hypeatei

> If the project publishes a SHA-256 hash, use it. Non-negotiable on production machines.

They're pushing FUD around downloading a file but then suggest that we trust the same chain of complex things to display the right hash value? Integrity != authentication.

Machine guns are banned at the federal level, though, and it's been consistently upheld by the courts. I'm not sure I follow the argument anyway; the US constitution consists of negative rights (e.g. freedom to do something) rather than positive rights (e.g. entitlements)

They can't make it an explicit line item of "3% surcharge" or whatever. Instead, the business will raise prices across the board and offer a "cash discount" of 3%

If your argument is that Bitcoin is only good for illicit purchases, then I sort of agree with you but there are better alternatives like Monero. Regardless, you would agree that current valuations are insane given that's the only real use-case, right?

Also infrequent purchases != storing wealth in Bitcoin.

> If one uses a good source of entropy then one will not "get screwed."

How many users were told to verify the source code to make sure it was using good entropy? How many would actually do that even if told? Obviously not even the most hardline bitcoiners were looking at it.

> dice rolls

Yes, the new cope I've seen is that you should've been using casino-grade dice[1] to make sure your entropy is good LOL. Mass adoption soon, I'm sure.

1: https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1vcr4r4/dice_rolls...

No, via direct deposit. I had a co-worker once who miskeyed his routing+account numbers and guess what? He still got his money a few days later and it wasn't lost to the void.

There is no blockchain, seed phrases, nor cold wallets required for this amazing feat of money transfer/remediation to take place.

> You, as a developer working on Bitcoin, need to take your time to understand your changes, document them clearly, and verify they do what you think.

Or, you could realize that using a financial technology which relies on no software bugs ever is probably flawed at its core. "Not your keys, not your coins" was (is?) the zeitgeist but even people who did the "right thing" and used a cold wallet still got screwed. I don't know why anyone would keep their wealth in something that requires so much technical excellence.

No, I don't participate in crypto nonsense. Especially such a speculative and volatile "asset" like Bitcoin.

Haha, so you can bribe the President? I hope this comment is satire.

The "masses" are well aware of crypto at this point and BTC is down 47% over this past year. It's just not that useful unless you're trying to skirt laws/regulations[1] or LARPing as a sovereign citizen.

1: Yes, I know, BTC is not even good pick for financial crimes either.

Bull markets are born out of skepticism. Everyone is fearful that there's a giant bubble so all eyes are on the fundamentals. When euphoria sets in, i.e. neighbors and co-workers start telling you how easy it is to make money on stocks, that's when you know you're at the top. We're not at the top and have seen multiple corrections/bear markets over the past 5-6 years.

Berkshire themselves have made investments into Google this year, a company at the center of this supposed "bubble"... make of it what you will but I think the market is setup to do pretty well in the near future.

Doing basic math makes someone a "spreadsheet head"? If the "actual world" wanted American-made gloves then this cash injection from the government would've resulted in a boom in glove manufacturing here, no?

I always see catastrophizing and autarkist-coded takes like this which imply the US is a house of cards because we don't manufacture everything under the sun at all times. You have to realize that preparing for a doomsday scenario like 50% fatality rate pandemic has a cost that someone foots the bill for. Even in 2020 with a buffoon running the country, we still reacted very quickly and developed multiple vaccines to combat a novel virus (yes, the response was bungled in other ways but I digress)... people, markets, etc. are adaptable and we will figure it out.

> And they are posed here as gospel

The same could be said for people who suggest regulation for every problem that comes up, even for problems that were caused by regulation. Maybe we have our blindspots, but the "regulate everything" crowd is much louder and more prevalent on HN than the free market absolutists.

Discussed three days ago (251 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48687508

The other owner replied here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48696800

Problems have been ongoing for a few hours already.

> though if that happened I would have expected it to be leaked

From Feburary:

https://www.axios.com/2026/02/23/iran-strike-trump-gen-dan-c...

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine has been advising President Trump and top officials that a military campaign against Iran could carry significant risks, in particular the possibility of becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict,

Recently:

https://www.ms.now/news/trump-iran-war-haberman-swan-book-in...

“He felt that this regime was a paper tiger, that this was going to be a fast war,” Swan said on “The Last Word.” “He just said he felt that that was going to be the case, that they were going to collapse very quickly.”

“It’s a form of magical thinking, actually, is what it all boils down to,” he added.

I never swapped claims. We're talking about nuclear weapons and why the US started a war with Iran this year due to this supposed "crisis" (in your words) but there's no evidence that a threat is imminent. The NIEs were just one data point against your claim; the burden is still on you to show who else agrees with the assesment that this is a crisis.

> IAEA concluded in May 2025 that Iran ran an "undeclared structured nuclear program" until the early 2000s

"nuclear program" is not the same as a weapons program and the IAEA sounding alarm bells over policy violations is not a conclusion that Iran is/was on a nuclear warpath.

> a former member of the parliament of Iran

He wasn't a member at the time of those statements nor did he have any involvement in their nuclear program. That's misleading to say the least.

Ali Motahari—former member of Iran’s Parliament—clarified that the interview dates back to May 2022, when he neither held a parliamentary seat nor any official role in nuclear affairs.[0]

So besides a single guy in Iran, are there official delegations that have concluded Iran was developing nuclear weapons? The US has had two National Intelligence Estimates, which consists of all 18 agencies in the intelligence community, conclude that they were not developing nukes.

0: https://wanaen.com/trump-shares-old-ali-motahari-interview-o...

> The crisis exists because Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons

According to whom? I know there's one country who says Iran is two weeks away from nuclear weapons, but who else?

I'm not worried. You cannot hold a machine accountable and there's no way OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. are going to take on that kind of liability if some code resulted in a major outage or a lawsuit. Perhaps that's the signal I'd be looking for: so much confidence in the product that they put their money where their mouth is.

Besides, you can look at the websites/apps/software you use everyday and evaluate whether or not the agentic era has produced better results. Personally, there's still plenty of bugs and annoyances. Banks still using SMS 2FA, library breakages in minor version bumps, inconsistent UIs between web and mobile, etc.

If all that was a hurdle before... because humans, regulations, or something else... then surely these magical machines that can supposedly replace us and do it much faster would've handled it by now? And they wouldn't introduce more bugs[0], would they? ;)

0: https://www.0xsid.com/blog/meta-account-takeover-fiasco

> Humans also do not know how to do this reliably

These are machines, not humans, so I don't understand the comparison. The point of tech advancement is that we eliminate entire classes of errors that humans make. You'd probably look at me funny if I wrote a production application that failed randomly in unexpected ways like corrupting data, opening security holes, etc. then explained it away with "well, humans do it too!"

I think there's a lot of confirmation bias in this thread coming from two groups: anti-AI activists and cathedral-development proponents. They take what was written at face value and use it to further their narratives that AI is ruining the world and "social coding" is unsustainable, respectively.

What the Ladybird maintainers did here was messy and a punch in the gut to actual contributors who liked the project and the openness of it. There was no effort to shore things up, just a boilerplate message from a maintainer account then closing of your PR. Of course, Ladybird maintainers have no obligation to outside contributors but it shows a lack of grace nonetheless.

Reading between the lines, there seems to have been a stark shift in attitude from Andreas which is concerning. Ladybird started from SerenityOS (a hobby OS) and he always encouraged everyone to submit a patch. Sure, LLMs have increased the amount of slop PRs, but I feel like those are easy to spot and close accordingly. I don't have links handy, but maintainers would point to a section about AI usage in their CONTRIBUTING.md then close the PR whenever obvious slop was submitted. This idea that people "own" the code they contribute is strange to me; the code would be determined worthy of acceptance at review time, why does someone have to "own" it?

All that is to say: I think there's much darker things going on here and AI+security is a nice scapegoat. Time will tell, but this reeks of a rugpull in the future. Disappointing day.

DHS is not the same as the CIA. The former is heavily politicized and the latter kinda just does its own thing and I'm pretty sure they haven't paused vetting (ICE agents don't require TS/SCI clearance like CIA officers)

I don't think U.S. intelligence thought any part of this war was a good idea or justified. There were two National Intelligence Estimates (a panel of all 18 agencies in the IC) that concluded Iran was not developing nuclear weapons.

There has also been reporting that a top general in the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned Trump about starting a conflict with Iran[0]. The only party that believes, or wants others to believe that Iran is a huge threat, is Israel.

0: https://www.axios.com/2026/02/23/iran-strike-trump-gen-dan-c...

> Most people do not do this, and many homes thus slowly degrade in value

I agree with the first part, people absolutely do shoddy work or none at all but the value doesn't seem to go down. My mother bought a house had it inspected beforehand but massive issues with the foundation and the roof showed up the following spring when there was heavy rain. Sure, all that can be fought with attorneys and insurance (both cost time and money) but it doesn't feel very good psychologically or physically to be dealing with so much paperwork and house repairs.

Sorry to rant, I think your comment is spot on... owning a house is expensive.

I'm firmly in the renting camp and I'll only own a home if I can buy some land and build it, probably. From a US perspective, I see too many people buy a house because that's what they're "supposed" to do since that's the American Dream. They end up with projects every weekend, stressing about repairs, and dealing with random BS from the local government and Karens.

I also despise the culture around owning a home and the insane things that we do to prop it up. Zoning restrictions, absurd mortgage terms (what other country does 30-year fixed rates?), overbearing building codes all so we can live up to this arbitrary life goal of Owning A Home.

I believe you contradicted your first point by following it with "If Bun starts having more bugs and feeling like worse software"

...so you do use feelings in your calculation? To be clear, I have no problem with that and think there is some level of speculation you need to do when deciding what to rely on.

As a hypothetical, pretend that Bun added obfuscated binary blobs that get executed at build time. Well, your code still works and no effects show up at runtime. Are you going to keep using it or dump it based on the "feeling" that something isn't right?

> Is there a term for this sort of brain dead contrarianism?

Reactionary[0]? Trump and the MAGA movement embody this desire to return to the "golden age" which is an idealized period in the 1950s where you had a factory job, a house, a family, and a simple life. Of course, "idealized" is the keyword there because it ignores the state of civil rights, medicine, workplace & car safety, etc. at that point in time.

Anyway, I think that's the term you're looking for. Contrarians are annoying, reactionaries are more akin to cult followers.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

Fair. It's definitely too broad of a statement and I feel like calling out the reusable cup policy that Starbucks already has would be more helpful. The current statement reads like there is no alternative whatsoever and you're forced to dump plastic into the ocean if you get a drink from there.

> It's time for Starbucks to stop making misleading recycling claims and start prioritizing plastic-free, preferably reusable, alternatives for its customers.

I agree on the misleading claims part, but they do allow you to bring in your own personal cup already as long as it's clean. I don't see how that's not an alternative.

So I take it you're going to buy shares of OpenAI on opening day then? ;)

Institutions merely owning a newly-IPO'd stock means nothing. They get access to shares at a reasonable price before opening while retail is buying at insane prices after open. See Figma as an example where institutional investors got it at $33/share and it ended the IPO day at $115/share with retail buying all the way up (including pops above that at like $127)

I thought it was common knowledge that IPOs are a way for insiders and early investors (not IPO flippers) to get a nice exit during the frenzy.