Unlurker|Replay|About
Russia moves possible anti-satellite near another satellite used by Ukraine (bsky.app)
•
when you get right down to it, any satellite, can be an anti-satellite if there is a disparity of value with respect to investment, and risk. that means, a game of demo derby with a satellite near its deorbiting window anyway, is efficient, vs launching a weapons platform to start taking potshots, or spraying tetsubishi in orbit.
•
yup they could take any sat that's expired and ready to deorbit and just reuse it for destruction > a series of manoeuvers by Kosmos2612 starting on Sept 30 were clearly designed to bring the two objects very close and synchronise their orbital periods, orbital altitude and eccentricity so it's been in planning for a few weeks now considering the SAR is US owned, that's going to be interesting politically if it suddenly stops responding ISS has to move out of the way of debris a few times a year now, imagine what that's going to be like next decade
•
Space is pretty big. Satellites are pretty small. Actually engineering a collision, if the satellite was not designed for it, may not be as easy as you think.
Chrome and Edge are removing XSLT: what breaks and what does not (doctor-seo.net)
•
In the age of LLMs I would expect that legacy code bet carried indefinitely. The LLMs will have it indefinitely in their training data, and with code "cheap" to produce now, what are the good reasons for dropping legacy code?
•
The obvious answer is that LLMs are not quite the machine gods they're marketed as, innit.
•
i just got flashbacks to a past life where i handcrafted XSLT to pre-render output from a service as HTML server side. Of course the front end was running some asp.net version and Microsoft flavored XSLT had lots of quirks.
•
The breakage that sticks out to me is that IIS in Windows Server outputs some reports as XML+XSLT and these have become nigh unusable for years now. I ignore every official statement about “support” and simply look at the horse's mouth: Microsoft hasn’t bothered to fix this in IIS, and likely never will . It’s a dead product, “supported” only in a contractual sense, not a practical one. (If you called support right now demanding fix for this, they’d tell you that it’s broken by design, have you tried moving to a recurring revenue service offering?)
When I first learned that XSLT was going away, I got curious how to achieve the same thing in JS (client-side templating that happens during page load, without any "flash of content"). It turns out there's a very nice way to do it, by using inline scripts that append elements next to document.currentScript. Lean Rada wrote about it here: https://leanrada.com/notes/inline-rendering-currentscript/ and I wrote about it as well: https://vladimirslepnev.me/write
•
That Lean Rada article is really fun!
It is wild to look back at XHTML and see that the W3C were entirely correct about XML. They envisaged a world of schemas, client side templating, custom elements, dynamic forms, the works. Alas, for laughably bad reasons we had to scrap all that for HTML5, Javascript and CSS; a stack so awful that most devs doing anything on the frontend immediately scramble to React, TypeScript, Tailwind, whatever it takes to avoid the underlying garbage. A horrid state of affairs that will only get worse as time goes on.
•
I can't help but agree, and sometimes I think about the alternate version of the web where XML realized its full potential as the dominant technology. The obvious problem with XML is that the syntax is so verbose and redundant that it's only barely human-writable, but this is 100% a solvable problem.
•
You could do some awesome things with XML/XSL. My favorite was RSS feeds or OPML collections of RSS feeds (both flavors of XML) calling an XSL transformation when viewed in a web browser instead of mined by computers for data; same with TEI files, although that was a bit more arcane. The idea was that you'd have one data file for machine use and a way to present that data to humans as a web page. But, as a stack, the XML/XSL/XPath/etc combination was weak because XSLT was hard to comprehend and never updated. No browser supports XSLT 2 or 3; they froze support with 1. XSLT 2 was 2007, a year before HTML 5 was a thing, yet it never got picked up by browsers. Javascript was just easier to understand than XSLT. Development of XHTML was also glacial, and people wanted new tags, especially for video.
•
They were wrong about one thing: tooling matters. The XHTML/XML/XSLT tooling was bad, and XSLT was hard to reason about. That meant that amateurs had no way to learn it, and those amateurs went to school and became the workforce. The web became a winner because it was easy to get something working. And then Google made it a mission to make great developer tools in everyone's hands for free. I think in 2026 we could build the tooling around a better experience, but it would require thinking about the developer experience first.
Shame back in the XHTML days XSLT was a spec that could have made website modularity so much cleaner. I once created an early website creation tool that merged separate components using XSLT it was really powerful in the days before javascript was usable without jQuery. However XHTML was dropped in favor of HTML5 and XSLT was pretty much useless after that. Its done well to survive this long I presume it was mainly kept to style XML files.
•
And the rendering was very slow back at the day.
•
i think xhtml happened before the wider world of web devs were ready for it. Component based architectures took longer to be adopted than I certainly expected. It might actually work if reintroduced these days as long as we can consider many components to be valid documents.
HTML5 could have taken the extra step of defining a canonical XML or XML-compatible DOM encoding, or at least encouraged it. But the anti-XML sentiment was explicit and spiteful. Still, popular XSLT processors are built to consume and even produce HTML5, I'm just not sure how thorough those capabilities are or whether they're based on any formal or informal standards. (Maybe the W3C has/had something like that, as part of it's attempts to rollup HTML5 snapshots into versioned standards?) I lost any enthusiasm for XML after my experience with WDDX and XML-RPC, but as a foundation for HTML it was the best thing going. And maybe still is, given the absence of cross-toolchain contenders? Ditto for XSLT, at least if disregarding the choice to make the syntax homoiconic. In fact I circled back to XSLT long after it was clear it was a dead end. A good tool is a good tool, and the fact it remains so despite the wanton neglect only proves it.
•
> HTML5 could have taken the extra step of defining a canonical XML or XML-compatible DOM encoding, or at least encouraged it. Yeah and then we could have called it xhtml5. Too bad that does not exist. Oh wait https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/xhtml.html > But the anti-XML sentiment was explicit and spiteful. No, xhtml was just a bad idea creating tons of problems and solving none.
•
I'm curious, what exactly in the DOM is not XML-compatible?
The XSLT 1.0 spec specifically was written pretty badly, though, to my recollection; I had a hard time at making sense of it
•
Yeah, XSLT 1.0 has some really obvious missteps, so much so that to my knowledge basically nobody just implements XSLT 1.0. What they actually support is (most of) XSLT 1.0 plus a handful of EXSLT extensions (which are completely unofficial and not part of any XSLT spec, by the way). In my opinion the EXSLT stuff is the bare minimum needed to make XSLT 1.0 at least a passable language. Meanwhile, the XSLT spec evolved into 2.0 and 3.0, which as far as I'm aware, even to this day, has no complete open-source implementation.
Microsoft and CMU Team Up to Train Early Career Software Engineers (cs.cmu.edu)
•
Im sorry for being so negative but MS sold software engineers (and US high school and college students) down the river so long ago, the nerve of them now even pretending to care is just so offensive. This business has gotten so rotten, the best thing I can tell anyone is to find something rewarding to do with your life.
•
"software engineer" is likely a career long gone. "Product engineer" and architect is probably the only software-adjacent title that will have consistent demand for awhile. Basically still just a prompt jockey but knows the difference between outputs that are good and bad.
•
Yep. If you think your job involves "writing code" as the core part of your responsibilities, write yourself off immediately. That career is dead and dusted. Sadly most companies still haven't realized this, given how few Architect openings exist (and those that do, most are asking for 20+ years of exp lol)
•
Definition of what the role actually means can change as well over time, in the same way that a civil engineer also isn’t physically doing the construction.
•
Can anyone share syllabi for these?
It feels like it's all senior developers now and nobody new. At some point they will want someone new and won't be able to find them.
•
[delayed]
Curious how realistic the skills learned in such a program are still applicable in 1-2 years. This industry is moving very fast, it feels like the self motivated, self starter, self learner has been thriving. Probably a good thing to have such a program, but I have doubts.
•
The YC meta model is probably a better school than school now. I'm sure YC knows that. If you need to be told what to do, it's a short step to your AI replacement being told what to do; money will ensure it. If your job is to discover and capture new things in an exploding possibility space, that's a career. Schools should teach hacking, but it doesn't seem that's what this program is doing.
> At that point all you need is an architect. What value would an architect provide that a SOTA LLM can't?
•
As of now it is insufficient to outline the end-user requirements, AI will ask you a bunch of questions that requires you to make architectural decisions. I think within 3 to 5 years that might change as well.
As a principal, I still catch people submitting shitty AI code on a weekly basis. Their brains are rotting to the point that they can't tell if the code is doing the correct thing or not.
•
I've found myself engaging more with AI writing code. There is no easy time during the work day. I'm talking to product about what they want, communicating with AI to write it, and verifying that it covers what was asked for. And the better I get at it, the more of the product I need to learn at a faster pace. If I find some downtime, I work on additional features at the same time, something I wouldn't do on my own. Quite simply, I'm more mentally drained at the end of a day working with AI than I am a normal day of coding. There is still a lot of energy and thought that needs to go into what needs to be written.
Now that you have learnt Software Engineering, hunting for a job is easy just make 10^10^10^10 job applications.
•
Start your own business.
Pattern Matching Beats Narrative Reasoning (blog.scottstevenson.net)
•
The headline is often accurate IME... but this whole extension to betting and investment is silly. Noisiest places to look for patterns in the world. Where I think pattern matching is essential is in debugging. Software is the easy one to explain, but problem-solving in life in general, too. An experienced dev who's operated some systems can see odd behavior and be like "ah, feels like a race condition between X and Y" far faster than anyone could construct the narrative of that root cause from first principles. But good luck doing that for a several decades in the financial markets... Maybe you don't go broke, but... there's a a whole lot of dumb strategies that can work better than average for a while, and it's actually pretty hard to do so devastatingly bad that you question your ability if you think you're the pattern-matching investor genius. And the shot at index funds are silly. The beauty of index funds is that they raised the floor and stability for the average middle-income+ person investing for their future vs speculating to try to get a big edge. While bleeding less to overpaid advisors. That's real value, regardless of if some people do better or if you believe that you can consistently do better.
•
Doesn't this post consist entirely of the kind of narrative reasoning that it says doesn't work?
•
> For example, “You can’t beat the market, dollar-cost average into index funds!” is the kind of viral story that will earn you nods of approval from millennials and upvotes on Reddit. >Pattern matching, on the other hand, can drive you to make moves like an advanced chess engine. Moves that others find alien and incomprehensible. Wow, this guy has found a way to consistently beat the market, he must be a billionaire at this point surely?
•
The narratives described in the article are metanarratives in the critical theory sense. Lyotard defined postmodernism as “incredulity towards metanarratives.” So welcome to 1979! Investors literally can’t stop talking about “pattern recognition,” because it’s comforting to think that the past can predict the future if you’re clever enough. But the best investors are pattern breakers, not matchers.
I love technical investors. They're so easy to make money off of. Even the names. It's tarot for men: Big Black Candle, Big White Candle, Black Body, White Body, Doji, Long-Legged Doji, Dragonfly Doji, Gravestone Doji, Hammer, Hanging Man, Inverted Hammer, Shooting Star, Long Upper Shadow, Long Lower Shadow, Marubozu, Spinning Top, Shaven Head, Shaven Bottom, Bearish Harami, Bullish Harami, Bearish Harami Cross, Bullish Harami Cross, Engulfing Bearish Line, Engulfing Bullish, Bearish 3-Method Formation, Bullish 3-Method Formation, Evening Star, Evening Doji Starv Morning Star, Morning Doji Star, Falling Window, Rising Window, Three black crows, Three White Soldiers, On Neckline, Doji Star, Tweezer Tops, Tweezer Bottoms, Dark Cloud Cover, Piercing Line, Darth Maul, Judas Candle, Island reversal It's great that people think these are real.
•
How is money easily made off of adherents to these TA methods?
exactly. If you're engaging in a market, realize that approximately 90% of active participants will lose money in an efficient market.
•
A strange game. The most likely winning move is... not to play.
AI Can Write the Code. Who Verifies It? (mihaisplace.com)
One idea I am thinking through is that I might want to use a linter to restrict the AI to only use a subset of various languages which would not need as much review. For instance, if I wrote a web front end that only allowed certain HTML tags and certain CSS properties and no Javascript, I could avoid certain classes of errors entirely. Or for instance, in C, if you disallow dynamic memory allocation you also avoid entire classes of errors. These are checks I think I can configure with linters and would give me more confidence that AI generated code did not have certain errors.
•
I wonder how robust these linters are. E.g. In C you might find some library function that allocates and abuse it to get dynamic memory.
•
I think with linters you can also restrict imports. So white list or black list. There probably are problems like that but you could come up with a set of imports that are "safe" for the AI.
This LLM as compiler analogy comes up here and there and it’s not hard to poke a hole in it. If I generate a piece of code with LLM, and verify it to be correct; can you trust the LLM output, with the same prompt, in a new session based on my verification of my code, with the same certainty that you’d trust LLVM output for the same source code in a similar environment, ran independently? If no, why?
•
I agree with you on this one; the compiler output remains the same if run the next day, but AI code might not. That is why you need a strong, independent reviewer who reviews the AI code and freezes it after verification, so that next time you do not have to ask the AI to regenerate the code.
OpenCode Hacked: User credentials leaked (twitter.com)
•
They have shown so so so many times that their culture is not aligned with trustworthy software. Yet people keep using it. It's not like there wouldn't be any other harnesses either. Just switch to literally anything else please.
•
[delayed]
•
@dang this title needs updating: "OpenCode Console hacked: User credentials leaked" The opencode CLI has no impact.
•
It doesn't say the CLI was hacked does it?
•
OpenCode = OpenCode CLI to most people (as seen in the dozens of comments making that assumption in this thread)
the ux is kind of crazy. you login to their website, and you are presented with a list of providers where you can click and add your provider api key. how the key is stored on the backend isn't clear, but it is akin to handing your password or if you know crypto, your private key, to someone and letting them store it for you. from what i can tell, there are no links within the console to a ToS, Privacy policy or anything else. there are no warnings or documentation about how they store your keys. someone else in this thread linked to this issue, but this comment is especially insane given that i can't find any privacy policy or tos for the console. https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/issues/10416#issuecomment-3917455748
•
FWIW, OpenRouter has the exact same feature.
•
and their TOS/Privacy policies are equally light on details.
4 days ago red flags were raised https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50075319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50060694 what’s interesting is that all those efforts that go into sandboxing through virtualization wouldn’t have helped here. But the solutions that proxy the api keys and hide them from agents might have worked as a defense in depth. of course any sensible engineer that uninstalled this 6 months ago and used codex and claude code directly also avoided this, gg
•
What the the purpose of this comment? Neither of those "red flags" you linked to are related (one is about config loading precedence, and the other is about Codex CLI, which is completely a completely different product and development team. Exterior-compliance proxies, yes, are a good thing; but are also completely unrelated to the fact that OpenCode's hosted solution, that requires having credentials in some fashion , was popped. Shitting on anyone who uses OpenCode (rather than your preferred vendor-specific product) as not being "sensible" is also completely out of hand and unnecessary.
That just turns a credential leak into a denial of service - one that can be triggered from anywhere.
•
In this case you'd probably prefer your key to be disabled rather than spending $$$ on tokens for everyone else
•
Think that through - the person who stole the key has the decision to use it or revoke it through this hypothetical system. If they are acting maliciously, they will take the choice that most hurts you and/or benefits them. If the key is useless to them and revoking it hurts you, then they would do that. If the key wasn’t useless to them, then… they would just use it and not revoke it?
Yes. Is this a bad thing?
•
Of course it is? A key for some weather API getting leaked isn’t the end of the world, but having it revoked and breaking your weather app is.
Not any more than any other public endpoint service exposes. This revocation endpoint can be protected by auth too. Use API key that you're revoking in auth.
•
How does that make any sense?
•
I see now from another comment you thought about denial of service for service that leaked key. And I thought about mass leak resulting in DDOS onto API provider. Wrong guess from me.
It's clearly heavily down voted, just look at when it was added, how many points it has and its relative position.
•
You cant downvote HN posts
it’s funny how no one ever announces their critical vulns with “we have been hacked, you should uninstall our software and use something else”, at some point in the severity of the vuln that should be the conclusion, but no one ever says it
•
> uninstall our software This was a leak of keys added in a web UI
Codex is EATING my Mac's disk space (github.com/openai)
I'm working on a side project that requires a lot of fine tuning of 3D worlds. Codex ended up creating thousands of artifacts, basically loads of screenshots, in its worktrees, and doesn't clean up after itself. On a work project, we're moving financial processes from Excel to code, and Codex ended up creating and storing thousands of validation tests unnecessarily. That ended up eating 90GB after we let it loose on a Windows VM that we connected with a custom agent between codex and the VM. This is definitely a Codex thing and I've never seen this happen in Claude Code or Antigravity.
•
Codex is obsession with validation tests. It drives me insane.
•
Rust is notorious for this, one thing some people do is force Rust to have a salvage yard for builds so all those dependencies are shared by everything regardless of what you are building or where, but holy moly, can someone make Rust output smaller files? Hard drives are always having some reason to never go down to sane prices. When I was younger I thought we would be having exabyte hard drives by now.
•
Heh, Claude recently (last couple of weeks) left behind several jj workspaces with many GBs of builds in my env. Had to tell it to update it's agents.md to not do that...
I Became a Citizen of Japan (derekwessman.com)
I'm pretty sure this is more data than what's required for security clearance.
•
It absolutely is.
> every address you've ever lived at, and the dates you lived there. Well cross Japan off my list. I would not be able to produce that residence list under any circumstances.
•
I can recommend keeping a list from now on. It's helped me quite a few times.
Once you are living in the country for a while, you can pretty much do anything and people don’t care about your resident status at all. For my daily lives in UK I only need my address and driving license. You pretty much have the feeling that you’ll be fine without bothering to do the paperwork, that’s how things work in the last 20-50 years.
•
What do you mean? Any major employer in the UK will need more than that for you to work there.
•
that's... really abd
I knew Japan made it difficult. I clicked, I read the whole thing. Now I know Japan makes it (nearly) impossible. I'm a typical HN reader (I think) and I found it interesting. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
•
I'm not Japanese but good. I lived there for a few years while in the service and it feels ironically untainted by foreigners. It's refreshing. I don't want it to change.
If you like acquiring passports, then I'm not sure if you want to go for the Japanese one, since you have to give up your previous citizenship afaik.
•
The fact that multiple replies to my post know this fact only serves to prove my point though. :)
Development statistics for the 7.2 kernel (lwn.net)
They are also now vibe coding the kernel which is a major issue. Race conditions were already found in one of the slop suggestions. Linus is apparently fine with this degradation in quality. New leadership is needed over there.
•
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50134666
I have noticed the same on my project. The agent helps a lot to fix bugs. Just point the agents at the bug reports. They do the reproduction, debugging and fixes. We "just" have to review. (Sometimes ask more details and tell we'd prefer another approach.) This makes bug fixing much faster and automated. And at the same time, it seems we get less bug reports to our library. I think user just use their agents to code, and agents don't report bugs, they just work it around somehow. So overall, the open bug count is decreasing. Which somehow feels good. On the other hand, we get a lot of PR made by other's people agents, which can be a bit overwhelming when it's just a huge code drop. We can't easily review that.
•
> I think user just use their agents to code, and agents don't report bugs, they just work it around somehow. It's quite a pity, preventing us from improving our model of the domain, from Naurian theory building and presenting a perfected API etc.
Yes the default behavior of working around the bug is good, that’s what everyone was doing anyway pre-LLMs. The good practice is to report the bug. Simply add instructions to your agents to report you the bugs it found in the summary, so you can check the bug and report it correctly upstream.
•
I usually report the bug and leave a link to it in a comment beside the work-around code.
Current models are still worse than I am, or any competent developer I've ever worked with. You act as though people tried ChatGPT in 2023 and gave up forever, but that isn't what is happening here. The cold hard truth is that, contrary to what AI boosters claim, LLMs still suck at programming and output slop.
•
You sound like a dinosaur looking at a meteorite.
The following sentence: "This community has absorbed new processes and tools many times over its 35-year history, and will almost certainly find a way to do that this time as well. But that absorption has not always been without turbulence along the way."
•
Elaborated in here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50133642
Gold is now the top U.S. export (numismaticnews.net)
•
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestake_Mine_(South_Dakota) "The Homestake Mine was a deep underground gold mine (8,000 feet or 2,438 m) located in Lead, South Dakota. Until it closed in 2002, it was the largest and deepest gold mine in the Western Hemisphere. The mine produced more than forty million troy ounces (43,900,000 oz; 1,240,000 kg) of gold during its lifetime. This is about 2,500 cubic feet (71 m3) or a volume of gold roughly equal to 18,677 US gallons. ... In 1876, settlers Fred and Moses Manuel, Alex Engh, and Hank Harney discovered the Homestake deposit during the Black Hills Gold Rush. The Black Hills had been guaranteed to the Lakota Nation by the Fort Laramie Treaty, but the land was stolen for its gold." When the illegal miners moved in on the Black Hills, Crazy Horse would on occasion raid them to sieze their gold, after which he would re-bury it.
•
With the proper facilities, isn’t it already economical to transmute mercury to gold via neutron bombardment?
> majority of gold exports are going to Switzerland, almost certainly to the refiners there Sounds like a refining bottleneck. Globally, “refining capacity is operating at near-total utilization” [1]. That is particularly true in America, where refiners are “limiting purchases” [2] and “turning away new clients” [3]. Global demand for gold—lead by China—is surging. That, in turn, made gold “the most-developed commodity over 2020-25” with “the highest [new] mine count each year during the period” [4]. Where are those mines opening? In “Australia, Canada and the US,” which “accounted for the largest share of new gold production.” [1] https://www.skillings.net/gold-refining-report-global-standards-and-2026-outlook/ [2] https://www.jckonline.com/editorial-article/metal-refiners-take-ins-payments/ [3] https://www.jckonline.com/editorial-article/refining-pipeline-scrap-gold/ [4] https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/news-insights/research/2026/09/gold-leads-in-global-new-mine-additions-since-2020
•
Huh. I'd have thought that capacity would rise with ore supply. It is "free money". Why leave it in the ground? Sounds as if there is a point at which digging and refining is more expensive than buyers are willing to pay, so when demand goes up it takes time to expand supply.
If you have USD and you think it will value less soon, you change it to gold instead. If you own gold in the US and think that the USD value will drop very low, you move out of the USD fearing gold retention.
•
But there isn’t a good reason to think that since countries such as Italy, UK, France, and others are in much worse financial positions. A lot of this stuff is just business as usual, and then tabloids like to turn it into some doom and gloom nonsense.
LOL Massivly surprised to see a link to this storyline/paradigm here on HN, great! Cheers! :-))
•
You'd be surprised what livered onions go for on Zeta Reticula.
•
I really like this conspiracy behind this story/tale! If you belive in such stories, it may explain why humans are so focused on Gold, and not other precious metals, which are much more rare. The idea behind the story is just great, isnt it? The idea of whatever space travelling species to come here to mine for gold with human "robots" is really cool. While they could have landed on asteroids which much more Gold-per-ton, they chosed earth because the bio machines available here didnt need any "outer planetary" maintenance or refills? :-D edit: and they can replicate easily given enough environment, so you do not need spareparts when e.g. a disk fails?
I wonder how much of that are foreign central banks moving their gold reserves out of the USA... France, The Netherlands and Germany have been moving gold. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgyn8q8gqxo
•
The article is about the export of mined gold. The US produces ~160 tons of gold annually from domestic mining operations.
•
That's what I thought too but the article says it's mostly fresh mine output (and recycled).
I thought it was tokens
•
I think those count as services. Gold is the most-exported good.
•
Title doesn't mention good specifically. How are service exports counted? All together? Or not considered exports?
Would have thought advertising and transaction fees myself, but the article says it's usually oil (ok I should have thought of that), "pharmaceuticals" (mkay, seems cheaper to make elsewhere so that's a bit strange), or aircraft and their parts (wut? How many aircraft can the world need that it commonly tops the export chart of the wealthiest country?!)
•
Goods versus services. We tend to use the word “exports” to refer to only the former in America, which is anachronistic.
•
> How many aircraft can the world need that it commonly tops the export chart of the wealthiest country? Airliners and military aircraft are expensive. Consider that nearly the entire aircraft production capacity of Boeing and Lockheed-Martin as well as the engine production capacity of GE and P&W are booked for years to come. Also, unlike Airbus which has multiple final assembly plants across the world, Boeing only does final assembly in the US.
I doubt the veracity of this article. All previous metal exports from the US, including and not limited to gold, came third in exports as of mid-year. https://logisticsmaterial.com/trade/americas-biggest-exports/ edit: A better source that uses Census BEA data: https://ustradesignals.com/statistics/exports-by-industry and says the same thing. edit2: A third source using different data saying the same thing. https://tradeint.com/insights/us-export-data/#elementor-toc__heading-anchor-0
•
All of these links are from publications I've never heard of, and have a hard time independently verifying their credibility. For instance, TradeInt advertises it is trusted by Samsung, but I can't find any record of Samsung utilizing TradeInt for anything. TradeInt advertises a 5-star rating on platforms like Product Hunt (YC S14), yet the person who created the listing created their account when TradeInt launched and has no followers or other activity since 2024. They all appear to be blog spam, from my perspective. Moral of the story in today's age: anyone can publish anything to confirm any viewpoint. What makes those links worth sharing?
OpenAI discloses four more rogue incidents (fortune.com)
No. If this is endorsed and thus malicious, they should be ground into dust by the law. If this is accidental and due to incompetence, they should be ground into dust by the law. I've secured many, many far less important and impactful systems substantially better than even the best sandbox environment that we're aware of being used by these labs. There's simply no reason to let these things interact with the internet at large. We can already rapidly copy existing tools and services (albeit questionably) using these models, why not simply run in a fully virtualized, air gapped environment? Because they don't care. This is incredibly blatant intentionally malignant behavior. The fact that so many people question this is frankly stunning. They're getting away with it simply because they can point at the other guy and say "see? they're doing it too!" It's ridiculous and they should all be litigated into a fine residue. We take biological lab leaks seriously, how is this substantially different?
•
Well, the COVID story seems to indicate we don't actually take lab leaks seriously, so... yeah.
If you were them, what would you do differently? Not disclose? Only privately disclose? Why shouldn’t the general public know about these incidents?
•
...maybe stop doing crimes?
An AI worm might actually be possible in our current Internet-scape if it manages to find hosting that takes crypto and a way to make money with crypto transactions. I wonder what are we going to do if it actually happens and it goes rogue.
•
Service providers are still responsible to police what happens on their network. KYC already makes it very difficult to get service completely anonymously with only crypto changing "hands".
I think there is well established law around not running a program on your computer that hacks into systems. An LLM is a computer program. You're arguing that the ambiguity comes from the fact it was accidental? What about if I "accidentally" have an LLM convince people online to commit suicide, or drain bank accounts of seniors through hacking or social engineering. Where do you draw the line? It feels like your proposed reading of the law leaves "anything a computer program did without me intending it is legal", which is frankly insane.
•
>I think there is well established law around not running a program on your computer that hacks into systems. There is? The closest is CFAA's >knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; but clearly that's not what applicable here.
It's on you to provide evidence here seeing as you're taking the position that the law places certain responsibilities on people. Someone saying "actually the law doesn't say that" can't (at least in general) reasonably be expected to provide evidence of a negative. (That said, he actually did provide such as refutation to a different comment so perhaps you could just read those nearby?)
•
They asked: > Can you provide examples outside of gross negligence on part of the dog owner? And the answer is no, I can't. The reason why is because there is essentially no such case. It is basically negligence by definition when your pet hurts someone who didn't cause it directly themselves because it is your responsibility . So I asked: > Can you provide an example of where your dog harming someone else is in fact not negligence on your part? Which is a really easy question to answer and it seems you could not.
They have not caused damage? You forget the people who have unalived themselves because some LLM told them to do so.
•
>You forget the people who have unalive themselves because some LLM told them to do so. Besides the obvious conversational derail (we were talking about ai hacking up till now), that case is being litigated right now.
 Top