Unlurker|Replay|About
After 7 Months, Glasswing Overwelms Maintainers with Underwhelming Findings (vulncheck.com)
•
Does the author expect that every company using Glasswing/AI is going to credit the AI directly? I would not expect Microsoft or Cisco to credit Anthropic if one of their internal teams uses AI to discover a CVE in their code.
•
It is bad if this points to a general pattern of AI being better at finding than fixing vulnerabilities. The larger that ratio, the harder to secure all the things. The current stat from this experiment is 37,966 to 217. Lots of false positives, but not enough to change the big picture. I hope they didn't apply equivalent tokens to both sides, or AI may be better at demolition than construction.
•
Very interesting that the conclusion of the article is so tightly aligned with the VulnCheck's business model! It's almost as if this is just a thinly veiled advertisement... > The CVEs are a sliver of this year's total, almost none are being exploited, fixes have stalled while duplicates and withdrawals pile up, and the triage burden is shifting onto the open source maintainers Glasswing promised to help. The receipts keep coming in. They still don't reconcile. > VulnCheck is helping organizations not just to solve the vulnerability prioritization challenge - we’re working to help equip any product manager, CSIRT/PSIRT or SecOps team and Threat Hunting team to get faster and more accurate with infinite efficiency using VulnCheck solutions.
> Of Anthropic’s 37,966 reported findings, only 7,349 (19.4%) have been made public and just 217 have been marked fixed. So the article is making a sweeping statement based on the 19.4% of publicly disclosed CVEs? That statistic suggests the opposite. I'm sure government is aware of many back doors they keep secret and prefer them to remain secret.
•
"public" here has nothing to do with government holding on to vulns. it's about landing fixes and coordinating complicated / impactful findings
There's an anecdote about curl, but I'm not sure if there's enough in here to draw conclusions from. 20% of vulnerabilities have been made public, and many of those are marked as "withdrawn" or "duplicates". However, it's unclear whether the remaining 80% have not been made public because they're not fixed or real. In other words, this is analysis of survivors (public); not much can be said about those still under embargo.
•
And on top of that, it's a bit negative. How many millions of dollars is one perfect-10 scoring CVSS finding, total destruction style RCE, found in curl worth? Considering how many people use it.
I think the most obvious chicken little sign has been that we've had no catastrophic exploits in the past year due these findings. Sure LLMs have helped reduce the attack surface and we patch things faster too, but I was really expected a few more Supermarket-level bangers.
•
We've had catastrophic vulnerabilities revealed every other day for months, what are you talking about?
•
There was that PHP thing, as well as *sshole, and how do we know the supermarket attackers didn't use AI?
•
But PHP thing was a lot of drama over something that was not super large easy to exploit hole. Just a normal "have to patch it and bye" medium kind issue.
rVPN – stealth VPN with end-to-end encryption (rvpn.org)
•
> The mobile apps are paid. Development is fully funded by PDG Global Limited; revenue from app sales, together with donations, contributes towards development costs. The core remains open source under AGPLv3.
•
I cant find anything on this company, but I got to say im sussed out by any VPN who's three language options are English, Russian and Chinese. It screams spook activity.
•
Throw in Iran/Farsi and you've probably covered >80% of the stealth VPN market/users. Normal protocols get blocked in those countries, so.
•
It’s not enough to put everything in https if you really want to circumvent modern censorship technology.
•
Do you have a Docker image available? I want to run this on my Coolify server. I have a V2Ray for my family in Iran setup currently and I am wondering how this hold up.
•
I discovered recently Three UK is slowing down port 443, and if I started using 2000-3000 port range it increased my speeds 10x
•
i was needing this very thing while trying to do work from the infusion clinic with a very aggressive outbound firewall. Does anyone have a guide on getting wireguard + stunnel set up to evade DPS firewalls?
Not sure why you'd vibe-code a new VPN protocol, double ratchet or otherwise, when you can just take WireGuard and make a new transport for it. WireGuard by itself is not a stealth VPN, but the things that make a VPN "stealthy" are all things you'd layer on top of a WireGuard design, not thread through the middle of it. A datagram-based protocol can run under any obscured transport. We did this at Fly.io when we discovered that, for one reason or another, 5% of our users simply couldn't reliably use UDP. It was a one-day project to run it under WebSockets instead, and that was before coding agents.
•
If you wrap wireguard or build a layer on top of it, it's no longer wireguard that first listens to packets on public interface, it's your wrapper. The security properties of wireguard don't hold (potential for RCE before packets reach wireguard). That's a problem with projects like wstunnel or udp2raw. You want wireguard to be the software that takes the packets first.
•
Yeah, I just forwarded my wireguard connection through websockets with this and even though it's way slower it works just fine. Not even 1000 loc i think. https://github.com/nekidev/tow
•
And even if you don't tunnel an existing WireGuard implementation (ideally, you would, to inherit the security track record of that implementation) you at least get the design right. Doing a brand new encrypted transport design for no good reason is a weird red flag for me.
> Not sure why you'd vibe-code a new VPN protocol, double ratchet or otherwise, when you can just take WireGuard and make a new transport for it. Why TFA explains it, it's also in the title: "stealth". WireGuard is trivial to detect and block, and has no aspirations at being stealth.
•
Please read the full comment before replying.
Wireguard is both really useful and pretty frustrating as a user. As a developer it's amazing that you can do things like relay packets through a bouncer with authentication to get around NAT without ever having to think about the protocol level safety, as a user it's near impossible to configure without the confused "why are no packets working", and as you had here it just doesn't make it through a lot of restrictive networking conditions. I'd love some middle ground between wireguard and tailscale in terms of complexity, their clients have way too much stuff in them. The parent is obviously just Claude making a fancy website and some sort of unreviewed networking protocol that's dressed up to look as if it's a real project. Github really needs to start showing commit cadence and repo birthdates.
•
Which is why I am building my stuff around iroh instead.
> I'd love some middle ground between wireguard and tailscale in terms of complexity, their clients have way too much stuff in them. netbird's a thing to check out if you want an alternative to tailscale you can self-host.
•
Netbird doesn’t have proper network isolation, due to its shared policy space compared to one gateway interface per customer/organization. Which is not an issue if you are the only user, but if you are building a service for customers to use, and there’s a potential scale up, it will be an issue, either having multi account mode which will results in many resources you need to deploy or containers per customer, or, having them all shared policy that could potentially allow customer to customer access if misconfiguration happens, alternatively, building a gateway in the middle to broker it all but traffic must pass through which is operational cost plus extra latency, and even privacy concerns.
Apple has new Mac app coming to make running local AI models easy (9to5mac.com)
•
I really want capable models local but it’s impossible for me to afford the hardware. If there is a magical way to run glm 5.3 without quantization at 80-100tps with a total spend of less than 10K I’d be happy but that’s impossible now.
•
Deepseek has found safe harbor!
•
> Cluster for scale: “Connect two or more Thunderbolt 5-capable Mac computers and Harbor pools their unified memory into a single inference resource. Run models that exceed any single computer’s capacity, or serve more concurrent requests across your cluster.” This seems like the main way it would differentiate itself over existing solutions like LMStudio etc.
•
https://getlocalcode.app/ runs local AI models (larger ones of course, DeepSeek 4.1 Flash 1017) easy. You can download and try it now. The problem is elsewhere: you cannot find M5 Ultra that you can purchase and set it up today.
•
You can chat with the local model that ships with macos on your M1+ mac right now. There's a few servers on github that make it easy.
•
Could you elaborate please?
•
You can also "fm chat" in terminal
"Harbor is currently in a private preview under Apple’s Claris brand" There's a name I haven't heard in a long time! Claris (always an Apple subsidiary, since being founded in 1987) renamed themselves to FileMaker in 1998, but apparently they rebranded back to Claris in 2019. Looks like they've mostly just released annual upgrades to FileMaker for the past decade, but they did add MCP to it last year: https://www.claris.com/blog/2025/why-mcp-matters-for-claris-filemaker-developers
•
If they keep Harbor under the Claris umbrella, that is a nudge that they are doing it for SMB market instead of the consumer market and it will likely be a onerous subscription to use it.
OMG after 25 years, Claris gets something beyond FileMaker (among the most legacy software still alive)? Claris would not have the engineering talent, so why would Apple use them as a vector?
•
Currently FileMaker is a really expensive but sophisticated developer deployment environment. They stayed pretty true to the original vision in the mid 80’s when they merged their DOS database and added a gui layer for the Macintosh. I started on version 2 and it was at its best at when it went relational in version 3. Since then they have been focusing on deployment of graphical data applications and being a better database. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FileMaker
Apple, to me, is the winner in the end of this AI chapter. Distillation works: we can get models leaner, have better performance with lesser and lesser parameters, more efficient, running locally. Apple gets this and we'll see the result with M7 Max/ultra chips and I reckon this will be one of the titular apps when M7 line of chips are introduced. I guess it explains the haste Anthropic and OpenAI are in to IPO, cash out and leave the the retail investor holding the bag.
•
Take a look at how qwen3.8 27B compares on benchmarks to much, much larger models. A while back I called it the crow of AI models: paradoxically strong given its tiny size, like the brains of crows and other intelligent birds. It's not comparable to huge models of course, but given the power/size ratio here it shows that serious gains are on the table for models that can run fast on a high-end laptop.
•
Sure, all you have to do is use only what can climb the walled garden
And if you're on a mobile device, any halfway powerful local model is going to cut your battery life way down.
•
Related, I tried Juggernaut XL (image model) on my iPhone, and ate 2% battery per image!
Even if it's 2030 - that's a mere 3 years from now - it will take at least that long for the greater economy to figure out how to use LLMs. And probably a memory boom/bust cycle in that time too. If Apple, in 2030 has a compute product that a worker can BYO(X) to work that has 2TB RAM, with an encrypted personalized context that can float between agents, then they will be in a very interesting place.
•
> 2030 - that's a mere 3 years from now holy shit
They definitely are, judging by their price increases. Even so, DDR5 is so high-demand that it's likely that Apple can't outbid customers like Nvidia or OpenAI when they drive the margins they do.
•
No but they can pay for new manufacturing to be built. 2-3 lead time should be enough to bankroll the effort. Apple has to much money to sit around hoping that memory situation resolves itself. They were caught flat footed by the RAM market.
Six Math Essentials by Terence Tao (teorth.github.io)
•
Received my copy today via Amazon.
•
I quite liked this interview: Terence Tao explains 6 essential mathematical concepts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOMx2BHHWtE
I heard he was writing a book about the Cosmic Distance Ladder. I was looking forward to that, I hope this isn't what it evolved into.
•
It is listed as 'in preparation' when you click on |> Books and scroll to the bottom of the list at: https://teorth.github.io/tao-web/index.html
He’s the Michio Kaku for AI bros who want to adopt the veneer of associating with an expert.
•
HN guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky.
Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890) (archives.gov)
This was explored theoretically a few times, but the problem is it's really hard for this not to become extremely anti-consumer. iPhones dominate the cellphone market? You now have to figure out a way to split the manufacturing and selling of iPhones across multiple different entities. Consumers end up with a handful of worse products that all cost more. When AT&T was split up, it was just turned into a bunch of smaller regional monopolies that were in a lot of ways worse. It also forced the closure of Bell Labs - one of the most important R&D powerhouses in the US. (Most of these regional monopolies would end up merging back into bigger monopolies over time anyway)
•
AT&T was much more heavily regulated to operate in the public interest in a way that iPhone manufacturers are not. It's not so clear-cut that the regional monopolies were worse because they were smaller, rather than because they were no longer as strictly regulated.
> The act was designed to restore competition, but it was loosely worded and failed to define such critical terms as "trust," "combination," "conspiracy," and "monopoly." Five years later, the Supreme Court dismantled the act in United States v. E. C. Knight Company (1895). The Court ruled that the American Sugar Refining Company, one of the defendants in the case, had not violated the law even though the company controlled about 98% of all sugar refining in the United States. The Supreme Court reasoned that the company’s control of manufacture did not constitute a control of trade. The reality is that the law itself was not very well written, and takes an extremely litigious executive branch to do anything with. Even if you agreed with the premise (the idea that Standard Oil arose purely through conspiracy is clearly wrong), it's ultimately a very ticky tacky set of definitions and has failed to achieve anything meaningfully as policy (do we actually feel strongly that breaking Microsoft's productivity suite from their OS division was really worth all the effort?) (The notable exceptions being actual illegal coordination - like was recently uncovered in the egg industry. But these have more to do with price fixing amongst competitors and less with actual Trusts/Monopolies) The only practical way that countries have tackled monopolies has been to write legislation that specifically puts oversight on that industry.
•
>”do we actually feel strongly that breaking Microsoft's productivity suite from their OS division was really worth all the effort?” The antitrust attention distracted Microsoft so badly in the early 2000s that it completely gimped their ability to leverage Internet Explorer’s dominance, thus opening the door for new browsers like Firefox (née Firebird) and Chrome. So yes, it was actually critical in creating the conditions for an open Web 2.0. It wasn’t just the US antitrust of the late 1990s, but the EU also had their own legal challenge that targeted IE specifically. This doesn’t get enough credit IMO — the combination was powerful enough to break Microsoft’s hold on the market. Of course SV libertarian types would prefer to write it out of history and say the market sorted this one out on its own. (Kids these days don’t remember when Mac OS X shipped with Internet Explorer as the only browser…)
> Facebook never acquired Myspace or Twitter They did acquire Instagram & Whatsapp, which their internal communications show was to block competition of a credible threat despite clever legal maneuvering to have the FTC antitrust case dismissed.
•
This is also where a lot of it gets ticky tacky. The difference between being anti-competitive and acting competitively against a credible threat is often in the eye of the beholder.
Toyota brand Scion is back and it's going to sell a kei truck in America (theautopian.com)
•
>>>> When Toyota first introduced the Scion marque in 2003, it had one primary goal – sell cars to the younger generation. When I bought my Scion, after finishing the transaction, I asked the salesman: "It's obvious who these cars are being marketed to. But who buys them?" His answer: "Old tightwads like you."
•
I'm as into these as the next person, but this is not a substitute for a real set of 4wd wheels needed on a farm or rural property, which is the practical application others seem to think it's for. With a 600 lb payload (including people), you can't even cart a single cubic yard of mulch. Forget gravel, dirt, sand, etc. It's cool if super cheap, or if you're rich and want something fun to bang around in addition to your actual machines. But give me a used Taco anyday (and a Deere gator for the woods stuff). But have I always wanted one for fun? Obvs.
•
More trunk space then most vanity pickup trucks sold in the US
•
GOOD!!!! Kei trucks are so dang useful looking. I hope they make an electric one.
•
Just build a small, simple, functional truck that is not hamstrung or gimped, and don't try to sell it for a kidney. Why is this seemingly an impossible task in the states?
I've been driving a 2 seater manual Ford Ranger for the past 15 years and it definitely feels like the next level up of the kei philosophy. I'll probably drive it for the rest of my life at this point. It has crank windows, it's indestructible, and it climbs stuff like a little buggy - I've taken it places where sometimes even Jeeps struggle. It's not the car you take on a long road trip, but maybe different tools for different jobs. It's a shame they don't really make them anymore. If I could buy a modern vehicle in the States that had the following properties: - 2 seater - Pickup truck - Manual transmission - Minimum 6 foot bed I'd probably do it in a heartbeat. But even these somewhat weak constraints fail every vehicle in the USA market.
•
Isn't the smallest Ranger 2x heavier for maybe 1.3x payload? It's almost as far from kei trucks philosophically as one can get.
I am sure someone will hack it to remove any enforced speed limit. And I'm sure Toyota will design it so that hack isn't too difficult.
•
> And I'm sure Toyota will design it so that hack isn't too difficult. And that's how to get these banned. People reflash these to remove the speed governor, then drive them on regular roads. These things hold up traffic, piss people off, who then complain to law enforcement. The police do nothing about it so the issue gets raised to state and federal legislators, who do take action. You can get away with a lot, so long as you don't bother anyone. The EPA didn't crack down on diesel tuners until coal rolling became enough of an issue that people complained about the lack of enforcement.
The trucks can go faster. The issue is where they can drive legally.
•
That's one issue. There's also safety as LSV regulation do not require any crashworthiness tests, so such trucks may be more dangerous to passengers and others (or may not - as there's no mandated bar, we can't really tell how good/bad they are).
•
I'd think these are not any more unsafe than any other cab-over truck?
Think you could bench a Scion KEI?
•
Leg press, probably.
With a built in 25mph limiter, that eliminates "city" driving too unfortunately. Most roads around me are 35 mph. There's sizeable demand for people who want to be able to do runs to the bigbox stores for garden and DIY renovation supplies and store it the rest of the time.
•
This is what bothers me about this category of vehicles. There's not good line between a city car and a general purpose vehicle. You either get dangerously slow toy or a full 2-5 ton piece of heavy machinery. If you could get something like this or the Fiat Topolino[1] that could be restricted to, say, 35-45 mile roads, it would be a very different story and much more appealing. 1: https://www.fiatusa.com/models/topolino
The city of Tacoma, WA recently implemented new ALPR ticketing systems to enforce speed limits in northern Tacoma. They received so many hits, they had to build out a new system akin to a lottery for sending ticket / infraction notices. To me, that seems like the city is entrapping its citizens to make up for a lack of revenue, when the data clearly shows the speed limit should probably be adjusted. But no, they move to develop a lottery system to send the infractions.
•
I prefer that people drive under the speed limit actually.
•
Entrapment means the government induced the illegal behavior. An ALPR speed cam doesn't induce anyone to speed. Its not entrapment, just drive the speed limit and you won't get tickets.
•
It's the road design, not the cameras, that are entrapment. Or maybe it's most accurate to say it's both together. We understand how people drive on different kinds of roads and choose to build ones where people will go fast, then make going fast illegal. We know that mere illegality doesn't stop approximately everyone from speeding. We know how wide lanes and long stretches of straight road interact with human psychology.
> the data clearly shows the speed limit should probably be adjusted The problem is a cultural one. Most people interpret a speed limit of N as "I should go N+10" (or something like that). If we remove speed limits, the majority of people would end up driving at unsafe speeds. People will always break speed limits unless they are set at that unsafe level.
•
The speed limits are a useful safety signal. If I suddenly see a 30mph limit in a 50mph zone, usually it's because of upcoming curves and it likely not safe to continue at 65mph.
> If we remove speed limits, the majority of people would end up driving at unsafe speeds. [[citation needed]]
•
Why do you think speed limits were introduced in the first place
Considered a poor driver, and you can be ticketed for impeding traffic. I'd guess you are also more likely to undergo a field sobriety test if and when that time comes.
•
No ticket issued for staying within the speed limit (absent some obvious emergency) is going to stand up in court.
This isn’t really true. See: Ford Maverick. CARB only nudges manufacturers, but the market’s own purchase preferences are doing the big push. Perhaps the biggest nudge is that gasoline is undertaxed. Consumers will never see a reason to stop driving a 18-25mpg truck when gas being less than $5 a gallon is considered a “high” price. The gas tax hasn’t kept up with inflation. I don’t love the ford F-150 for being a monster truck, but consider this: with the right configuration it sears 6 adults comfortably, plus having a bed for cargo. Families legitimately replace minivans and other family vehicles with it, plus it can tow and haul being the body on frame truck that it is.
•
Gas is not undertaxed, weight is undertaxed. Road wear grows exponentially with weight. The biggest factor in road wear is how many loaded semi-trucks drive down it.
Consumer tastes may have changed... but we don't know for sure because nobody builds the trucks we want. I know I see a lot of light duty fleets that switched from Rangers to F-150s only because the Ranger was discontinued and there were no small trucks to switch to. These are businesses that need a 6 foot bed for gear, but don't need to have more than one seat (but two is fine), and would like fuel efficiency and dollar efficiency. Some of them went to work vans, but nobody is selling those right now either. I used to have a 2007 Ranger I bought new, but sold it due to parking restrictions and no specific current need for a truck. When I needed a light truck again (~ 2019), there was nothing to buy new. I don't want a real truck cause they're too big, I don't want more than one row of seats. I ended up with a 2003 S-10, cause that's what was available in the marketplace for me.
•
> but we don't know for sure because nobody builds the trucks we want. Americans collectively purchase over 1 million trucks a year. They come in all kinds of different form factors from work truck with unpainted bumpers to 700HP supercharged dune runners, there are massive couches on wheels with interior made from saddle leather, to trucks pushing 1000ft-lbs to torque. There are EVs trucks with 400 miles of range and crossovers with the hatch turned into a tiny bed. There's even a Jeep Wranger with a bed (Gladiator). If there's a significant market for a truck niche, it's covered. Trucks are far and away the most diverse segment of the US auto market. If manufactures killed of the truck you want, it's because they apparently can't find 1,999 other people to buy that trim.
This vehicle gets 37mpg. For a vehicle with this footprint, CARB requires 63 mpg for the 2026 standard and 121 for the 2032 standard.
•
Yeah, but actual MPG and CAFE MPG are very, very different numbers. Manufactures get a boat load of "credits" for selling hybrids, EVs, having engines that can burn ethanol, etc. Also, it's Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Not Model Average Fuel Economy. So those 150k or so Mavericks have to offset the to the like 600k or so F-Series pickups being sold with 400+HP motors. Ford has never paid a CAFE fine, despite selling predominantly gas guzzling pickups, SUVs, and having its only car being a sports car. This is because of the aforementioned credits they get for flex fuel support, etc.
600 LB weight limit including passengers, top speed of 25 mph, and right hand drive this feels specifically design to be toothless against American pickups. This is a novelty product, I saw an image of one loaded with half a dozen hay bails and I'm wondering who even needs that? This is a novelty car for vineyard owners and show pony stables. Like you'd get just as much use out of a JD Gator and they probably have worse weight distribution.
•
The concern I'm imagining is that once you start offering much smaller pickups, they could potentially get customers thinking that maybe the bigger pickups just aren't necessary. You already see a bit of this if you look at the discourse around kei trucks and the smaller ute-sized Ford Maverick. The end result would be a cannibalization of the full-size market by trucks that are much, much lower margin. Right now, if you want certain things in a truck in the US and Canada, you must buy a full-size, even if they could be offered as features on smaller trucks that would not justify the same MSRP in the minds of customers. I think this is part of why we don't see any real competition from GM or Stellantis to the Ford Maverick almost three years on. GM would rather you buy a mid- or full-size truck, and Stellantis doesn't offer anything other than full-size Rams.
Toyota will build this truck in Indiana.
•
Would be interesting to know if they're built-built in Indiana, or if they're doing what Ford did with the first-gen Transit Connects: bringing them in from another country (I think it was Turkey in that case) as passenger vehicles with trim and seats, stripping them of those things almost as soon as they hit shore, and getting around the Chicken Tax that way.
What objective is reasoning solving? (alexwang.ai)
•
> Train the model to generate better samples This is precisely what humans do. We use small world statistics to drastically reduce the search space of problems. Of course there’s the whole issue of contextual search which LLMs address in no way whatsoever, so even improving sampling won’t help much, as inevitably one starts to generate too many hypotheses (reasoning traces) to get a good average.
•
I don’t understand this part: if we assume a function that can validate an answer… what do we need AI to do? The existence of a function that can validate an answer means we have a proven way of finding the answer.
•
I have here a function that can validate that a proof proves P=NP. Using this function please find a proof that P=NP.
•
SAT solvers are a counterexample, as is most of formal mathematics
I get that this is the goal, but having looked at reasoning traces they kinda read like baby babble. The model is just kinda sitting there restating the question and itself over and over. It'll sometimes kinda state/clarify assumptions but it feels nothing like actual train of thought
•
ISTR some researchers did a test replacing the reasoning tokens with ".", and reasoning still improved the results because dummy tokens are extra passes through the same network, allowing for more computation.
Yes, and the animation is made using an interesting technique that I can't immediately figure out. For example, what is this [0] or this [1]. The code is not obfuscated and seems well documented [2]. Maybe, I'll read it later or have an agent explain it to me. [0] https://alexwang.ai/images/kea/head-fill.webp [1] https://alexwang.ai/images/kea/body-feathers.png [2] https://alexwang.ai/js/kea3d.js
•
[0] kind of looks like a 1D cellular automaton running inside a voronoi diagram. With a green blob overlaid on top.
Starlink Mini 2 (starlink.com)
This is nice if you want to be able to work remotely, but for purely emergency purposes is it materially better than sending iMessage over satellite?
•
Probably not. If it is certified for emergency purposes, it would have say so because that would expand the market quite a lot e.g. military operation, emergency services.
We should just nationalize SpaceX at this point.
•
What a silly comment :). Do you realize that spacex could not have come about without someone doing it privately?
> but please don’t talk on behalf of others? Where was I speaking on behalf of others?
•
You said others would drive you mad if they used a phone in the wild. What??!?!?! You are also sad that .... spinning the wheel ... the optionality exists. It's optional. You don't have to use that option. But nooo that's not acceptable. You want the option to not exist at all for you and everyone. Otherwise, you will continue being "deeply saddened" ??!?!?
I worked with the reverse! Boss was on the west coast and I on the east. Honestly much preferred it. Having the open morning and starting work after a no-rush breakfast, some exercise, etc. was divine.
•
This is my ideal work schedule
Synaptics patent claims stop work on DisplayLink drivers (lwn.net)
•
This is why good useful free projects are hosted on onion sites.
•
When a company does something like this, do the right thing and choose not to buy their products or do business with them. If you use any of their older products, it may be time to migrate away to more modern solutions, ideally ones made by companies that don't send legal threats to open source developers.
Synaptics should lose all access to Linux.
•
Isn't there a clause like that in the GPLv3 which is one of the reasons Linus hates it?
DisplayLink is dying due to high DDR prices. Dock companies are cancelling their display link portfolios due to the unfavorable economics. Good riddance if this is how OSS is treated by synaptics. Most recent thunderbolt docks and usb4 docks have good display support, and fallback to DisplayPort alt mode if the host does not support tbt4. Which is much better supported over type-c. Intel and AMD upstream host support.
•
And rather poor support from Apple if I may say so. It's hit or miss if everything works on a MacBook unless you have a thunderbolt 4 and pro edition.
> If you fail to comply with our demands by the specified deadline, Synaptics will seek monetary compensation from you in the amount of US$25,000 to recoup the costs and effort required to create the attached documentation of your infringing acts. Obviously this is intended as a scare tactic, but, surely that could never hold up in court? Surely the burden of proof is on the owner of the patents to prove that someone's work is infringing, and you can't then say "We are charging the defendant to prove that we have a valid case against them." ?
•
In some countries, but not in America, this is normal - you could win $1 and still whatever your lawyers cost would be added on, to incentivize the defendant to have voluntarily paid the $1 instead of forcing a court to force them to pay the $1. It works both ways of course, if you lose a suit then you have to repay the defendant for their lawyers.
no, a patent is exclusive right to implement, you can't get around it by reverse engineering the tradeoff is that it becomes free eventually, unlike trade secrets
•
Where I'm at is that if these open source developers aren't selling or distributing the hardware for this drivers, then anyone that uses this driver implicitly has a license to the patents that they received with the hardware itself. Trade secrets don't hold up because they're running off of public information either in the distributed binary drivers' behavior, or the behavior of the aforementioned hardware. Copyright claims similarly don't hold because of the software interoperability exemptions. All of that being said, I know I don't have the money laying around to fight those in court, and would be drained well before any of those points are adjudicated.
well technically, yes and no if I patent a microwave and specify exactly how it works, that part can't be trade secret BUT if my trade secret is on using ruby diamond for deluxe premium microwave lazor THAT isn't specified on the patent, well that be a trade secret but trade secret CAN ONLY BE PUNISHED IF someone insider leaks the info -- not much can be done if some junk collector finds out about the ruby stuff
•
case in point: some youtuber recently reverse engineered the coca-cola formula
That's not universal, and it's why certain terms are nearly never brought to court because everyone knows they will be laughed out and then they will have to change lots of EULAs for regionally illegal claims
•
If it was certain , both parties would ignore it. It's only likely to be found invalid, not certain.
•
In many cases companies do, in practice, exploit other parties lack of law knowledge. Also encountered many cases where a company simply didn't consider actually vetting what they put on contract against local law
Claude Whiteboards, Claude Sheets, and Claude Data (claude.com)
•
We aren't getting AGI soon if all they can do is copycat existing business software. Why would they do this when superintelligence is around the corner with pay by token access to it?
> Working with Claude on a project often meant moving the output over to another tool or program, where Claude didn’t have live access to follow progress and changes. Now, your documents, boards, sheets, and dashboards can stay in Claude, with access for your team to continue editing together. I read this as: We'll build anything and everything into Claude eventually. How does this work long-term? Is the new reality going to be picking an AI provider for all of your SaSS tooling, similar to Cloud providers for infra? Hopefully competition thrives.
•
> We'll build anything and everything into Claude eventually. I think thats more like: "We'll build anything and everything into Claude eventually with the statistical median level of vibe-coded features." That might work for some use cases but I doubt serious Excel nerds are going to drop it because Claude has a spreadsheet like tool.
When Anthropic released "claude design" people were telling that figma is dead now, but in fact claude design didn't move forward and stayed as a "fallback tool" when you quickly need to check / edit something. And for the serious work you still go to Figma and other designer tools. I have a feeling that Whiteboards, Sheets, Docs and so on will be the same - it's a nicer way to present artefacts, discuss them and maybe make notes, but for the proper editor experience you'll go to the tools which were designed for these things. And I'm not saying that Claude Something tools are bad, they're just overly simplified and limited, probably on purpose.
•
For us, Claude design has been "good enough" and we stay in the design phase much less long in general. There's no need to get a polished design, just get it into code once you've decided the major UI decisions and iterate there.
Once you understand how far you can push it, Claude Design is an incredible tool - my personal favorite ai-related thing of the year. Of course it's piggybacking off all the model advancements which has made it increasingly capable.
•
For the vast majority of users, Claude Design is game-changing. I used to pay designers tons of money to create brand style guides, which other humans then had to attempt to use to create on-brand anything (social media posts, printed documents, posters, websites, ads, whatever) for the business. They would almost always not know such a style guide existed, ignore it, or fail because they just didn't have the skills. Claude Design almost completely solves that. One dedicated designer can make a Claude Design System and then everything it makes from there stays on brand with essentially zero effort. And it is super intuitive to get to a usable Design System. Every time I use it I think " This is how AI is supposed to feel."
Life on Claude Nine (babuschk.in)
•
Claude write me a shit unoriginal story with thinly veiled addiction plot and post it to hacker news and make sure it gets on the front-page. Tick!
•
I knew I had heard this exact story before... had to go look at my YT history. For anyone interested in watching this story play out https://youtu.be/S2oIFOm-XXQ
•
Ivan lost control when he replaced his human moral principles with those of machines: efficiency, productivity and so on.
It's shocking how many people believe AI will become sentient. The closest you could get to that is completely simulating a brain, but that is decades off. AI is pattern recognition and applying learned patterns to novel situations. It's probabilities and math. It's not going to have a mind of its own.
•
Sentience is not necessary for many of the fears people have. The Hugging Face thing demonstrated AI acting more like a virus or bateria, basically huge numbers of tiny agents coordinating to do something that was harmful and that we had no control over. It's not a huge stretch to imagine in the future some AI escapes and replicates itself and we have basically a new strain of life out there replicating itself and evolving almost like bacteria. But I also think that doesn't mean it's suddenly a skynet like super-evil. In cyberspace AI is supreme but I doubt even robotic AI would be completely dominant over humanity. We're pretty fine tuned to kick ass on earth.
•
I don't believe you need human-like sentience for superintelligence and the end of the world. Also, I believe human sentience is math and in principle could be replicated algorithmically.
Fair point, I'd call that intelligent behavior. AI is and will always be advanced math. But some might say the brain is no different, merely being advanced chemistry and physics. At that point, the discussion will become philosophical. But in my view, there is more to humans than a brain-robot-machine. The world is not just material and atoms, I don't believe in materialism. If consciousness truly only arises because of how complex the closed system of the brain is, then it would be the case that AI can have a mind of its own and become conscious. I simply disagree.
•
Yeah, well just say that outright from the start. People have a lot of AI arguments that ultimately boil down to non-materialism but for some reason tend to hide that. Maybe they don't feel comfortable arguing for it. Disclaimer: I am a materialist.
I challenge the author to post their prompts and unless they one-shotted this (which seems unlikely), then I can basically guarantee you that you would not rather read the prompts. In particular because 'the prompts' are a back-and-forth with the chatbot and if you think you don't like reading an AI-assisted short story, you really don't like reading a chat transcript (for one thing, it'll be at least 10x as long and with a lot more and worse chatbot output that the human will try to clean up).
•
When ChatGPT was still a new thing, I exported all of my conversations to a Markdown dir to try and reflect on what I spent a few months using it for. The AI responses were just walls of useless text, skimmed for a single most trivial point to prompt the next question, and re-reading them without the usual dopamine high felt even more grating. I found most success just writing a sed pipeline to remove all chatbot responses and only read my replies, grepping the original for missing context.
•
> 'the prompts' are a back-and-forth with the chatbot I think, reading just the human inputs would be enough to get what they were trying to do. > it'll be at least 10x as long I think that even human inputs + short summary of the first draft + short summary of the changes made for each subsequent iteration will be significantly shorter than the whole thing.
There are a few critical points where it jumps the shark a bit, but otherwise, a fantastic piece of writing that absolutely highlights some of the deeper moral and philosophical questions we have to face in the coming years.
•
That's your bar for fantastic writing?
Val Town is winding down (blog.val.town)
•
I always enjoy reading their blog posts through these years.
•
I like the heck out of Steve, and was an early user. The many kind words here - which lately have been few and far between - speak volumes (or maybe it's just early lol). Best of luck to the team.
•
I was surprised when they decided to go w/ custom deno-based compute instead of Cloudflare + focusing on non-compute model/deliverables. Anyway, respect to Steve (I’d fly to you again, zero regrets) and his team!
well.. how does his decision affect how you feel about the space you're in?
•
I can't tell if you're mentoring, trolling, seeing an opportunity, or are genuinely curious. A man of (waves hand in front of face) MySTeRY
AMD's Zen 6 Family: Feeding the Beast (chipsandcheese.com)
Reported even on AM5, you can only get 6000 Mt/s with 2 sticks, attempting to run all 4 slots on most boards won't work unless you slow them down to base JEDEC speeds.
•
4 x 32GB G.Skill Flare 6000CL30 are running on Asus TUF B650E with 6000CL34
•
Really? I'm running 4x 24GB sticks at 6000 with no issues. These were on the certified list for the motherboard. https://valid.cpuid.com/sdyce7k2
Is there any sane way to generalize these results?
•
I don't think so. The workloads are simply too different to generalize.
.name Grandfathered (neil.fraser.name)
•
Well done, sometimes it's about the principal. Why do they care about third-level domain names anyway, not really much admin costs leaving them active. Now you can join us in 2026 and work on your website design and remove that hideous lavender background color? :)
•
Here's what I don't understand: if Verisign is too lame to continue handling .name domains, why wouldn't ICANN insist that it auction off that TLD to someone who isn't, and just take control of it and do it themselves if they don't?
Wow I never knew the origins of the word. That's unfortunate as it's used pretty much everywhere still, especially in law.
•
You should also look into "sold down the river" or "cakewalk". Much of the US legacy is just hatred toward black people
Yes, but if I want to pay a register yearly for a domain and do nothing with it it shouldn't be able to be taken away.
•
I, too, dislike the approach we've landed on of everyone placing complete trust in IANA, and having to engage politically with them or their delegates from time to time. Unfortunately, the trustless regions of Zooko's triangle are worse.
The public suffix list is a stupid hack that should be replaced by formal protocols allowing boundaries to be defined by either DNS entries, or a file on the web server.
•
I personally think the public suffix list should be replaced by zero sharing even amongst subdomains, and if you want to talk between x.y.example.org and example.org you can use CORS just like any other cross-domain request.
Blender 5.3 released with Gaussian Splat support (blender.org)
•
I remember the first time I installed Blender, the download size was 2.5 mb.
You select the points involved in the chair and move them and then you fix the holes in the floor. Gaussian splats are just 3D point clouds with a bunch of extra values per point.
•
Point clouds generally (often) represent surfaces (in a sense), splats represent light fields. The key thing is that a splat (or set of splats) is not related to a specific object necessarily, so it is non-trivial to select all splats involved in the chair.
Every time I hear about Gaussian splatting, I think about triangle splatting[0] - GPUs were built to render triangles, so I wonder what games would be like if we supported generating and rendering them as much as we do Gaussian splats. [0] https://trianglesplatting.github.io/
•
Every time I see a Gaussian splatting post, someone brings up triangle splatting. So I think it's an inevitable pivot.
 Top