I would not be surprised if people on HN were more likely to hit this issue than Apple's average users. We're a weird bunch ;)
571 karma · joined January 2, 2016
Also, massively over-dramatised. Yes, a bug worth finding and knowing about, but it’s not a time bomb - very few users are likely to be affected by this.
Knowing the nature of OS kernels, I’m guessing even just putting a Mac laptop to sleep would be enough to avoid this issue as it would reset the TCP stack - which may be why some people are reporting much longer uptimes without hitting this problem, since (iirc) uptime doesn’t reset on Macs just for a sleep? Only for a full reboot?
Anyway, all in all, yeah hopefully Apple fix this but it’s not something anyone needs to panic about.
AI tools have caused me to trip up a few times too when I fail to notice how many changes haven’t been checked into git, and then the tool obliterates some of its work and a struggle ensues to partially revert (there are ways, both in git and in AI temporary files etc). It’s user error but it is also a new kind of occasional mistake I have to adapt to avoid. As with when auto-save started to become universal.
There are loads of technologies that, despite being decades old, do not qualify. So, no, it’s not “primarily a function of time”. It absolutely is about the utility. We can only be in a position to judge utility when sufficient time has passed, and AI ain’t had enough time yet to prove its utility. Given enough time, it might prove as useful as electricity, or it might just sit alongside computer operating systems - never quite making it onto anyone’s “this changed the world” list, even if it has as much utility as an OS.
They’re a big enough corporation that we can have nuanced feelings about them. Simultaneously grateful for one part of what they do, and unsympathetic for the consequences of a different part of what they do.
AI isn’t there yet. You could turn off AI tomorrow and there’d be a shock but people would quickly switch back. You could not do the same for electricity, medicine, combustion engines (or steam engines/turbines), computers, the internet, modern building materials, etc. You try to swap back off any of those and the modern world (literally and figuratively) collapses. Turn off AI, and there’d be a financial collapse but afterwards everything would return relatively easily to an earlier way of doing things (ye know, the way from just 4 years ago, and which is still 99% of how people do things :) )
If it brings them down, they’ve only themselves to blame. More likely it’ll just hasten the end of free public repos, which will be a shame, but we’ll find other ways to share code that aren’t reliant on one semi-benevolent megacorp.
I will run parallel Claude sessions when I have a related cluster of bugs which can be fixed in parallel and all share similar context / mental state (yet are sufficiently distinct not to just do in one session with subagents).
Beyond that, parallel sessions to maybe explore some stuff but only one which is writing code or running commands that need checking (for trust / safety / security reasons).
Any waiting time is spent planning next steps (eg writing text files with prompts for future tasks) or reviewing what Claude previously did and writing up lists (usually long ones) of stuff to improve (sometimes with drafts prompts or notes of gotchas that Claude tripped up on the first time which I can prompt around in future).
Spend time thinking, not just motoring your way through tokens.
1) Automated fetching of papers is difficult. API approaches are limited, and often requires per-journal development, scraping approaches are largely blocked, and AI- approaches require web fetch tools which are often blocked and when not, they consume a lot of credits/tokens very quickly.
2) AI generates so many hallucinated citations it’s very hard to know what a given citation was even supposed to be. Sure you can verify one link, but when you start trying to verify and correct 20 to 40 citations, you end up having to deal with hundreds or thousands of citations just to get to a small number of accurate and relevant ones, which rapidly runs you out of credits/tokens on Claude, and API pricing is insane for this use-case. It’s not possible to just verify the link, as “200 Status” isn’t enough to be confident the paper actually exists and actually contains the content the AI was trying to cite. And if it requires human review anyway, then the whole thing is pointless because a human could more quickly search, read and create citations than the AI tool approach (bearing in mind most researchers aren’t starting from scratch - they build up a personal ‘database’ of useful papers relevant to their work, and having an AI search it isn’t optimising any meaningful amount of work; so the focus has to be on discovering new citations).
All in all, AI is a very poor tool for this part of the problem, and the pricing for AI tools and/or APIs is high enough that it’s a barrier to this use case (partly due to tokens, and partly because the web search and web fetch tools are so relatively expensive).
No, I had no intention of trying to offer a real source for the accuracy of AI generated citations. It is not hard to Google, search HN or even (ironically) use AI to search, to find numerous relatively recent studies discussing the problem or highlighting specific cases of respected journals/conferences publishing papers with junk citations.
[Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/o6hlry/statistic... ]
> “The companies three to five years from now that are going to be the most successful are those companies that doubled down on entry-level hiring in this environment,” Nickle LaMoreaux, IBM’s chief human resources officer, said this week.
The shortage of senior engineers will be even worse than it is today.
Not sure your argument really holds any water over a 10+ year period as I originally described.
Of which, Files, Talk, Office and Groupware are all just NextCloud services where they've swapped "Nextcloud" for "EU" in the name.
>"Office.EU is a service offered and operated by EUfforic Europe BV, registered with the Dutch chamber of commerce under registration number 98746243 and having its address at Dr. Kuyperstraat 10-A at (2514 BB) The Hague, the Netherlands."
I wouldn't personally trust a company that appears to be claiming another company's services as some revolutionary new thing, when it's just reselling them. And it was registered in November 2025 with no other information available - why would anyone gamble all their company data on a company that has appeared as quickly as it might disappear? Who are the owners/founders even?
Anyway, this was a waste of time.
Regardless, I've met people with only honorary doctorates, and it's a mixed bag when it comes to preferred titles. Often, though, the ones that really care, soon acquire a 'superior' title anyway, so it ends up becoming a moot point.
>OpenMP also inherits many of those concepts, and some of them are also in CUDA.