MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by fc417fc802 | 2026-03-06 07:01:33+00:00
Devices are typically controlled per-user. So if you want to increase isolation you need to run as a different UID. It's definitely a sub-par model IMO but it seems to work well enough.

> and then the OS pops open a picker for the user, kinda like a file dialog?

How would that work when I'm in a container or at a tty with nothing more than a shell?
by throwaw12 | 2026-03-06 07:02:27+00:00
please don't change your comment constantly (or at maybe add UPDATE 1/2/3), because you had different words before, like you were saying something in this fashion:

* you probably lack good RESEARCH skills

* I can see at most 1.25x improvements - now it is 2-3x

By updating your comment you are making my reply irrelevant to your past response
by dpe82 | 2026-03-06 07:02:31+00:00
I'm probably missing something, but when I read the California statute I didn't understand it to be anything like "computers enforcing age" - more like, when you create an account it needs to ask your age, and then provide a system API by which apps can ask what bracket the account holder is in. This seems better than the current solution of every app asking independently?

Again, I'm probably missing something but it strikes me as pretty trivial to comply with?
by heavyset_go | 2026-03-06 07:02:35+00:00
No platform is going to forgo analytics and using demographic information for advertising, that's their bread and butter.

I'd also argue it's clear and convincing if a kid changes their profile picture to a selfie of themselves, says they're 12, says they're in grade school, etc. Any reasonable person would take that at face value.

> implement an invasive ID-scanning age verification system (and assume the risks of handling such highly-sensitive personal information)

It's already implemented as face and ID scans by all the major platforms as it is. The systems are already there and they're already deployed.

Apps and platforms already integrate with 3rd party age verification platforms who handle the face and ID data, nothing ever has to touch your servers.
by tovej | 2026-03-06 07:03:14+00:00
I have to strongly disagree.

I've met people who have never been in touch with organized religion. They generally have excellent ethical frameworks. I've also read the bible, it does not have a consistent moral or ethical framework.

How can it be that areligious people have ethics if they need god for ethics?

Ethics is all about being human, it does not require a god, and it does not require anyone to understand even what a human is, or what process led to us living life together. The subjective experience of life and the subjective experience of life in a society is all you need to develop ethics.
by rachelle-r | 2026-03-06 07:03:30+00:00
You're right that OpenClaw's security model is controversial, and the lethal trifecta is a real concern. Shield is specifically designed to break it.

Simon Willison's lethal trifecta is the combination of private data access, untrusted content, and external communication. The recommended mitigation is to cut off at least one leg. That's exactly what Shield's per-service read/write/execute controls do. Revoke write access on email, and the agent can't exfiltrate through it. Revoke execute on terminal, and it can't run arbitrary commands. You choose which legs to cut per agent, per service.

Shield doesn't solve prompt injection. Nothing does yet. But it constrains the blast radius, which is the same approach Willison, Google's agent security paper, and Meta's Rule of Two all recommend: architectural boundaries enforced outside the model, not prompt-level guardrails.

On the architecture: Shield hooks into OpenClaw's native Plugin API (before_tool_call / after_tool_call), so it intercepts at the tool execution layer before the call reaches the system. It's not a wrapper or an afterthought.

And to be clear, Shield is a personal project. It has nothing to do with Atlassian or Rovo. I mentioned my role because building agent infrastructure professionally is how I recognized the gap in the open-source ecosystem. Atlassian already has its own agent governance infrastructure. Most teams building on OpenClaw don't.

If you want to see how Shield works under the hood: https://multicorn.ai/shield
by rswail | 2026-03-06 07:03:41+00:00
Agreed, but the right to compensation is derived from the right of licensing something you author.

The courts have ruled that something machine generated does not have a human author, so therefore it is not subject to copyright, in the US.

So if enough authors agreed and sued the AI companies to remove their copyrighted elements from the AI training, then that would be a reasonable solution as well.

However, any lawsuit is highly likely to result in some sort of compensation paid if decided in favor of the authors.
by armchairhacker | 2026-03-06 07:04:24+00:00
OpenClaw is an exception to your list. It’s easy to spin up an OpenClaw alternative (you can even fork it), but not clear how to significantly improve its function. You may argue that name recognition (what OpenClaw relies on today) is separate from brand; but if a competitor becomes popular (perhaps by offering slightly better security), unless OpenClaw can make a significant functional improvement (like better OpenAI integration, since OpenAI hired its creator), the only way I can imagine it regaining market is via brand.
by danielbarla | 2026-03-06 07:04:49+00:00
I don't see this as a binary thing. Legally we tend to draw a clear line between child and adult for pragmatic purposes, but I don't think my responsibility of intent disappears just because someone hits a magical number. I have steered clear of various gambling / "gaming" jobs which have had silly high salaries as a result; I don't in any way want to participate in things which are meant to play the weak points of the human psyche like a harp, for profit.
by AnthonyMouse | 2026-03-06 07:05:01+00:00
> Nope, not necessarily.

Necessarily, in fact, for any system that uses a government ID, because that requires there to be some interface between the government ID and a private bureaucracy that the holder of the ID would be pressured into interacting with. If that interface allows the private party to e.g. learn who you are, instead of just your age, it's only the government that could replace it with one that didn't.

> There are likely to be a lot more coming as the newer standards in this area were finalised last year. Online identity is a continually evolving space.

Evolution is supposed to cause bad ideas to die. The problem with laws, such as the ones surrounding government identity documents, is that they regularly require bad ideas to live. Which is why the use of government ID should be minimized.

> Some do in some circumstances, but far from all.

They all have that incentive, because it leads to money, and money is an incentive.

It's possible to turn someone down who is offering you money, but we're dealing with large scale systems here, and then the incentives determine the averages.

> Others (often financial institutions) have wised up to PII being a liability rather than an opportunity and some are working on frameworks and capabilites in this space that don't involve any more storage or transfer of anyone's ID than already happens in banks.

We really need to get it to stop happening in banks. The fact that every single thing you buy using a digital payment method is tied to your government ID is a preposterously dangerous status quo to leave unchallenged.
by locknitpicker | 2026-03-06 07:05:55+00:00
The blog post is an entertaining read, but I was left with the impression the author might have tried do embellish, particularly in it's disbelief angle.

Take this passage:

> The app relied on a SOAP service, not to do any servicey things. No, the service was a pure function. It was the client that did all the side effects. In that client, I discovered a massive class hierarchy. 120 classes each with various methods, inheritance going 10 levels deep. The only problem? ALL THE METHODS WERE EMPTY. I do not exaggerate here. Not mostly empty. Empty.

> That one stumped me for a while. Eventually, I learned this was in service of building a structure he could then use reflection on. That reflection would let him create a pipe-delimited string (whose structure was completely database-driven, but entirely static) that he would send over a socket.

Classes with empty methods? Used reflection to create a pipe-delimited string? The string was sent over the wire?

Why congratulations, you just rediscovered data transfer objects, specifically API models.
by mattmanser | 2026-03-06 07:05:58+00:00
The real question is, is it increasing their velocity?

They've already admitted they just 'throw the code away and start again'.

I think we've got another victim of perceived productivity gains vs actual productivity drop.

People sitting around watching Claude churn out poor code at a slower rate than if they just wrote it themselves.

Don't get me wrong, great for getting you started or writing a little prototype.

But the code is bad, riddled with subtle bugs and if you're not rewriting it and shoving large amounts of AI code into your codebase, good luck in 6-12 months time.
by budududuroiu | 2026-03-06 07:06:42+00:00
> What you're saying is we should allow kids to buy tobacco, to gamble, to purchase Meth and Heroine because Kids get around restrictions anyway

This is false equivalence. All of the above are vices that objectively carry more harm than good. There's no inherent harm in using a computer, there's a subset of ways in which using a computer can be harmful, which kids can be taught how to avoid or navigate, there's no subset of meth use that isn't harmful
by johncoltrane | 2026-03-06 07:07:32+00:00
You can try what Apple calls "fast user switching", which is actually pretty fast. The last (and only) time I used it, my days were split half-and-half between two projects for two clients, each with its own infrastructure. I did that primarily to help me focus but it had one pretty cool perk that I've been missing ever since: isolated accounts meant that I never had to worry about which Git/$SAAS/whatever user was currently authenticated and managing keys and such was a breeze as there was no "managing" needed, really.

I could do it because I had _some_ level of control on my work machine. Now that I work for a much larger organisation… I can't even imagine how hard it would be to have such a setup.

I don't know how usable it is in practice if you are switching contexts every 10 minutes, though.
by Nursie | 2026-03-06 07:08:49+00:00
I believe that nobody's ID will be at risk of leaking, because it will never be handled in the first place, nor will it be accessed. So that's already better than most of the schemes people are upset about.

> But I expect the same result as Forticode.

What happened there? I can't find a lot of reference to it on the net other than "we make amazing security products" and then "entering liquidation", so clearly a lot went wrong!

It's always possible for people to make mistakes and do things badly, but I don't see "age verification" as some special case in the identity landscape that presents unique challenges. And the system is already in use without major issue (touch wood). Verifiable Credentials will be an addition to the platform at some point.
by ball_of_lint | 2026-03-06 07:09:01+00:00
The government really shouldn't be telling us how/what we can compute at all.

But on this specific point - It's a bellwether. They're doing this to lay the groundwork and test the waters for compulsory identification and/or age verification. Getting MacOS and Windows and Linux and etc to implement this WILL be used as evidence that compulsory identity verification for computer use is legally workable.
How are teams managing Windows devices remotely today?
by elinacorval | 2026-03-06 07:09:10+00:00
With remote and hybrid work becoming common, managing Windows laptops outside the office network seems more challenging than before.

Traditionally many environments relied on Active Directory and on-prem management, but with distributed teams devices are often off the corporate network most of the time.

I have been looking into different approaches like Microsoft Intune and other Windows MDM tools such as Scalefusion MDM that allow admins to manage policies, push updates, and monitor devices remotely.

Curious how teams here are handling Windows device management today. Are you relying mostly on cloud MDM platforms, traditional domain setups, or a mix of both?
Knuth Test using Claude Sonnet 4.6 problem 1.1.3
by daly | 2026-03-06 07:09:16+00:00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Algorithm E (Euclid's algorithm). Given two positive integers m and n,
find their greatest common divisor, that is, the largest positive integer
that evenly divides both m and n.

E1 [Find remained] Divide m by n and r be the remainder. (We will
know that 0 <= r < n)

E2 [Is it zero?] If r = 0, the algorithm terminates, n is the answer

E3 [Reduce] Set m = n, then n = r, then go back to step E1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[3] Change Algorithm E so that all trivial replacement operations
such as m = n are avoided. Write this new algorithm in the style of
Algorithm E and call it Algorithm F.

========================================================================
Claude Sonnet 4.6
========================================================================

Algorithm F

Given two positive integers m and n, find their greatest common divisor.

F1 [Find remainder] Divide m by n and let r be the remainder.
(We will know that 0 ≤ r < n.)

F2 [Is it zero?] If r = 0, the algorithm terminates and n is the answer.

F3 [Find remainder] Divide n by r and let m be the remainder.
(We will know that 0 ≤ m < r.)

F4 [Is it zero?] If m = 0, the algorithm terminates and r is the answer.

F5 [Find remainder] Divide r by m and let n be the remainder.
(We will know that 0 ≤ n < m.) Go back to F2.

Explanation

The key insight is that instead of shuffling values with temporary
replacements like:

m = n, n = r

we reuse the existing variables (m, n, r) in rotation, dividing and
storing each new remainder directly into the variable that is no
longer needed:

Step Divides Remainder stored in
F1...m by n...r
F3...n by r...m
F5...r by m...n

Each variable naturally becomes the "oldest" value at each stage and
is safely overwritten. This eliminates all trivial assignments while
preserving the logic of Euclid's algorithm. □
by akersten | 2026-03-06 07:09:30+00:00
Being "trivial to comply with" is completely disjunct and not at all an argument against "this type of law is fundamentally at odds with the liberty and self-determination that open source projects require and should protect." It's a shot across the bow to open-source, it's literally the government telling you what code your computer has to run. It is gesturing in the direction of existential threat for Free software and I am not exaggerating. It's purposefully "trivial" so you don't notice or protest too much that this is the first time the State is forcing you to include something purely of their own disturbed ideation in your creative work.
by Karrot_Kream | 2026-03-06 07:10:18+00:00
> When people nag in meetings about needing to change something in a codebase, or not knowing how to implement something and its value add, I’ll often have something working shortly after the meeting is over (due to starting during it).

We've started building harnesses to allow people who don't understand code to create PRs to implement their little nags. We rely on an engineer to review, merge, and steward the change but it means that non-eng folks do not rely on us as a gate. (We're a startup and can't really afford "teams" to do this hand-holding and triage for us.)

As you say we're all a bit overworked and burned out. I've been context switching so much that on days when I'm very productive I've started just getting headaches. I'm achieving a lot more than before but holding the various threads on my head and context switching is just a lot.
by belZaah | 2026-03-06 07:10:21+00:00
I don’t think the objections are not necessarily in terms of lack of productivity although my personal experience is not that of massive productivity increases. The fact that you are producing code much faster is likely just to push the bottleneck somewhere else. Software value cycles are long and complicated. What if you run into an issue in 5 years the LLM fails to diagnose or fix due to complex system interactions? How often would that happen? Would it be feasible to just generate the whole thing anew matching functionality precisely? Are you making the right architecture choices from the perspective of what the preferred modus operandi of an llm is in 5 years? We don’t know. The more experienced folks tend to be conservative as they have experienced how badly things can age. Maybe this time it’ll be different?
Show HN: Free in-browser sprite sheet packer and slicer with JSON export
by dafin | 2026-03-06 07:11:16+00:00
Built this because I kept needing a quick sprite sheet tool while working on side projects and everything either required a download or had a paywall.

It runs fully in the browser, no upload to a server, no login. Supports:
- Packer mode: upload separate frame PNGs, reorder them, export as atlas + JSON
- Slicer mode: upload an existing sheet, define rows/columns, split into frames
- JSON metadata compatible with Phaser, custom WebGL renderers etc.

Works with Unity and Godot workflows too. Would love feedback on what's missing.
by krackers | 2026-03-06 07:12:02+00:00
>wasn't X, it was Y

>It’s like...

The guy is clearly talented and it's a great story, why would you let an LLM tell it for you?

>And by extracting session keys, they could silently monitor supposedly private communications.

How could session keys be extracted if it was end to end encrypted? Unless the cryptographic protocol wasn't implemented correctly this shouldn't be possible?
by hoopyKt | 2026-03-06 07:12:27+00:00
A distinction should be made between ownership of the code and its copyright and ownership of the repository and associated distribution channels. As far as I know, there's no precedent to state that owning the former means ownership of the latter. The original author abandoned this project years ago and likely has no legal basis to maintain that the project itself stays LGPL, only that their code and derivatives of it stay LGPL. Unless it could be proven otherwise, a rewrite of the project under a different license made without directly referencing the original is likely well within the rights of the owners of the repository to do.
by hrmtst93837 | 2026-03-06 07:12:33+00:00
Resurrecting proof-of-work for pull requests just trades spam for compute and turns open source into a contest to see who can rent the most cloud CPU.

A more useful approach is verifiable signals: require GPG-signed commits or mandate a CI job that produces a reproducible build and signs the artifact via GitHub Actions or a pre-receive hook before the PR can be merged. Making verification mandatory will cut bot noise, but it adds operational cost in key management and onboarding, and pure hashcash-style proofs only push attackers to cheap cloud farms while making honest contributors miserable.
by AnthonyMouse | 2026-03-06 07:12:41+00:00
> your neighbors simply don't share your values

The problem with this argument is that everyone agrees with protecting children.

"Think of the children" arguments are the legislator's fallacy: Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do this.

In reality there are alternative means to accomplish any given goal, and the debate is about what should be done, because no one benefits from using methods that cost more than they're worth.

Well, almost no one. The opportunists who drape themselves in the cloak of "safety" when they want to have the government mandate the use of their services or use it as an excuse to monopolize markets or establish a chokepoint for surveillance and censorship do benefit from the machinations that allow them to screw the majority of the population. But the majority of the population doesn't.
by Dylan16807 | 2026-03-06 07:12:59+00:00
> I'd also argue it's clear and convincing if a kid changes their profile picture to a selfie of themselves, says they're 12, says they're in grade school, etc. Any reasonable person would take that at face value.

That's so fragile, and it's not like they're making those claims to the site, it's natural language posting.

And someone who knows what they're doing would never take "I'm twelve years old and what is this?" at face value.
by msvana | 2026-03-06 07:13:12+00:00
I work as an ML engineer/researcher. When I implement a change in an experiment it usually takes at least an hour to get the results. I can use this time to implement a different experiment. Doesn't matter if I do it by hand or if I let an agent do it for me, I have enough time. Code isn't the bottleneck.

I also heard an opinion that since writing code is cheap, people implement things that have no economic value without really thinking it through.
by tomekw | 2026-03-06 07:13:14+00:00
I’m not trying to compete with Alire. I do Ada for fun and for the sake of doing Ada.

I want to go back to fundamentals and learn by doing how foundational things work. So the plan is to, kind of, create my own programming world in Ada.

I may come up with a way to transfer Alire packages to Tada, I may not :)

This is, for now, for my personal use, but I couldn’t be more happy if someone else finds it useful :)
by ambivalence | 2026-03-06 07:13:46+00:00
What the other person is trying to explain to you is that your Yubikey solution fails the following scenario: you leave your laptop at school.

With TouchID, nobody can unlock it. With a Yubikey in the USB-C port, anyone could unlock it.

That's why macOS Yubikey login integration requires you to type in a PIN on the lock screen. At which point it's no different from typing in a password.

Not equivalent to TouchID at all.
by Jnr | 2026-03-06 07:14:03+00:00
In new installs you do stuff everything in EFI partition and skip the old /boot partition as such.

The better solution is to use tpm, unified kernel image and secure boot skipping the network unlock.

The whole process is like this -

1. enable secure boot;

2. generate and install your own secure boot keys (using sbctl);

3. use clevis to enable automatic unlocking of the root fs only when secure boot check passes;

4. generate the unified kernel image (in EFI partition) that is signed by your secure boot key;

4. use efibootmgr to enable booting of said kernel image.

(5.) If your CPU supports it, enable memory encryption in BIOS (to mitigate cold boot attacks).

The unified kernel image doesn't accept additional kernel parameters, so only parameters that are set during generation of the initram are used. The secure boot makes sure no one else has tampered with the boot chain. And TPM stores the disk key securely.

You can still add some additional network level check to make sure that your computer is in your expected location before unlocking.

And you can also include some recovery tools + dropbear in your initram (within the unified kernel image), if you expect that you will have to do some recovery from the other side of the world.
by thayne | 2026-03-06 07:14:29+00:00
> How would you react to this law if the requirement was only that the operating system had to ask the user what age bracket it should report to sites? You get to pick it, it isn't mandatory that it be checked, and it doesn't need to be a date, just the bucket. Is that still too onerous?

Isn't that what the CA law is?
by happymellon | 2026-03-06 07:14:41+00:00
I have no idea who you are arguing with, or what your problem is, but its like you've invented something on the internet to get angry about.

I asked the following in my original question because I have literally the same concerns, and I've found transcoding support with AMD to be a bit flakey with these media server apps.

> Is it actually using the iGPU, or just "brute forcing" it?