the "believers" but due to the fact that describing 2=2=2 in a self-consistent way only takes understanding it while describing 2=2=3 in a way that appears self-consistent requires a true rhetorical genius.
The author writes, “You end up in a world where changing your mind becomes impossible because you've built your entire identity around being right”. Yet social-media personalities regularly do a 180° turn on some issue (e.g. pro-Ukraine to anti-Ukraine or vice versa) and still keep their following and ability to monetize it. Social media is full of parasocial relationships; followers are in love with an influencer’s personality, not their views or factual content. So, the influencer can completely change his mind about stuff, as long as he still has the engaging presentation that people have come to like. Followers are also often in love with the brand relationships that the influencers flog, because people love being told what stuff they should buy.
•
It's more about being confident and extreme on their stance no matter what it is at that particular moment. People are attracted to personalities that are confident and says they are right all the time. Heck, personalities like that gets all the influence in the workplace too. Imagine John Doe in your office who has a solution for every problem and knows the code base like the back of their hand. You might find that they are not so right all the time (maybe 2 out of 3 times it's pure conjecture) but gosh you will go back to him for solutions the next time you run into a problem. What I am saying is that we are attracted to the extreme, the flamboyant, the controversial. Maybe it's time we prioritize critical thinking for the future generation no?
Proxmox virtual environment 9.1 available (proxmox.com)
•
Related ongoing thread: Adventures in upgrading Proxmox - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45981666 - Nov 2025 (10 comments)
Somehow, their web developer managed to break scrolling on Safari, so I am unable to navigate the linked site. If anyone else was looking for a list of what has changed in recent releases, it can be found at https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Roadmap
•
There’s a cookie popup, so maybe something on your browser is removing the layer and causing all the events to be ignored.
The Proxmox answer to this is Ceph - https://ceph.io/en/
•
> The Proxmox answer to this is Ceph - https://ceph.io/en/ And how does Ceph/RBD work over Fibre Channel SANs? (Speaking as someone who is running Proxmox-Ceph (and at another gig did OpenStack-Ceph).)
Shared across a cluster of multiple hosts, such that you can hot migrate VMs? I am not aware of that being possible in Proxmox the same way you can in VMware with VMFS.
•
It's not like VMFS (not a cluster filesystem), for Proxmox+iSCSI you get a large LVM PV that gets sliced up into volumes for your VMs. All of your Proxmox nodes are connected to that same LVM PV and you can live migrate your VMs around all you wish, have HA policies so if a node dies its VMs start up right away on a surviving node, etc. You lose snapshots (but can have your SAN doing snaps, of course) and a few other small things I can't recall right now, but overall it works great. Have had zero troubles.
I don't remember if I tried and failed, or if it seemed too much for me... I have an Arc A series; if you have a verified guide I would like to take a look!
•
Some folks got Intel Arc working: * https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/pci-passthrough-arc-a380-into-vm.146964/
HPE VM Essentials and Proxmox are just UI/wrappers/+ on top of kvm/virsh/libvirt for the virtualization side. You can grow out of either by just moving to self hosted, or you can avoid both for the virtualization part if you don't care about the VMware like GUI if you are an automation focused company. If we could do it 20 years ago once VT-x for production Oracle EBS instances for a smaller but publicly traded company with a IT team of 4, almost any midmarket enterprise could do it today, especially with modern tools. It is culture and web-ui requirements and FUD that cause issues, not the underlying products that are stable today, but hidden from view.
•
KVM is awesome enough that there isn’t a lot of room left to differentiate at the hypervisor level. Now the problem is dealing with thousands of the things, so it’s the management layer where the product space is competing.
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
How two photographers transformed RAW photo support on Mac (petapixel.com)
•
> “The only thing I have is Preview, and I have to look at one photo at a time,” Shan says. “It’s crazy. I got fed up with it so I looked at different apps.” Select files in Finder, option + double click on them, and you have many photo files accessible in a single Preview window.
•
Do these tools support Nikon's "high-efficiency" compressed NEF files? I suspect that they're encumbered by patents.
•
I don't understand the appeal here. When Microsoft added some RAW support for Windows, I've never used it for anything except thumbnails in File Explorer. If you're shooting RAW it's because you want to edit the photos in the kind of tool that will never be natively included in the OS. Otherwise shoot JPEG (or whatever format the iPhone shoots because universal standards are never good enough for Apple)
•
I thought iOS exported DNG…
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
Programming the Commodore 64 with .NET (retroc64.github.io)
Question to HN .NET Devs Its been a long time since I was in the MSFT ecosystem (left just as wsl was getting popular). I remember thinking C#, F#, .NET and LINQ was a pretty robust set of tooling that was ahead of its time and certainly ahead of Java. At the time, the things that were holding it back was: - Poor to non existant linux support - A confusing labyrinth of MSFT web frameworks that were nonsensically named and often deprecated - A very GUI heavy dev and production setup I know a lot has changed since then. So how is it in 2025?
•
At my daily job, our production servers are Linuxes, and we deploy our .NET code (fairly complex web app) just fine, using the same techniques you would with other technologies like CLI GitLab CI/CD, Docker, Kubernetes... Forget about GUI if you're not into it. The web framework craze is settling down. Microsoft seems to have consolidated into two web frameworks: Blazor (improved/extended Razor Pages) and ASP.NET for MVC, and APIs. I personaly don't expect another U-turn for the coming years. Blazor is really nice, and ready for production. The only downside I see is that Visual Studio (vanilla) struggles compared to another MSFT technologies. You don't need Visual Studio, though
•
Citing my own comment from another thread: I've worked with .NET for over 10 years and we built our startup on top of it. Here are my thoughts: Pros: * Stability * Very decent standard library * Good balance between productivity and robustness * Great package management * Extremely easy to upgrade, so essentially free goodies (performance) every year or so Cons: * Very MSFT dominated (obviously) * Subpar tooling outside of Windows (I'm looking at you C# Dev Kit) * C# has way to many features, it feels bloated * Culturally, it feels like .NET devs are less "passionate" about their work * The freaking stigma of being a .NET dev: you will never be as cool as the guys who work with Node/Python/whatever Edit: Also I'd like to add EFCore as one of the pros of the ecosystem. Hands down the best ORM. Others don't come close.
•
I've been running .NET web apps on Linux since 2018 (early .NET Core versions) ASP.NET is stable and really good web framework
•
I am a full time .NET developer, experienced with both newer and older .NET versions. They are confusingly named, but this is the gist: - .NET Framework is the older version that is tied to Windows. - .NET is the newer version that is cross platform, and was renamed from .NET Core. Linux support is pretty good on .NET. I don't have as much experience with this personally since most of my company is still using .NET Framework, but I was able to get a simple .NET app running on Linux without any hassle. The main web frameworks I am aware of are Blazor and MVC. Blazor behaves more like a single-page application (without needing JavaScript!) and abstracts away most of the headache of making dynamic web pages, but generally doesn't scale as well from what I have seen. MVC is a little more traditional but you need to write some JavaScript for interactivity. I'm not fully sure what you mean by GUI heavy. Everything I am aware of can be accomplished with the CLI tooling.
Not really. They're independent languages with different design goals. You're exact questions in this thread would have been just as relevant without bringing it up.
•
Open to you educating me here! I (maybe naively) see their design goals being very similar: - Enterprise Devs as the core user (Type safety, great stdlib) - High level OO based interfaces - Allows for low enough level programming that you can reasonably use in place of C/C++ The differences seem to be more minor: - opinionated (C#) vs unopinionated (Java) when it comes to what tools / libraries you reach for. - Conservative (Java) vs Experimental (C#) when it comes to releasing new language features - Execution model: Java seems like a better choice for "run anywhere" but C# has been indexing more in this direction
•
> - Enterprise Devs as the core user (Type safety, great stdlib) > - High level OO based interfaces > - Allows for low enough level programming that you can reasonably use in place of C/C++ This can reasonably said about any programming language that is popular. These points could also reasonably match Go. C# and Java have had completely opposite design goals. C#'s design goals are to have a more powerful/complex language with a not as advanced runtime. Java is the exact opposite. They favor having a slower moving language while pushing the edge on having a very advanced runtime.
Programming for the C64 CPU is terrible. You couldn't even attempt to port a dotnet subset. There isn't a multiplication instruction, so you have to painstakingly reinvent all useful algorithms from the last 40 years from nearly scratch and by the time you want to implement a hash you notice you're running out of RAM.
•
A generation of programmers might disagree with you. Multiplication instructions and hash tables (!) are easily worked around, as evidenced by decades of art and innovation programmed on that "terrible" CPU. There are still 6502 programmers today delivering games, art, demoscene, etc. That CPU was a foundation of the home computer and console revolution: BBC, Commodore, Atari (consoles and computers), Apple, and Nintendo (NES).
•
Yeah it pays to have a huge library of routines...e.g. multiplication for every size combo of number sizes, signedness. Also sorts...everything, but if you scour youll find many :)
What happens when even college students can't do math anymore? (theatlantic.com)
What if USA would stop treating education like a business - customer paid for degree, customer gets the degree no matter if customer has essential knowledge for the degree?
•
Thats close to what I was going to say: the answer to the prompt in the headline is clearly "don't admit them to college". But since there is a massive profit motive to admit and keep young fools taking on student loans, I doubt that's the answer the industry would adopt Or as Munger said "show me the incentive and I'll show you the behavior"
The UCSD report shows some of the questions they asked incoming students. 39% got this right: Round the number 374518 to the nearest 100 34% got this right: Find 13/16 ÷ 2. 2% got this right: If a=-2 and b=-3, evaluate ab² - a/b https://senate.ucsd.edu/media/740347/sawg-report-on-admissions-review-docs.pdf page 49
•
To clarify, these are percentages for the sample of students taking the remedial Math 2 class, not generally. Two percent is still crazy low though, that's practically nothing.
> Not by taking away their advantages.(e.g. Admission tests) Admissions tests are actually not as big of a driver for the academic advantage of the wealthy. Especially at flagship institutions a lot of it is simply traced back to legacy admissions, athletics, and extra-curricular activities. Those latter two are more gamed by the wealthy than anything. Removing admission tests and focusing only on the application is actually a huge boon to wealthy families who want to get their children into the best universities because it removes the hard part (having to learn enough to do well in exams) and replaces it with things that are easy to game, like writing essays and getting a track record of doing extra-curriculars. Standardized tests actually make it easier for lower income families to compete for spots for academically advanced children because they’re measuring academic advancement. Even if it’s not a perfect measure, it’s way better than substituting non-academic things that are so easily gamed by the wealthy.
•
I never thought about the ease at which you can game non-academic aspects. I agree that testing is probabamtic because a good tutor can boost peoples performance signficantly but there feels like a limit to actually just learning the material. Useful evalation metrics of people are notoriously difficult
Honestly, nothing has done a better job of solidifying my understanding of a material than trying to explain it to other people. We should be giving students more opportunities to do this, not less.
•
How does giving some students AP classes take away their opportunity to tutor other classmates? Do they not have friends in the non-gifted track?
That’s fallacious. The students won’t get a chance to learn the advanced material by examining it to others because they won’t be allowed to learn the advanced material. How do people not see the harms in banning advanced classes?
•
You're presupposing that the only possible way to provide enrichment is by tracking people into advanced classes.
> I don't know how it works in NYC now, but it doesn't have to be like that. When I went to school you could always get into the gifted program at the beginning of any school year if your teacher put you up for it. You didn't have to be in the program since kindergarten. Sorry, I should have been more clear. The gifted program for kindergarten will be eliminated in the first year of the phaseout. The following year it will also be eliminated for first grade. The following year it will be eliminated for second grade as well. This is the phase out. Students who start in kindergarten next year won’t have the option of the gifted program because it will be eliminated for the following grade every year. It doesn’t matter that they didn’t get into it in Kindergarten because it won’t exist in 1st grade when they get there, and so on. It’s not “ZDS”. It’s literally what he’s said.
•
> and so on. Up to what grade though? The article you provided says Mamdani supports gifted programs starting in the 3rd grade. That's different from your original assertion that he's "[phasing out] gifted education programs", implying that they would end completely for everyone. My original understanding was it was kindergarten only and that was inaccurate. He's following a plan proposed by de Blasio, which I didn't know about, that's phasing it out up to the 2nd grade. Extrapolating from that to "Mamdani will remove all gifted education" is the ZDS I'm referring to. I agree with you overall about the value of gifted programs. But it's important to not spiral into hyperbole.
Your smartphone, their rules: App stores enable corporate-government censorship (aclu.org)
•
Let me get this straight: - You: vote for people makings laws - Companies: comply with legislations they are bound to comply with - you: Censorship! I understand that not everyone gets a chance to vote for laws in the world, but for a company to do business in any country you have to comply with regulations.
Apple couldn’t do a thing about a hypothetical iceblock.com
•
Sure they can. Mobile users have no path of recourse if Apple updates WebKit to break or blacklist the site. There is no working alternative on iPhone or iPad. Maybe the people advocating for browser diversity on iOS were onto something...
•
At least on iOS, Apple controls the singular web browser implementation. If they wanted to, they definitely could do a thing about any site. The same arguments for policing their App Store would apply to the open internet too, it's scary and dangerous!
The article is clearly an advocacy/op-ed that uses "loaded-framing" ("totalitarian control", “cop-in-your-pocket”) and a lot of speculation. A one-sided point of view, as is common in modern "journalism". That said, code should never be banned in the U.S. But U.S. companies need to operate within U.S. laws.
•
Well, you're right that this isn't journalism per se. But it's not trying to be, so your comment is a bit weird. Nobody is confusing the ACLU with CNN.
I just wish a culture of quality would become the rule and not the exception in web app development. It's a far more frequent thing for web apps to stutter and make my phone hot (or on a computer, keep an entire core pegged doing nothing) than it is for native apps to do the same. This experience is universal between browsers and platforms, too; I've observed it on Chrome under Android and Edge on Windows for example. Of course there are plenty of crappy native apps too, but the incidence and severity is comparatively lower and in many cases, there are well-behaved "handcrafted" small dev alternatives to crappy native apps which are much less common (or at least, more difficult to find) on the web.
•
Need to have standardized native web components for the "culture of quality". Everyone building their own special widget in JS+CSS+virtual DOM Framework does not enforce UX quality.
•
Totally agree, it's the inevitable result of infinite wheel reinvention; none of the wheels ever receive the level of refinement they need. By the time the first stone wheel starts showing hints of a polished sheen, it's time to go carve a new stone wheel. I'm a big proponent of browsers including something resembling a traditional UI framework out of the box. It doesn't have to try to be perfect or fit everybody's needs (which is impossible anyway), but it will serve many developers well and give everybody else a solid foundation to build their own (much lighter) stuff on top of.
•
You tell this to frontend experts and they are totally against it. "Lack of UI customization", "this is already possible", "you should skill up and learn web-tech", "use one of the popular (multi MB) component libraries", "we don't need more bad browser APIs", yadda yadda yadda. The real reason is that most of them are afraid it would reduce the number of frontend jobs. But nowadays that is already being eaten by AI...
You mean the ISPs, whose permits are controlled by goverment authorities?
•
Easier to threaten one Store rather than 10,000 ISP's.
PWAs are a pain to develop, with tons of boilerplate.
•
They also don't require a dump truck load of third party dependencies just to have a serviceable set of widgets to use. Every time I start looking into web app development I'm always shocked at what's required to replicate what one gets for "free" in a UIKit app.
You do realise using Swift doesn't require having a network card on your laptop to run 100% of all applications compiled with swiftc?
•
You do realize that neither do browser apps require having a network card on your laptop, right ? You can run local browser apps (HTML + CSS + JS) on a computer with no network card.
The duopoly comes about from a few things forcing it. There's the "it took a while to build it." iOS and android had decades of time to get to where they are now and centuries of developer hours put into writing it. That makes it challenging for others to get in. It isn't impossible, but it's really challenging. For the company, it's likely a loss for a long while before it becomes a possibility of not being a loss. The windows phone was being worked on for 3 years before the iPhone was released and wasn't released for another 3 years... and wasn't exactly a success. Next is the licensing of the modems for the phone spectrum. That takes FCC approval in the US and isn't something that random companies do without good reason. Part of that licensing is the requirement that it is locked down sufficiently that the user can't do malicious things on the radio spectrum with the device... and that tends to go against many of the open source ideals. It's a preemptive Tivoization of the device. Assuming that those two parts are down, the next challenge is to make it a tool that you'd use in place of an iPhone or an android phone. Things like holding PCI data. That again makes it difficult to do. Persuading a bank that the device can act as a payment card and that the authorization is sufficient to avoid fraud from either the apps on the device or the user being able to inject other payment cards that they don't own into the device. Likewise, things like allowing the device's digital wallet to act as the identification card. https://www.tsa.gov/digital-id/participating-states https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/11/apple-introduces-digital-id-a-new-way-to-create-and-present-an-id-in-apple-wallet/ - those require trust between the government and the company that is likely absent with a open source device. I'd love to see an iPod touch like device (non phone) that allows me to run apps or develop my own and build up an ecosystem and demonstrate that trusting it is feasible... but so far I haven't seen many that have lasted beyond kickstarter money running out. I've got a Remarkable ... which isn't exactly small (or cheap). I'd like to see more things like that in other form factors that allow me to do things with it akin to https://developer.remarkable.com
•
> That makes it challenging for others to get in. It isn't impossible, but it's really challenging. Huawei made Harmony OS smartphones in 2 years. That said, they were uniquely motivated by the Google Mobile Services ban, Chinese state support, and likely had set the groundworks for such a transition much earlier.
When the subject arises, the consensus seems to be that moderation (and thus censorship) is indispensable. I blame a deep, possible even genetic, authoritarianism.
•
It seems obvious to me that we just don't mind delegating this task some of the time, as long as we largely agree with the results. I don't think you need an appeal to authoritarianism to appreciate a forum that isn't 80% penis-enlargment ads. A few people spending their time to moderate this content saves the whole group a lot of time. In the same way that I'm okay with other people deciding a tomato is too moldy to sell (whether that's the farmer, health inspector, or grocer), I'm also okay with some people having the power to remove the equivalent speech from certain spaces. You just need to be more careful when the jurisdiction becomes larger, because it becomes harder to "vote with your feet" to go to a place whose policies you agree with.
The peaceful transfer of power in open source projects (shkspr.mobi)
•
I authored a project. Basically a framework and API, that gestated for over a decade. During that time, I managed it pretty much alone. It was difficult. I could have easily considered it "mine, all mine!". When I first started handing it over to the team that now runs it, I considered being a BDFL, but found out that I couldn't let go, while still in the mix. So I walked away from it. I still chip in a peanut gallery comment on Slack, every now and then, but otherwise, I'm history. Best decision I ever made. The new team took it to the next level.
> I'm begging project leaders everywhere - please read up on the social contract and the consent of the governed. I do not need consent as I am not governing anyone like king or president governs. If someone is using my project they are also not really entitled to anything, beyond what stated in license and similar documents if any. If they dislike it, they can fork my project and go away. If someone wants to be entitled to anything, they are free to make a contract and pay for service they desire. But while many are happy to demand nearly noone is willing to help. Or even fork project. Instead they make entitled demand and treat open source developers as servants or slaves or their pets. No, you are not entitled to your preferred governance model to be used in my software project.
•
You've drawn a neat dialectic between the hobbyist technophile and the community builder. If you want the help that you seem to eschew as rare, you could: share control through the delineation of roles, earn collective buy-in (consensus is built through some collective deliberation process, e.g democracy); otherwise, you're within your rights as individual. Those who expect that "those who work will work for me" (the enslaver mentality) ... they also need boning up on social contract theory -- which as a leader you could nudge those individuals back towards good citizenship and maybe even gain useful support, but that's just your opportunity and not an imperative.
There seems to be the implication that the people taking over are better placed to run things. You have to ask yourself though, if those trying to assume control can't get together and sell the idea of a new fork to the userbase why would they be the best people to successfully run the original project?
•
I suggest reading this statement more carefully: > These simply can't be forked without broad consensus around which fork to follow. Thus: > if those trying to assume control can't get together and sell the idea of a new fork to the userbase why would they be the best people to successfully run the original project? That's exactly what I mean by "broad consensus."
•
> You have to ask yourself though, if those trying to assume control can't get together and sell the idea of a new fork to the userbase why would they be the best people to successfully run the original project? Assume control is a loaded phrase. And many people believe a fork should be a last resort.
> If you look at the recent shenanigans of WordPress and Ruby, they are causing discontent within the existing organisation of contributors. This is why I think the article is a bit of misdirection. Your criticism is about project governance not about project succession . You want the leaders of WordPress and Rails to step down now because you don't like how they behave in power, not because of the danger that the leaders might die or disappear and leave a power vacuum. I feel that the Mastodon example is a red herring here.
•
Wasn't the WP fight at its core about who gets to make money from WordPress? With the original author in one corner and the company with the rights to the trademark in the other? I'm not sure how moral posturing fits into this.
> There is almost zero friction Building consensus around which fork to use is going to be a high-friction process; it's going to require much more work than pushing the "fork" button and changing the name in all the assets.
•
I don't think the consensus is really necessary. Right now we live in a world where version control and patch management is still pretty high cost. That leads to fewer active forks of each open source project. As the technology improves, I expect us to move to a world where each project is actually a cloud of forks. So instead of rebranding every time there's a fork of XYZ software, we just refer to the forks by the name of the maintainer. e.g. I use Chad McProgrammer's XYZ. It seems like some people want unity and sameness for its own sake, or to enforce their vision of a project on the users. I just want the software to work as close to my ideal as possible, and am willing to shop around maintainers to find the one that I personally consider the best. Why would you compromise if you don't have to?
Larry Summers resigns from OpenAI board (cnbc.com)
•
You can't even be friends with a notorious pedophile and sex trafficker anymore without the woke cancel culture mob coming after you...
•
Well, good to see Hahhvuhhhd is not above the British monarchy when it comes to eventually ejecting sex pests! A low bar to clear, but well done! Now, just for certain ex-Brit colonies to follow their example! Quick... who can think of a popular leader who is, ehhhm, quite intricately linked to the same, ehh, gentleman with pretty specific tastes ? Anyone?
•
Actual unedited title: "Larry Summers resigns from OpenAI board after release of emails with Epstein"
•
I saw the email correspondence between him and Epstein. The sense that I got is he's pursuing some young girl half his age. And he actually thinks that she is attracted to him. Powerful, ugly men are so stupid sometimes.
•
That's a charitable take. It was them joking about how to leverage his power to pressure her into a relationship. Also the woman's dad is the founding president of some major Chinese bank (AIIB) that he was cozying up to. Also a reminder, he was texting with Epstein up until the day before his arrest in 2019. Well past the point where Epstein was basically a meme for child abuse. Absolutely horrifying.
There's an interesting list of criticisms about Larry Summers here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15320922 Based on an interview that I've seen of him a few years ago and these emails between him and Epstein he seems kind of... not smart? It raises a really interesting question which is how do people like him climb so high up the ladder?
•
The bond deal he made to pay for Harvard's Allston campus expansion blew up in the crash and nearly bankrupted the university. It takes a special kind of genius to bankrupt Harvard.
•
Telling people in power what they want to hear. I listened to an interview with Summers in the run-up to the 2007-8 financial crisis, and what he was doing was obvious to any grade school student who has ever witnessed someone else sucking up to an authority figure.
•
He's a pretty terrible asshole, but being dumb isn't the same thing as being wrong about economics. I'm not dumb, but I shouldn't be trusted to make economy-level decisions. Humility is underrated.
•
When has he been right about economics?
Let's not forget that time he advocated for dumping toxic waste in poor countries. "I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summers_memo
•
And Jonathan Swift was actually advocating eating children.
•
To me that memo is pretty clearly a sacarstic version of reductio ad absurdum.
I've never seen this before but I'm surprised anyone ever thought in good faith it wasn't tongue-in-cheek. I think one would have to have a cartoon-villain-tears-down-orphanage-to-build-mall view of how people work to not read the dripping tone in this memo.
•
He was literally part of a ring of rich and powerful pedophiles who trafficked underage women.
Wow. That text is wild! Another excerpt: I've always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City.
•
The /s was supposed to be implied.
How do the pros get someone to leave a cult? (theguardian.com)
•
I posit that a lot of those podcasters and streamers are like cult leaders in the modern media environment. The market finds a way.
i stopped after reading these two were taken in by promises of levitation. i dont care how attractive the cult is, youre an idiot to believe it
•
Otherwise intelligent people think software is sentient now. People believe weird things. We need to have compassion rather than write them off as idiots.
wait a minute here.. HN: - asks you to self-assign a new name upon joining - has a leader - has a hierarchy (rating system) - esteemed texts which promise by adopting a strange method (Lisp) that you can achieve higher levels of wealth and self actualization should I be worried?
•
People want to belong. If you do not belong to anything that looks like a cult you operate outside of society.
•
for several years now my resume has labeled me a "Software Cultist"
> The divide between religion and cult is just a distinction between what's deemed acceptable behavior by society. This is misconception. It's not about the extremism of the belief. It's about the mechanism of control. Take the "cults" of the moment: Qanon/MAGA, for example, operate like a personality cult in many identifiable ways, but are not actually cults, because you can leave without much difficulty if you set your mind to it. On the fringes US politics encourages ostracising family members who do not agree, but these movements do not have a mechanism of control (financial control combined with a commitment to cutting off family members). There may be cult sects within MAGA/QAnon that get close, perhaps (just as there are at the fringes of all strange and mainstream religious beliefs)
•
It's definitely a cult for elected officials who join (according to your discriminating criterion)
The best thing I have ever read on this subject is https://harpers.org/archive/2013/11/the-man-who-saves-you-from-yourself/ - it is a truly wild ride, profiling David Sullivan, a private investigator who specialized in helping people get their loved ones out of cults and was based in the San Francisco Bay Area for many years.
•
Discussed once on HN here: The Man Who Saves You from Yourself (2013) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7903938 - June 2014 (139 comments)
If you are willing to support--or at least not be bothered by--violence in a democratic process, I guess we can not find any common ground to talk about.
•
Some commentary added in my prior comment due to HN throttling. In short, equating a minority group that has a flag and some banter spoken on private, to a massive ongoing movement-in-power in the US to literally destroy the federal government and erode civil liberties... Is a wild take.
Thunderbird Adds Native Microsoft Exchange Email Support (blog.thunderbird.net)
•
Is this good? This is a genuine question. I am not sure whether this is good or not. It seems to only extend existing options? Or is there some trade-off?
•
I generally like Thunderbird... but something is weird. What ever happened to Sync? It was around the corner for next release like two years ago. And I'm not complaining about Exchange support, but I am a bit sad that JMAP is nowhere to be found yet.
•
Nice to see, but unfortunately it's not uncommon for orgs using Outlook/Office to disable Exchange client support and require use of the official clients. It's highly unlikely and maybe not even possible, but I'd like to see desktop and mobile mail clients implement some kind of workaround.
•
"Great news! This makes Thunderbird much more versatile for business use." "Native Exchange support is a game-changer for Thunderbird users." "Thrilled to see Thunderbird improving integration with Microsoft Exchange
•
Fantastic news! I've been hoping for Exchange support for a long while.
While its been a long time since Ive used Thunderbird, I just wanted to take the time to publicly say thank you. Many HNers probably wont (or cant) remember the world of desktop mail clients but basically during the height of MSFT dominance there was only one real mail client: Outlook. Which Microsoft was starting to monetize heavily, ignore UX, and keep it windows only (cant blame them for that). Then Thunderbird arrived on the scene, an OSS mail client that beat the pants off of Outlook in features, spam detection, IMAP support and a bunch of other things. And it was free. And you could use it on any machine. This was a huge moment for OSS. We owe a lot of credit to Mozilla and Thunderbird for rescuing us from a closed source world.
•
Personally I do not use thunderbird, but one elderly relative requires thunderbird. So I am all in favour of thunderbird getting better. Not everyone is able to use emails in a much simpler way. I actually, back when I was using gmail still, had some +4000 unread messages. I simply can not keep up with regular mail.
•
>cant blame them for that Of course you can blame them for that.
•
Before Thunderbird, Eudora was fantastic. We ran it at a college I worked at for most of the staff and faculty, and it was a very sad day when Qualcomm shut it down.
•
Eudora was nice, but it wasn't available for Linux/BSD, and it wasn't open source.
Do you mean recall? https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/recall-an-outlook-email-message-35027f88-d655-4554-b4f8-6c0729a723a0 That only works within an organisation, right? Otherwise you just get an email. I got one recently.
•
No, Exchange ActiveSync (as the other commenter correctly identified it) really allows an admin to wipe your device - ostensibly of mail, but often of all other data as well.[0] If your Outlook server disables IMAP & POP3, then the ActiveSync protocol is AFAIK the only way to get in-app emails on your phone. Admins do this so that they can forcibly wipe the device if they "need" to. 0: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/clients/exchange-activesync/remote-wipe
•
I was not sure which you meant.
Learning to Boot from PXE (blog.imraniqbal.org)
The fun thing about learning to boot from PXE, is that you have to learn it every time you onboard a new type of hardware... or a new VM hypervisor... or new NIC firmware... or new BIOS firmware. God help you if you actually want to install an operating system. PXE is such a vital capability for working with on-prem servers. But it's ten different things which all have to play nicely together. Every time I build a PXE system I feel like I'm reinventing the universe in my tiny subnet.
•
Agreed, PXE seems ideal for provisioning things, but it's just too hard to use, especially when you're not on a network you fully control. I just want to start the computer, and have it download an immutable OS image from somewhere I decide (and supply a checksum for, etc). I don't want to set up TFTP or any of this other stuff. It feels like I should be able to just specify an IP (let's say) a checksum (maybe supply that information to the NIC directly somehow), and be off to the races after a reboot.
I’m confused, are you talking about getting PXE enabled in the hardware, or customizing something about your PXE software for the new hardware?
•
There's a lot of nonsense at every level. Especially when dealing with heterogenous infrastructure. Some NICs support http. Some NICs support tftp. Some NICs have enough memory for a big iPXE, other NICs don't. Some BMC systems make next-boot-to-lan easy, but not all. We almost always use iPXE in order to normalize our pxe environment before OS kickstart. There's a lot to it and quite a lot of little things that can go wrong. Oh, and every bit of it becomes critical infra.
•
Ok, that makes more sense. I'm used to iPXE, and I guess that quick bootstrap from PXE->iPXE bypasses a lot of the nonstandard weirdness.
we need to go /stalinmode/ on the whole bootup and initialization industry subsector. it should be required by law for that stuff to be open source and documented. "but muh competitive advantage??" its literally a for loop that reads sectors from disk/network into memory and jumps to the start address. if a local build of the (vendor provided source code) firmware doesn't match the checksum of the build thats flashed on the actual mobo, you get sent to a cobalt mine.
•
Boot by committee (UEFI) doesn't seem much better than boot by fiat (BIOS). For everything nice it gives you, you lose something nice that BIOS gave you ... or you have something nice that you lose when you exit boot services. Or there's an extension for something nice that isn't usable on mainstream hardware. UEFI gives you nicer video modes, but not a text mode after boot services. UEFI has an extension for booting images from the network, but afaik, it's impossible to use, and there's no reasonable way to boot from a disk image; working UEFI network boot has to pull pieces out of the filesytem and present them seperately; as opposed to MEMDISK which makes the image available as a BIOS disk and the image is labeled so that one the OS is loaded, the image can be used without BIOS hooks. If this is possible on UEFI generically, it isn't widely distributed knowledge.
I've set up PXE booting at two previous companies for very different use cases. The first was to automate server deployment; we ran bare metal servers, and even though we had managed hosting in our data centre the installation, configuration, and deployment of a server could potentially take days since it was just me doing it and I had other things to do. So one day I set to work. I installed an Ubuntu server the same way I always did and then captured the debconf configuration to turn into a preseed file. I set up the disk partitioning, etc., and configured the OS to boot from DHCP. Then I configured the DHCP server with MAC addresses for every server we got and an associated IP address so that a given physical server would always get the same IP address. Then I set up an internal apt repository; that's where I put custom packages, backports I had to recompile, third-party packages (e.g. perconadb) and so on. Lastly, I set up salt (the management orchestration tool, like puppet or chef or ansible) with a nice simple (detailed) configuration. The machines would be configured to boot via PXE. They'd load the kernel and initrd, which contained the preseed file that answered all of the installation/configuration questions. Lastly it ran the post-install shell script which started salt and ran the initial configuration, much of which was based on hostname. This would turn the current DHCP-provided IP address into a static networking configuration so that the server wasn't reliant on DHCP anymore; it would ensure that SSH keys were installed, and that the right services were enabled or disabled, install some packages based on the hostname (which represented the role, e.g. db02.blah.blah got percona installed). I also had some custom data sources (whatever you would call them) so that I could install the right RAID controller software based on which PCI devices were present; after all that, it would reboot. Once it rebooted from the local disk, salt would pick back up again and do the rest of the configuration (now that it wasn't running from a chroot and had all the required systemd services running). What used to take me several days to do for two servers turned into something one of our co-ops could do in an hour. Second was another company that wanted to standardize the version of Linux its developers were running. Again, I set up an Ubuntu installer and configured it to boot iPXE and then fetch the kernel and the root image via HTTPS. The Ubuntu installer at that point was a Snap, and the default 'source' was a squashfs file that it unpacked to the new root filesystem before proceeding with package installation. I set up some scripts and configurations to take the default squashfs filesystem, unpack it, install new packages via apt in a chroot, and then repack it again. This let me do things like ensure Firefox, Thunderbird, and Chrome were installed and configured not from snaps; update to the latest packages; make sure Gnome was installed, etc. A lot of that was stuff the installer would do, of course, but given we were on gigabit ethernet it was significantly faster to download a 2 GB squashfs file than to download a 512M squashfs file and then download new or updated packages. One again what used to start with "Here's a USB, I think it has the latest Ubuntu on it" and take most of a day turned into "Do a one-off boot from the network via UEFI, choose a hostname, username, and password, and then just wait for twenty minutes while you get a coffee or meet your coworkers". I even found a "bug" (misbehaviour) in the installer where it would mount the squashfs and then rsync the files, which seemed significantly slower because the kernel was only using one thread for decompressing; using `unsquashfs` could use all cores and was dramatically faster, so I got to patch that (which I'm not sure ever made it into the installer anyway). The one thing I couldn't make work was the OEM installation, where you put everything down onto the system unattended then put the user through the Ubuntu OOBE process. That would have made it far easier to pre-provision systems for users ahead of time; I did replace the default Plymouth splash screen logo with our company logo though, which was pretty cool. I also set up network booting of macOS at another job, but that's sort of a very different process because it has all its own tooling, etc. for managing and Apple ended up moving from custom deployment images to static images and MDM for post-install configuration. TL;DR network booting is pretty great actually; it's a very niche use case but if you're clever you can get a lot done. There's also lots of options for booting into a bootloader that can then present other options, allowing you to choose to netboot Ubuntu Desktop, Ubuntu Server, Windows, RHEL, Gentoo, a rescue image, or anything else you want.
•
> The one thing I couldn't make work was the OEM installation, where you put everything down onto the system unattended then put the user through the Ubuntu OOBE process. Did you try chain booting into iPXE and using SYSLINUX? I used just nginx try, where I could place a pressed for a known provisioning event, otherwise providing various live and utility images if the MAC address file didn’t exist for one off or emergency repair. I could even serve up windows instances. That is also very useful because occasionally you run into PXE firmware that is crippled, it may not apply now, but only having a tiny iPXE image on tftp helps with speed and security. I would bet almost all vendors just use iPXE anyway, and at least you use to be able to replace the firmware on intel cards with it.
What Killed Perl? (entropicthoughts.com)
•
Around 2010 I ditched Perl for PHP because I had been using PHP for web and could write the same systems scripts in PHP as I used to write in Perl. Sticking with one go-to language is easier on the brain.
•
The backwards incompatibility of Perl 6 absolutely killed Perl. There are many languages still in use today that have all kinds of warts and ugliness, but they remain in use because they still have momentum and lots of legacy things built in them. So being ugly or old isn’t enough of a factor for people to abandon something in droves. Once you need to rewrite everything, there’s no reason to stay with something you know since you need to fully retool anyway. As a Perl programmer since v5 was released, the confusion around 6 completely destroyed almost everyone’s enthusiasm, and immediately caused all new projects to avoid Perl. It seems like 5 had reached the end of the line, and 6 was nowhere to be found. Nobody wants to gamble so many hours of their lives, and the future of their business, on such an uncertain environment. If Perl 6 had any visible movement within the first few years, it might have survived, but it was a good decade before they even admitted Perl 6 might take longer than expected, and then more time after that before they admitted it should have been a new language. That completely destroyed all momentum in the community. Perl 5 development only resumed far too late, after the writing was already on the wall. Both Bill Gates and Linus understand backwards compatibility as a sacrosanct principle. Python only just barely survived the jump from 2 to 3. JavaScript can only survive this because there’s no other option in a browser.
The variable prefixes are just the tip of the iceberg. The real problem with those prefixes is that they, themselves, are context-dependent on attributes associated with the underlying data type at run time. So you can find yourself in a situation where the behavior of the syntax differs in ways that are difficult to control for during development.
•
Strongly agree. A language which has something like “wantarray” as a first-class feature is semantically…unique, at best, probably more like “flawed by design”. All the oddness with typing and sigls descends from that. Same for autocivification. Insane feature. Which is a shame, because perl5 semantics had some nice features too! But there’s only so much you can do with a structure whose foundation is so wacky.
True. For whatever reason, these never displaced XS. For wrapping C libraries in particular, it's not clear to me how much Inline::C helps with this. You're still stuck using a lot of Perl C API calls, AFAICT, which I think is the biggest challenge of using XS (I still have nightmares from trying to figure out where and when to add `sv2mortal` in my XS code).
•
I haven’t done nearly as much of this as you. One or two calls into a library with a simple C interface isn’t that bad with Inline. You just use Inline to handle the Perl to C to Perl part, and actually do the interfacing in the inline C. It’s a lot more mess if you’re doing complex things and bringing complex data structures back to Perl, or having Perl make a lot of intermediate decisions and doing a lot of round trips. So if you use Perl to get the data ready to pass in, pass it in, do all the work in C that you need the library for, then pass the results back to Perl once it’s not terrible. I’ve tried not to get into XS, so I couldn’t really compare. Using Inline::C with your own C code in places where Perl is too much overhead is certainly easier than wrapping a complex existing library with a lot of interactions across the boundary. FFI::Platypus or something like it really is the way of the future though for existing C calling convention libraries in other languages.
I have a problem. I know, I'll post a dismissive, overly reductive platitude and farm points on HN. Perl 5 is a great language far ahead of it's time, it's extremely functional, and it still underpins many large and important systems to this day. No, it's not perfect, but it's the first time programming where I ever felt like I was having fun writing the code as opposed to achieving a means to an end. I admittedly have no experience with Perl 7 and didn't like Raku. Sometimes worse is better.
•
Perl 5 was abandoned for a reason by people who developed it. Something I you never see happen in other languages. Planned successors did not catch up. Perl does not scale. Very few people want to maintain Perl code. The write only reputation is not without merit.
•
It is without merit. There are more than a handful of modern internet companies running on Perl. Amazon runs a LOT of Perl for CDO. Who has scaled more than Amazon? This is a very ignorant take that selectively chooses to look at the fact that you can write Perl poorly, because the language does not stop you from doing so, and ignores the fact that you can also write it in a maintainable fashion. People stopped working on Perl for a variety of reasons. The commitment to backwards compatibility to a fault. The reputation leading to lower adoption. And so on. None of these are structural problems with the language itself, they are more community/bad luck issues.
 Top