Sophira

You know, even though this would be a terrible idea, it would also be kind of fitting, given the movie's time travel shenanigans.

You may have responded to one comment here. The comment you responded to is actually in agreement with you.

[Edit: It's likely that you intended to reply to this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47163147 ]

Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/349

Are you thinking of OpenOffice instead of OnlyOffice?

Sites that exist to archive other websites will almost always need to dynamically change the content of the HTML that they're serving in some way or another. (For example, a link that points to the root of the website may need changed in order to point to the right location.)

So it doesn't necessarily raise questions about whether the content has been changed or not. The difference is in whether that change is there to make the archive usable - and of course, for archive.today, that's not the case.

> Neither would anybody have believed that 8 out of 10 hard drive chips can contain any rootkits. Yet, here we are

I haven't heard this before. Do you have any links I can read on this?

The most obvious honeypot I've ever seen, to be quite honest.

> I didn’t see the original post...

If you or anyone else who sees this wants to see the original post, it's still available in the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20260105115129/https://devblogs....

I would assume the idea is to extract it some other way? For example by having OpenClaw access a URL or something.

I don't think they ever claimed that it was the only way to solve the problem, just that they're doing it and it works for them.

It's not even necessarily for source code. It can be for anything text-based. In that case, software licenses wouldn't even apply.

> Advertisers do not have access to your chats, chat history, memories, or personal details.

...but thanks to the method OpenAI are using of showing ads based on conversation topics, they do know that user <a> was talking to ChatGPT about topic <x> on one day, topic <y> on another, and topic <z> on another day.

That's still a form of chat history, even if it's vague.

> IMO systems should be shipped in "Setup Mode" by default with no keys preinstalled. On first boot which ever OS you decide to install should be able to enroll its keys.

Let's be clear here. Most computers ship with Windows pre-installed, thanks to Microsoft's exclusivity deals with OEMs and the general assumption of Windows as the default OS.

Most users, even those who want to use Linux exclusively, will never be able to utilize the first-OS-install functionality you propose, because the OEM will already have installed Windows on their behalf.

And just in case the magnitude of that isn't obvious to people, that means there are 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 total possible UUIDs. Good luck.

Firstly, I think you may have replied to the wrong person. I wasn't the one who mentioned the early diskettes point, I was just quoting it.

But that said, we aren't talking about sector sizes. Of course storage mediums are always going to use sector sizes of powers of two. What's being talked about here is the confusion in how to refer to the storage medium's total capacity.

> Early diskettes always used 1000

Even worse, the 3.5" HD floppy disk format used a confusing combination of the two. Its true capacity (when formatted as FAT12) is 1,474,560 bytes. Divide that by 1024 and you get 1440KB; divide that by 1000 and you get the oft-quoted (and often printed on the disk itself) "1.44MB", which is inaccurate no matter how you look at it.

There is nothing visible on your profile[0] other than a derogatory comment about HN in your bio.

If you're seeing something there, then I would advise you to look at it again when you're logged out so that you can see what others are seeing.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=its_ubuntu2

The fact that the software and hardware is evidently still in use at some companies gives me pause about whether releasing it in a cracked form publicly after having published it on a personal website would be a good idea.

Software companies love to milk enterprises for all their worth, because they're the entities who will pay the most amount of money if it means that the software they use can still work - and a big part of how they do this is via vendor lock-in. We can see in this article that this company was still using Windows 98 - they're clearly locked-in!

All of which is to say that this intellectual property might actually still be owned by a company who'll be able to sue.

If you haven't already checked whether the patent and other intellectual property is still owned by any company, OP, I would strongly suggest doing so first.

Completely disagree that "software development, as it has been done for decades, is over".

AI is a useful tool, agreed - but it will always be reliant upon humans writing code.

Let's take a very simple example to prove my point. Let's say that everybody is now using AI to write code, and someone develops a new programming language with it. Cool! We have a new language now.

What we don't have, however, are any examples of how that programming language is used. Nothing that the AI can learn from.

How well do you think AI is going to handle being able to code in this new language which doesn't appear at all in its training data?

I had never even heard about this before today...

> Go back a few years and this same logic says "The trick is, just use Windows and do whatever it wants and don't fight."

This is basically exactly what I saw people saying in Windows subreddits. There's one post that particularly sticks out in my memory[0] that basically had everybody telling the OP to just not make any of the changes that they wanted to make. The advice seemed to revolve around adapting to the OS rather than adapting the OS to you, and it made me sad at the time.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Windows10/comments/hehrqe/what_are_...

> Not sure if it ever worked with Bluetooth.

It does, with the help of BlueALSA[0].

[0] https://github.com/arkq/bluez-alsa

The image at the top of the article is actually what already happens in Android and has done for years. At first, I thought that this meant that the article was very outdated, but no, this is from January 2026.

I imagine the text of the article is fine, but I'm a little bit disappointed that Android Authority chose to lead with that image and caption and make it seem that this is what the future flow would look like. You'd think they'd know better.

> did someone pay for all of these inference calls here?

Considering that these responses are all the exact same two replies in wording, and that this is a task which could be easily automated without AI, I seriously doubt that it's going to be caused by actual inference.

I've felt for a while that having LLMs that could answer from a previous era would be amazing. I posted an open letter to OpenAI on Reddit about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/zvm768/open_letter... .

I still think it's super important. Archive your current models - they'll be great in the future.

There was a time when we did call it spying. Programs that had what we would now call telemetry used to be called spyware.

The term has fallen by the wayside and hardly ever gets used nowadays.

Putting this here for visibility:

PyPi: https://pypi.org/project/deno/

GitHub: https://github.com/denoland/deno_pypi

(Note that the GitHub link in the first post of the issue linked by this HN post now redirects to the official location, as of the time I write this.)

Pirate... what? A phone? Android? Banking apps?

The problem here isn't the money, it's the lack of privacy and control.

The best analog I can think of to piracy in this situation would be rooting the phone/installing GrapheneOS. And, yeah, that's definitely something people should do if they want that control, but I really hope people don't put it in the same category as piracy...

There's another cool thing here that's pretty amazing to me if I'm understanding correctly: Rather than being part of the OS, the filesystem handler code is located on the disk itself within the RDB partition.

Honestly, that seems like a surprisingly forward-thinking way to do things; preservation and archival become a lot easier if you can run the code. I've honestly not heard about this approach before, but it makes so much sense.

Can we pretty-please do this for all filesystems?

Back when GeoSpy was available for everyone to use, I did a test where I just uploaded an image that had a black background and white text saying the location of a place and a textual description.

GeoSpy told me that it was the place mentioned in the picture, with the textual description as evidence.