cmeacham98

Some ads (e.g. I know YT ads used to be this way, haven't looked recently) can't be blocked at the network level because they are served from the same domain/servers as the content.

While the EU and its member countries can't (or at least morally shouldn't) force people to make the product, if it was a priority they could incentivise it with funding, tax breaks, etc.

Yes actually, I know someone who did business with them many years ago (before the advent of LLMs), although for a smaller sum than the advertised top payouts (the vulnerability they had was much less important).

Why post these random unsubstantiated claims on HN?

The difference comes from the fact distro maintainers choose the software they package, while language maintainers largely don't.

For example, how do you prevent somebody from phishing/typosquatting users with a package named similarly to a popular one? For distro maintainers the answer is simple - don't package it. Debian is unlikely to add a "f1refox" package. Language maintainers don't have that luxury.

I think you also misunderstood, they are suggesting OP redirect to a telegram domain that isn't on the .me TLD, as the other .me is potentially at risk of also being taken down.

You continue to dance around this question on this post - did you or did you not follow Google's open source approval process[1]? Did you have an approved Ariane/Launcher2 entry?

1: https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/releasing/...

I don't have the time to audit all the code in a JavaScript runtime myself, so I am forced to make assumptions about the quality of the code based on my trust of the authors.

Additionally, even if the code is good today, I am trusting their process will produce good code tomorrow (as migrating to/from bun has a non-trivial cost). A single person approving the code of an LLM is not such a process with today's technology.

The problem is Google appears to label this as a security feature. I'm fine with the feature existing, but it should say something like "require Chrome" or "block Firefox" not "require a secure browser (wink wink we actually mean Chrome)"

The website labels it as a prompt, so probably a prompt

But you are Russian, right? I obviously have no idea to the extent GregKH has verified this, but a trivial scan of your online presence revealed to me you at minimum speak Russian and there's decent evidence you live/lived in Russia.

It actually astounds me this is getting any number of upvotes on HN at all - it's so obviously LLM written (or at minimum heavily edited) that it's written in markdown on a platform that doesn't appear to support markdown.

It literally hits almost every major identifier of AI writing. You could probably get similar output yourself with a prompt along the lines of "Write a blog post analyzing the GrapheneOS infrastructure based on public information such as GitHub repositories. Focus on contrasting the security of the phone OS with the unnecessary attack surface and similar decisions of the infrastructure repos."

Correct. Example snippet from the nytimes.com robots.txt:

    User-agent: archive.org_bot
    Disallow: /

> Linux adopted Win32 because it actually worked.

Completely untrue - Linux "adopted" Win32 because the majority of video games are written for Windows (and thus Win32).

They could not have invented a better API because the entire reason Proton exists is because developers don't build native Linux games.

So if social media removed personalization from their algorithms and only applied them broadly across large demographic groups you'd be fine with them? (Genuine question I'm curious)

Is this a troll comment? How could the dialogue in the OP possibly be unclear under any context?

KYC is generally a force for good because it prevents fraud. While it is not reasonable for Discord to collect your identity that is a fair requirement for a bank account because money laundering is a serious problem worth preventing.

The reason the 'Epstein class' are able to get away with crimes is because in recent US elections the US voted to elect politicions that intentionally are not investigating those crimes and even pardoned some criminals convicted of them.

What you're describing is called a "worker cooperative" and they are somewhat rare but do exist already in real life.

An LLM can neither understand things nor value (or not value) human life. *It's a piece of software that predicts the most likely token, it is not and can never be conscious.* Believing otherwise is an explicit category error.

Yes, you can change the training data so the LLM's weights encode the most likely token after "Should we kill X" is "No". But that is not an LLM valuing human life, that is an LLM copy pasting it's training data. Given the right input or a hallucination it will say the total opposite because it's just a complex Markov chain, not a conscious alive being.

What? No. An LLM cannot reason, at least not what we think of when we say a human can reason. (There are models called "reasoning" models as a marketing gimmick.)

TFA describes a port of a Linux driver that was literally "an existing example to copy".

While the operator did write a post, they did not come forward - they have intentionally stayed anonymous (there is some amateur journalism that may have unmasked the owner I won't link here - but they have not intentionally revealed their identity).

Personally I find it highly unethical the operator had an AI agent write a hitpiece directly referencing your IRL identity but choose to remain anonymous themselves. Why not open themself up to such criticism? I believe it is because they know what they did was wrong - Even if they did not intentionally steer the agent this way, allowing software on their computer to publish a hitpiece to the internet was wildly negligent.

We cannot know for sure but I think it's reasonably likely (say 50/50). Regurgitating an LLM for 90% of your comment does not inspire trust.

It's not a peer review it's just AI slop. I do agree they don't seem to be intentionally posing as an MS employee.

While the product sounds mildly interesting, I see it as a major red flag you think it's ok for either a submitter or reviewer to not even read the code they are working with and ship thousand line diffs of LLM-generated code.

That's the lack of professionalism I give my random PoC personal projects where the only user I can break is myself - at work I am reading every line of every PR I submit or review, even if I used an LLM to assist writing the code.

Financing a phone is dumb for most people imo, but at least it has an explicit end where you own the phone outright.

This phone requires a subscription in perpetuity, on top of the full purchase price.

Bilt is allegedly launching a new version with rewards for paying mortgages lol

Didn't Hector step down essentially as a direct result of that behavior? https://www.phoronix.com/news/Asahi-Linux-Lead-No-Upstream

Do you have an example of other R4L maintainers harassment? Because you've spammed the same single example 3-4 times on this post alone.

If it was just a few days ago, maybe they had already added the logo but hadn't posted the announcement yet?

Am I missing something obvious? What's the "fine print" that punishes a family of 4 more than a group of 4 friends?

I can't find that information anywhere in the article despite it being the entire point of the headline.

Where do I cut the $10/month? No like seriously, I'd easily pay $10/month to never see another ad, cookie banner, dark pattern, or have my information resold again. As long as that $10 is promised to never increase, other than adjustments for inflation.

But I can't actually make that payment - except maybe by purchasing a paid adblocker - where ironically the best open source option (uBlock Origin) doesn't even accept donations.

You're misunderstanding - the point is that current (supported) versions of KDE support hardware manufactured in 2015, and current (supproted) versions of Windows will stop doing that very soon.