Recent submissions

Comment · 4 days ago
Product ReD in cahoots with U2 and U3.
Comment · 5 days ago
Solitaire's Journey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitaire%27s_Journey

Basically a 1992 rogue-lite where each room is a different solitaire game. eg: front parlor == clock solitaire, first bedroom == regular solitaire, upstairs is blocked by freecell, etc...

Screenshots: https://www.mobygames.com/game/1986/solitaires-journey/scree...

It's a fairly rich concept, you have a ton of different gameplay bound together by a very loose plot/quest mechanisms (eg: blue key == blue door ; boss == win 2 games of solitaire).

Definitely worth sharing if you've got some solitaire fans in your life!

Comment · 13 days ago
Supposedly "the answer" is a discarded engine block: https://makezine.com/article/maker-news/patdelany/

"Open Source Muti-Machine": The heavy, ultra-stiff mass of the cast iron dampens vibrations and forces the cutting tool to move in a perfectly straight, micron-accurate line dictated by the factory-bored cylinders.

Ask an AI about it, but conceptually it's an amazing concept. There are probably billions of "nearly micron-accurate" machines, and if you're 1000% repeatable 90° then the world is (eventually) your oyster.

Comment · 16 days ago
Apologies if this is somewhere else, but "price per acre" as a sorting mechanism would be really helpful. In the Dallas area, there's a few like $350k/0.2 acres (eg: a typical house on a lot).

Price per acre could suss out whether it's developed or in demand vs more rural (less price per acre).

Other than that, bravo! Great idea, well implemented!

Comment · 16 days ago
The only proper answer is retroactive bans (a-la competitive doping: "retrospective testing").

Cheaters (athletes) are always incentivized to cheat in "new and exciting ways" today. It's impossible to defend against all possible new forms of cheating, but they instead keep blood samples for up to ten years so that "when they figure out what to test for", they can retroactively penalize participants.

Same with online cheating, save high fidelity recordings and be able to replay. As detection catches up to exploitation, you ban hammer the prior exploiters.

Comment · 17 days ago
Both of y'all need to look in to look up "cooking oil sprayers", basically simple pumps. https://a.co/d/03MxaoKg

I have ones for cooking oil, olive oil, chili oil, and sesame oil... the chili and sesame in easy-to-use, flavorant amounts are great to dash into vegetables or a salad or whatever, and having it atomized instead of drizzled makes it so much better and more convenient!

Comment · 19 days ago
My favorite trivia is that busybox has built-in cgi-bin support (and `rclone serve webdav` seems remiss to not mention as well). `https://elixir.bootlin.com/busybox/1.37.0/source/networking/...`

Everything the post mentions is 100% true and well-reasoned, especially with the inclusion of pledge/chroot/etc. for dropping privileges.

There's two diametrically opposed deployment mechanisms:

1) stack towers of glop on top of each other until you're running a simple `echo "hello world"` on top of a docker container inside a vm in a proxmox server as part of a k8s cluster under a hypervisor running on remote compute...

2) just run `bash -c 'echo "hello world"'` and front it with CGI (stateless, single binary, yada yada yada...)

Take a peek at https://github.com/Domain/bash.cgi ... not that i'm suggesting that 'bash over busybox using cgi-bin' is the "proper architecture", it's more trying to illustrate that the amount of code that holds you back from being nearly truly "frameworkless" is tiny and easy to reason about.

For some of the internal tooling I'm doing for work, I've been tending towards:

    some-cmd [--json|--markdown] ...yet-more-args...
When you use the process and shell environment itself as a repl, you start trending towards `[--cgi-bin]` would "just" be another output type, and the ability (nay: foresight!) to ensure that your commands are independent, reproducible, and only depend on their input arguments leads you directly towards being runnable in both "hostile" (ie: firecracker vm / lambda-style) or very "comfortable" environments (ie: shell, debuggers, unit/integration tests).
Comment · 19 days ago
Goodbye, cruel world!
Comment · 21 days ago
"""POSIXLY_CORRECT (originally proposed as POSIX_ME_HARDER) is a historical environment variable used in GNU utilities to force strict compliance with the POSIX standard."""
Comment · 24 days ago
Or vice versa... 1000tps == 1tps via solar power + a capacitor (or whatever).

I'm poking (lightly) at the locallama game, have a fancy MBP5 with gobs of ram (so I can demo/trial locally) and have been semi-waffling between whether to chase a mini or studio for local "always on" type stuff.

My outcome was "CapEx v. OpEx", and dropping another $5k for an aluminum cube buys a lot of OpEx (eg: just trickle-drip HF/OpenAI credits to a raspberry pi or VPS orchestrator rather than trying to do the inference locally), ie: $5/mo inference for 1000 months.

HOWEVER, there's definitely a role for that 1-10 TPS type "ambient inference" that I wouldn't mind sustaining on any sort of always-on / local / private compute. My main email address is still on [email protected] and their spam filtering has gone to absolute shit.

Being able to have the always-on mini (local, trusted, no private data leaves my control) poke at the IMAP/email and thresh it into SPAM/HAM/Personal/Political ... random spot check, I'm getting ~5 emails per hour, and that's completely tractable for staged low-med-high processing. (Subject + rules.py? Subject + Body + LocalSlowTPS? Subject + Body + LocalDeepTPS? Subject + Body + RemoteLLM?)

Even if you did 10000tps of "jev" that's an incredible value... not quite "Literal AI Packet Router", but as you're dancing aroud saying... "Speed is a Weapon"

Look into "OODA Loop" => """The OODA loop is a four-step decision-making model—Observe, Orient, Decide, Act—created by U.S. Air Force Colonel John Boyd to help leaders make fast and accurate choices in chaotic situations. // The main goal is to cycle through the loop faster than an opponent or changing environment. By operating inside another person's loop, you create confusion and outpace their ability to respond. While initially designed for aerial combat, it is now widely used in business, sports, and crisis management."""

Comment · 25 days ago
"Intelligence per second" is a striking phrase! I'll be turning it around my head at a moderate IPS until I hopefully make something of it.

But you're right in sense: moderate intelligence at superhuman rates (and presuming moderate energy usage) is very compelling compared to an intelligence that takes 1000 years to return "42"

Comment · 29 days ago
Remember: bow out gracefully

you're arguing a position which indicates you don't know git's physical (textual) commmit structure.

Spend some quality time with:

    git cat-file -p HEAD
You'll get something like:

    tree ff1234...
    parent ccddef...

    fix(BUG-1245): my ai fixed it

Continue to `cat-file -p $TREE` and you'll get:

    file efef12... Makefile
    tree a1b2c3... src/
    file f0ea12... README.md
...and then it's turtles all the way down. It is (was!) safe to sign $HEAD (and only head!) because... it's turtles all the way down. Signing HEAD attaches IDENTITY (eg; [email protected]) to CONTENT (eg: src/@a1b2c3...) and TRANSITIVELY all the way down.

Your homework is to go run:

    time (
      git ls-files | xargs -n 1 sha256sum
    ) | sha256sum
...and then make a commit (nee: tag/note) containing that content as the commit message.

Your INSTINCT isn't wrong, your mechanics run counter to the practicalities of how git is designed to work, and the practicalities of the crucial defense that git-core is trying to divert: the ability to arbitrarily alter the signed(!!!) past, signed by third parties, with $ELDRITCH_SHA1 attacks.

You _still_ have to trust that GitHub.com or kernel.org won't get popped and start erroneously serving "signed but faulty" files and trees, but the urgency of moving to sha256 is about preventing faulty commits in the first place, which removes the requirement of "trust me bro!" relationship with the serving provider (or MITM).

Comment · 1 month ago
Dude... please bow out gracefully...

The attack is I pre-author `Makefile => foo: echo "hello"; bar: echo "world"` along with `Makefile => foo: echo "hello"; bar: rm -rf / ; /* $ELDRITCH_SHA1_SPIRITS_GO_HERE */` that both hash to `ff1234...`

I then prepopulate the repo with `echo "hello"`, wait 6-9 months, then submit a commit for `echo "hello" ; echo "world"` and keep (in my back pocket) the alternate implementation that also includes $ELDRITCH_SPIRITS to force a collision and MY predetermined change in functionality.

I then have free choice as to whether I serve them "hello world" or "hello && rm -rf", and THAT's the plausible problem to avoid: the ability to "cloak" content anywhere within the repo if you have enough $ELDRITCH_SPIRITS and GPU's.

You have _really_ good points, but are woefully confused. The proper answer is (would have been) to include `tree ff12354...` along with `tree-sha256 abc123456789...` for another 20 years along with a `[git.hash_strictness]: default/lazy/strict`, and some oddball `git-rerere` type packfile extension which lets you map `sha1:ff1234... => sha256:abc123456789...` "transparently" rather than the horrific situation you're laying out (correctly!) that forks the ecosystem in to "longhash" and "shorthash" when most repos don't even care in the end.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton