skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> “These attacks represent a new development in warfare, where communication tools become weapons, simultaneously exploding across marketplaces, on street corners, and in homes as daily life unfolds,” UN human rights chief Volker Türk told the Security Council last Friday. “Authorities have reportedly dismantled unexploded devices in universities, banks, and hospitals.”

Calling it just "warfare" greatly detracts from the terrorist nature of this scandal.
Good - then the person who sees that they didn’t report it can whistleblow on that and get a nice paycheck.

See how that works out for the person who didn’t report it.
I think to the extent this works for some people it’s as a way to trick their brains into “fixing” something broken rather than having to start from scratch. And for some devs, that really is a more productive mode, so maybe it works in the end.

And that’s fine if the dev realizes what’s going on but when they attribute their own quirks to AI magic, that’s a problem.
It is in the crotch area. Maybe they are hanging too low, but I’m not too interested in going with tighter jeans.
Which is run by... who? Debian? AWS?

I know from personal experience that Canonical choose to run mirrors for some clouds, on those clouds, for example.
I didn't "dismiss it so completely".

It was clear to me from the first half I read that the author completely misunderstood and was unaware of the Drive API scope changes that Google made. There is nothing I wrote that would have been contradicted by the rest of the blog post.
Thye've been reported to exist in the blog post by the guy who found this issue. He didn't care to make another PoC for it, but you can be sure others are looking at it now.
Have the printed version of the CRPG book. It's great.

https://if50.textories.com/ is another really good one that dives into the early days of game design. The story around The Hobbit is a great example of emergent gameplay.
This is why doctors and other healthcare professionals never become addicted to drugs. Right? They know better?
In criminal law people aren't expected to prove what they did wasn't illegal, it is the other way around. What did happen in the case of CZs conviction is the state alleged that lack of KYC allows some actors with illegal funds to pass through, making weak KYC checks an element of money laundering.
1. I'm sympathetic to your doubt - I had the exact same doubts, and part of why it's taken us so long to build is we refused to sacrifice what was good about IaC to get "simplicity". If this was ClickOps, they should be allergic to it. But it isn't. Under the hood is a very powerful new primitive - a reactive hypergraph of functions. The UI is there because it's a fast way to compose things together, and to radiate more information than you can get from an editor alone. But everything you do is tracked, it's fully open and extensible by writing code, and it's much easier to use to communicate with your team members who might not know all the intricacies of IaC.

2. There is how it is better today, and there is how it can be better in the future. Focusing on just today - frequently the kind of review that needs to be done is by an external subject matter expert. Being able to bring those people in to a change set, show them what the change you are proposing is, and have them inspect and alter it with you in real time is great. An example here is one of our early users wanted to use ECS, but had never used the service before. So they put things together in SI, asked someone who had that expertise to look it over - they could see the architecture, they could change properties, add a few missing things. It was much more straightforward than a back and forth in a PR.

But that's not to say that, in the future, there isn't more to do. We need to have more functionality around who needs to review things, build more specialized views for the review (there's no reason you should be stuck doing a review only in a single view of the architecture), use the snapshots we have of the entire graph to build more insightful ways of communicating what's changed (and what actions will happen when you apply.)

Think multiplayer and powerful review and approval semantics.
Oh no. Swype changed the most important word in my post. I meant "Most businesses fail."
Is the issue the stealing or the laundering?
I've wanted a distributed annotation system for a while, probably it will end up having some sort of advanced block list and follow list and follow me for my block list approach, potentially an activity pub-based system might work, but in the meantime I want to try this one because I've missed the sidewiki boat and want to try it.

Once it can be on Firefox at least, I can try it.
Of course, but who authorizes the launch page of a major new product to be published with no technical review? Or even, any review at all?

Does it feel right when you’re selling a device for visual consumption and the main animation takes forever to load, plays at 12fps while spiking up your CPU?
Video and Hi 8 enjoyed a significant fraction of the camcorder market as well. They were better in every way than VHS and S-VHS, respectively, but more expensive.
There's no obligation to do this. AWS chooses to do this for performance/experience/bandwidth reasons (and it enhances the user experience).
Agreed. I also suspect we've grown to rely on the crutch of trust far too much. Faulty writing has existed for ages but now suddenly because the computer is the thing making it up we have an issue with it.

I guess it depends on scope. I'm imaging scientific or education. Ie things we probably shouldn't have relied on Blogs to facilitate, yet we did. For looking up some random "how do i build a widget?", yea AI will probably make it worse. For now. Then it'll massively improve to the point that it's not even worth asking how to build the widget.

The larger "scientific or education" is what i'm concerned about, and i think we'll need a new paradigm to validate. We've been getting attacked on this front for 12+ years, AI is only bringing this to light imo.

Trust will have to be earned and verified in this word-soup world. I just hope we find a way.
We have such social systems, and they have already evaluated this specific case and determined that we as a society want to allow gambling.

Note that I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the merits of that outcome; I am just noting that the process you describe has already been done, and has determined in this case that "gambling is OK."

Why should we revisit that process simply because a few people dislike the result? By what right do you suppose your personal views ought to overturn this social process -- simply because you and a few others personally disapprove of the outcome?

Should social processes always yield results that you personally like, and be considered invalid when they don't?
Oxford Ionics Wins Award from Germany to Build Portable Quantum Computer
This kind of legislation is crafter by big masses of lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, whatever. Additionally they change all the time. There are many different motivations at play. Maybe it is surveillance, maybe something else, in the end who cares, because it is impossible to read minds.
Upload to youtube
I am not conversant in this field, but this portion of the author's profile made me think that she favors the money launderers on some libertarian grounds:

> Her dissertation explores how the illicit market intersects and coexists with Cambodia’s political and economic systems in the cybercrime sector, breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence and intersecting with transnational business networks to form a global illicit network.

"Breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence" would seem a good thing only if you think that distributing violence more widely should be a social goal.
This is directly against the guidelines. Please do not conduct yourself in this way here, if you need to insult strangers on the Internet, find somewhere else to do it.
Microsoft got around this in some of their agreements by adding provisions to "throttle" arbitration so that if a lot of customers file arbitration at once, they may have to wait months or years to have their case heard.

Binding Arbitration was already a blatant sidestepping of the American Constitution and general corporate accountability, but leave it to Microsoft, a monopolist with government contracts, to take it to another level. The only binding arbitration agreement I've seen which compared was Linode's, which included a gag clause.
>But why?

Low key jobs program at the expense of taxpayers IMO.
The 4TB M.2 SSDs are getting to a price point where one might consider them. The problem is that it's not trivial to connect a whole bunch of them in a homebrew NAS without spending tons of money.

Best I've found so far is cards like this[1] that allow for 8 U.2 drives, and then some M.2 to U.2 adapters like this[2] or this[3].

In a 2x RAID-Z1 or single RAID-Z2 setup that would give 24TB of redundant flash storage for a tad more than a single 16TB enterprise SSD.

[1]: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005005671021299.html

[2]: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005005870506081.html

[3]: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005006922860386.html
That was kind of the idea. I didn’t have the ability to control the various tools we use, so AHK acted as the glue to make jumping between everything more fluid.
I doubt they'll commit to specific models before containers go GA in 2025 but they'll likely be NVIDIA:

https://www.cloudflare.com/en-gb/press-releases/2023/cloudfl...
> If you choose to accept all comers, you get to accept all comers

Incorrect, you just made this up. I can individually ban people whenever I want, however I want, because I own the server and it's MY resources.

If I setup a free lemonade stand and you request 5,000 cups of lemonade, yes I can turn you away. And I will.

> instead they have applied a boycott

Incorrect, because your thinking is backwards. A boycott is a refusal to buy, not sell. There's no boycott here.

It's also not illegal, and that should be obvious. Not only is it not illegal, I don't even think its unethical.
I love onigiri, but over here in Europe they are still pretty niche, and by niche I mean expensive.

It's basically a sandwhich, right? Only that it costs 5-10x more.
You know that laws already exist right?
Yes, and I think that was a huge mistake. What is your point again?

edit: things can improve, women can open bank accounts without their husband approving it now! We decided something, re-evaluated and made a better decision
I was being sarcastic :) in reality I think he’ll be voted out at the earliest opportunity if social protests don’t topple him before then (it happened before - remember De La Rúa?)
Absolutely wonderful tale - I laughed out loud at that final touch!
Actually, to me it does what grounding (or earthing if you like to call it) does to electricity; it discharges my excessive thought process from 100% "CPU" usage down to 2% the most; that's when the solution comes right in front of me naturally.

Also, when I do other type of chores in my garden helps quite a lot!
Looks like googling "Harrah's data science" turns up a decent volume of articles. I won't link any in particular here because I haven't read any of them so I don't know which ones are good.
Cops. On the whole, yes.
I'm tired of people complaining about AI stuff, let's move on already. But based on the votes and engagement on this post, complaining about AI is still a hot ticket to clicks and attention, even if people are just regurgitating the exact same boring takes that are almost always in conflict with each other: "AI sure is terrible, isn't it? It can't do anything right. It sucks! It's _so bad_. But, also, I am terrified AI is going to take my job away and ruin my way of life, because AI is _so good_."

Make up your mind, people. It reminds me of anti-Apple people who say things like "Apple makes terrible products and people only buy them because... because... _they're brainwashed!_" Okay, so we're supposed to believe two contradictory points at once: Apple products are very very bad, but also people love them very much. In order to believe those contradictory points, we must just make up something to square them, so in the case of Apple it's "sheeple!" and in the case of AI it's... "capitalism!" or something? AI is terrible but everyone wants it because of money...? I don't know.
That's more like it! +1
Pode – Cross-Platform PowerShell web framework
Make: Magazine and Maker faire open a community round
That seems to be a great tip. Thanks.
Are you saying that if I don't enjoy watching live video of e.g. an anthill 24/7 then I am actually not interested in unbiased media and crave drivel like CNN? That's... one way to reason I guess.
I held onto my CD collection for various reasons but the main one was my car - the 2014 Toyota Corolla was the last year they still had a CD player. All of the new cars either have Apple or Android streaming, but there's just something that isn't the same. The album art, the liner notes you can read, sometimes photos of the band or lyrics. My son now has the car, so it might be time to cast off my collection.

I thought about starting a streaming service to play some of the music I have from many of the local bands who've graced the Minneapolis music scene, many of whom no longer exist. There's also a ton of bands from the early aughts that are no longer around that I also have from when I worked in the local record store. Going to shows and being emersed the local music scene was all I cared about back then.

Then I start to think about the copyright issues of playing this stuff on a streaming service and instead of something nostalgic, I was caught up in the idea if its even legal to do.
this presumes everyone is going to the same conclusions about these things
These SEO garbage subsites rank high in Google results. That's the point of the article.
> I’m hungry for more lawsuits. The biggest theft in human history

You want to own abstract ideas because AI can rephrase any specific expression. But that is antithetic to creativity.
>Because some people keep asserting that LLM’s “don’t count as stealing”

People who confidently assert either opinion in this regard are wrong. The lawsuits are still pending. But if I had to bet, I'd bet on the OpenAI side. Even if they don't win outright, they'll probably carve out enough exemptions and mandatory licensing deals to be comfortable.
True, but you need to play the game of including the slop to create the share cards for social media link previews.
Au contraire, the fact that news is no longer news is the biggest news there is.

Sure, the mere fact that the news is no longer news, is old news. But how and why it is happening is big and un-reported news.

When six companies control 90% of the news outlets, that is unprecedented concentration and loss of the diverse viewpoints necessary for a robust society.

When those corporations which normally sell-off any lossmaking division instead hold loss-making 'news' divisions in a now-chronically lossmaking industry, the payoff is not some potential future profits; the payoff is in influencing public opinion to favor policies advantageous to your larger corporation.

So, of course the how and why it is happening is unreported by the organizations that are making it happen.
Is there a viable way to limit the amounts but still make it enjoyable? I guess the issue is that $10, $100, $1,000 or $10,000 would be different for everyone. I myself only need $10 or $100 on something to "make it interesting".
That would be an aggregator, like allsides.com
WP.org isn't independent obviously because it's being funded in large part by Automattic who pays the bills.

And this issue of independence is separate, don't move the discussion...

Why is WP.org obligated to provide free services to WP Engine and their users? Why the entitlement?
I think there's a basic contradiction at the bottom of a lot of the angst over OSS, sustainability, etc.: there are a lot of OSS people who simultaneously want their projects to be important, but also don't want the responsibility (in a basic civic, not legal sense) that comes with being widely adopted.

If you don't want your projects to be important, there are well-trodden ways to send that message to companies that attempt to extract wealth from your free labor: you can close and ignore their issues, send them nastygrams, etc. But if you do put effort into making your projects easily adoptable, I don't think it's crazy that companies do in fact come knocking.

(This is a non-normative position: I don't think any of this is particularly fair. But I think it's telling that there is a huge pool of OSS that companies mostly ignore, since it gives of "go away and don't rely on me" signals.)
An Extremely Practical Use for AI and Terraform
Here's the problem: You spin up a Terraform resource, pull a basic configuration from the registry, and start wondering what other parameters should be enabled to make it more secure and efficient. Sure, you could use tools like TLint or TFSec, but kuzco saves you time by avoiding the need to dig through the Terraform registry and decipher unclear options. It leverages local LLMs to recommend what should be enabled and configured. Simply put, kuzco reviews your Terraform resources, compares them to the provider schema to detect unused parameters, and uses AI to suggest improvements for a more secure, reliable, and optimized setup.
Lawyers commenting on this publicly will add their bias to reinforce the stances of their clientele. Thus somebody usually representing the copyright holders will say it is likely infringing and someone usually representing the AI companies will say it is unlikely.

But you are right, we don't know until president is set by a court. I am only warning people that laying back and hoping that copyright will apply as they wish is not a good strategy to defend your work. One should consider alternative legal constructs or simply not releasing material to the general public anymore.
If by "working on it" you mean "changing configuration files"...

"Good practice" is never an argument btw. "It's good practice" means arguments exist, it is not an argument.
AI Ethics and the Future of Where Large Language Models Are Heading
So you're saying major media companies are going to outsource their writing to people overseas using LLMs? There is more to journalism than the writing. There's also the investigative part where journalists go and talk to people, look into old records, etc.
Right, but here's the deal. Those same people tried and failed and learned from there mistakes, built rockets instead and still went to the moon.

Kind of an important last bit of the story, there.

Oh and in the span of human history, this happened in a blip of time...

We've barely finished inventing computers and the internet and we already are developing AI.

Ya'll need perspective.
The key difference is that ProPublica is a non-profit. There are very few non-profit investigative journalism orgs in the world, but their funding is fundamentally different than for-profit news orgs. They rely on public grants to keep things running, so therefore, they don't have to abuse their brand in similar ways.

That's also why they publish only a couple of stories per day instead of hundreds, why they never cover breaking news, why there's a donate button (as opposed to now-standard paywalls), why there's no ads, why the interface appears cleaner etc. If we were talking about tech companies, it'd be like comparing Wikimedia/Mozilla/Internet Archive to traditional for-profit tech companies. To an untrained eye there is no difference, but a somewhat trained eye quickly realises that their incentives are completely different.

(Disclaimer: I work for a different non-profit investigative journalism organization.)
Oh it's not terrorism if it's done by a US-backed vassal state. /s
The Value of Nothing (2009)
Yes. A sequence of consecutive hashes would match to a TV show or movie identifier in a local database; and that identifier is all that needs to be uploaded until there's a new TV show or movie identified.
"interesting" isn't the word I would have chosen
Yeah. It's like our entire society has been turned into a Goodhart's Law based simulacrum of a productive society.

I mean, here it's late morning and I'm commenting on hacker news. And getting paid for it.
No, b2evolution was a fork of b2 (aka cafelog), as was WordPress. AIUI, cafelog was itself a PHP port of Movable Type, back when MT was open-source and in Perl.
> What they did was suddenly pull the plug on a free, public service for one specific user, which just happens to be a competitor.

Or, to rephrase:

They pulled the plug on one user who happened to be hostile, and who was abusing their free resources by issuing hundreds of thousands of requests a day.

Which, when you phrase it that way, not only sounds reasonable, it sounds obvious.

What you, and other's, are missing is that WPE is not a typical user. They're a corporation with hundreds of thousands of customers. Using your free resources is expensive. Like, money expensive.

This is like if you set up a free little API and then Amazon decided to use it. Would you let that fly? Would you foot the bill? What if Amazon is now your competitor? Surely then you'd happily pay the bill?

Get real. You would 100% do the same thing in that situation.
This takes us back to the beginning: how shall we determine when the social process has failed, and what constitutes "improvement"?

Society has already spoken on this matter. It seems that your criteria amount to nothing more than "when I personally dislike the results of the social process, the social process has failed, and we ought to revisit it."

So I ask again the question you've begged: by what formula or philosophy are we to determine when a social decision such as "allow gambling" is bad? Is there anything beyond your personal feelings on a topic that we can turn to as a criterion?
Simple: Programmers think code quality matters.

In the real world, nobody gives a darn about your code quality. Zero interest. It just needs to work, keep working, and that’s it.

I assure you probably >90% of code in deployment right now doesn’t even have CI/CD.
Unless someone dislikes them, in which case they will unwittingly accept a sanctioned entity and then the indictment will scream bloody murder that this was basically all about not doing KYC (even though we all know sanctioned entities operate on white market using dark identity, so regular banks guilty too).
Perhaps we need an LLM-enabled lawyer so small bloggers can easily sue LLM makers.
> But how is that the companies fault that people are unable to say no?

Are we seriously blaming the victims now that they're not strong enough to stand up for themselves? Do you go to people who got bullied or fallen for a scam and tell them you could have said no at any moment, it's their fault completely? The offender just asked nicely for your credit card information, they did nothing wrong, you just had to say no. Sorry, they played a fair game, you lost.

> The companies aren't "consuming"

What? what do you call companies who only come to a project to ask for features requests and then take that feature and disappear?

> The code is there, they can use it if they want.

But.. no one is complaining that they simply used some open source code that was published online. Why do you make up ridiculous arguments by yourself and then proceed to mock them? I'd understand if you misinterpreted my point but are you really oblivious to the struggles of open source maintainers? Or you're just downplaying it or something else? What's going on here?

Yes, they could have said no. They could have not released the code to begin with. But that doesn't change that they were taken advantage of.
7 Days a week, vacation/sick coverage, facilities/food/admin