thenewnewguy

Is the argument that there are no benefits to IPv6 for anyone/society because your specific ISP messes it up?

How does restricting the MCP ""user agent"" to only claude and codex and whatever enable Figma to extract value?

Which is what? Because if your solution is "get rid of all C-suite executives", obviously some new person (or some new group) has to be given the final say on decisions in the company and what's to stop them from becoming corrupt or otherwise problematic?

It's possible those devices will offer indirect migration paths (e.g. you have to reinstall the OS). While annoying/inconvenient, that would probably still qualify as keeping the promise in my book.

For the record I 95% agree with you, but I'd like to try an answer at:

> I haven't seen one convincing model of AI existential risk. Can anyone offer one?

We seem to be heading down this uncomfortable trend of many people using LLM models and anthropomorphising them into properties they don't actually have, like general intelligence and trustworthiness.

So in my opinion the most likely risk here is some underpaid military man that doesn't care about the quality of their work abuses AI for it and that AI hallucinates that nukes are incoming and world war III starts. To be fair this is a fairly low risk, but it's _a_ risk.

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or this is an HN out of touch moment.

The obvious difference (and thus massive advantage) of the cloudfare product is that it is accessible over the normal internet without needing to install a tor client.

I'm sure that works for some subset of the population where all potential users are already comfortable using Tor; but imagine trying to share your PoC website with the designer/client and you are asking them to install Tor browser.

This isn't black and white, it's a sliding scale. Advertising, menu boards, box art, etc. do show the product in the best light possible and take artistic liberties, but are substantially closer to the real product than an AI that's never seen the product spitting out an image of a burger.

It's reasonable to be annoyed when the menu board _isn't based on the product at all_ and thus is nowhere close to the real thing.

Agreed - not only does the obvious LLM writing/editing make it hard to read, but the weird stylistic choice to have long sections where every single short sentence is its own line made the read even more grating.

I usually like blog posts about homelabs but came out of this one disappointed.

Comparing Norton selling their company (even to a scummy owner like Symantec) to Pétain collaborating with Nazi Germany feels a bit ... extreme ... to me.

I fully agree with you, and I think this trend of glorifying disabilities is cringe - ADHD, autism, etc. are life-altering medical conditions and not desirable.

However, I don't think this specific project is intending to glorify ADHD or help people claim they have it - it's just piggybacking on the idea that telling current-gen LLM models that you have ADHD (allegedly) produces better results for everyone.

It's open source software - it can be baked into pretty much anything given they follow the license terms.

Does anybody have a source for the "actively exploited" part of the HN title?

Technically yes, in practice the odds your local resolver is validating DNSSEC is slim (and if you're intentionally configured it to do so, switch to a provider that isn't Quad9).

If you care about software being closed source or proprietary you probably aren't running Windows.

It's a typo that carried over to the second code example of trying to read the file too? Is the sample code completely untested?

Perhaps partially? I assume that cutting the pages out of the spin makes them easier to scan at least partially. That said I have no insider knowledge of this type of operation so I don't know how much easier that actually makes it.

But ultimately, it's a moot point, because the legal requirement means the books must end up destroyed. Even if the people at Amazon wanted to scan the books in a way that required no destruction at all, it's not currently (legally) possible for them to do so, so they might as well take the easy way out today.

Bias disclaimer: Amazon is my current employer, but I don't work on AI or anything else mentioned in the article.

Yes, this is a result of copyright laws. The other commenters are wrong/uninformed.

If it was up to the companies training LLMs, they wouldn't destroy the books: It's a waste of company resources, it's needlessly destructive/evil, it generates bad PR, etc etc. There are essentially zero advantages, other than it is what is required under US copyright law (or at least, it is what their highly paid lawyers believe is required under US copyright law).

Bias Disclaimer: Amazon pays my salary currently, although my job doesn't have anything to do with datacenter construction.

Maybe I missed it, but the article doesn't seem to say what the "circumvention"/"loophole" that Amazon used was? It seems like Amazon went through the correct city permitting/legal processes years ago, and now residents want to complain about it years later because data centers are this year's culture war hot topic?

Like if Amazon followed the official process here, what's the problem? At some point you have to declare an approval final and allow a company to move forward with construction.

While I agree with you in general, usernametaken29 made a specific prediction about OpenAI's IPO which is an event that will very likely happen in the next year or so.

That said, OpenAI isn't public, so you can't directly short it easily. I guess you could short Microsoft but I don't know if that gives you enough exposure to truly be worth it, even if you do genuinely believe what OOP claims.

Let's be clear and not do this both sides thing - by "they" we mean Republicans. You may not agree with their policies or what they want to spend money on, but Democrats (at least in aggregate) live in the real world where they acknowledge for the government to spend money they will have to raise taxes.

Republicans are the only party that in the 21st century acts as though we can simultaneously cut taxes and increase spending and everything will be fine.

Doesn't roblox use an anticheat that prevents the game client from running on linux? I thought nowadays the way to "run roblox on linux" involved using an android emulator.

Huh? Just to make sure I wasn't missing something, I checked and my GitHub account has only a TOTP app and hardware security key configured, no SMS/phone number.

As a matter of fact GH even has a red "Less secure" badge on the SMS 2FA in the settings discouraging its use, as well as the following text in the description: "We strongly advise against using SMS because it is susceptible to interception, does not provide resistance against phishing attacks, and deliverability can be unreliable."

The article author attemps to make a distintion between "burners" and "aliases" but I don't believe one exists for this usecase. Let's say for the sake of argument that you think blocking burner emails provides meaningful protection (I don't, but services using such a list obviously do). From your perspective, an "alias" is the same as a "burner". Both can be easily generated in bulk by a human or bots, cannot be resolved to an identity, and cannot be compared to determine if two emails are the same person.

This analogy is bad: Nobody is going to die or get food poisoning because their old browser doesn't work on a website.

A better analogy would be a restaurant deciding not to cater to the 1% of the US population that have celiac disease (cannot eat gluten), or the 2% that have issues with dairy.

What if the grocery store has a security camera pointed at the door that records 24/7? Should they not be allowed to do that?

Doesn't the company behind ProxMox sell enterprise support?

You mean the same Brave that's only going to offer "limited MV2 support" for five hand chosen extensions because they aren't able of truly keeping it alive? https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/#which-mv2-...

Anything Chromium based is tainted. They will not be able to keep out all of Google's shitty decisions because they are not building a browser, they are building a skin on top of somebody else's browser.

I feel like root cause #2 should be titled "Our API is poorly designed".

If you pass nothing into the API, it doesn't give you an error? Is this even a valid use case - why is it even possible to express this request, should the important inputs not be some kind of required parameter?

If your attempt to use the primary purpose of your API silently broke until your database filled up, that should probably be a big red flag about how likely customers are to make mistakes using your product.

> Same with most people "doing a startup" or "opening a restaurant".

While I mostly agree with your sentiment, I think there is an important difference. Unless you are attempting advantage play (99.99% of gamblers are not, and casinos ban the few that are), there is literally nothing you can do at a casino to make it a positive EV activity. No amount of skill, drive, effort, or anything other than pure luck can consistently generate profit at a casino.

A startup/business, on the other hand, can be effectived by your actions. Luck obviously plays a large factor, but you have some level of control over the outcome.

These AI slop articles about AI are getting especially boring to read.

> Problem 1: It Devours the Context Window

Don't harnesses support progressive discovery these days?

Claude (200K).... GPT-4o..........?

> every MCP server adds a process layer between the LLM and the underlying API

But a CLI doesn't?

------------------

> Measurement: Tool Definition Sizes

> MCP Server: Linear, Notion, Slack, Postgres

Oh, so these are the MCP servers that are examples of context bloat we're going to replace! Later in the article:

> At Quandri we use all three approaches side by side...

> MCP for services without a strong CLI (Slack, Linear, Notion)