roblabla

> I've never been involved with a mess like this, but I can well imagine it's difficult to convene the necessary people for a dispassionate RCA when your bosses are furious and investors are screaming for scapegoats to fire.

In any sane business, the people handling the screaming investors are different from the people handling the social media mess, and they are also different from the people doing the RCA.

That said, given the mess, I wouldn't be surprised if eMudhra only had one employee responsible for all those jobs...

There's a big difference between "Don't do X" and "Do Y before suggesting X" though.

There never was formal verification of the entire rust compiler, or even its complete borrow checker/type system. There has been verifications on _subsets_ of them.

Also, a lot of those soundness issues aren't related to new features _at all_, but usually due to poor assumptions made in optimizations.

The soundness bugs _are_ taken seriously though, and are slowly being patched out. A lot of the links in OP are now closed because Rust either changed how it generates code to avoid the issues, or fixed LLVM.

Criminal prosecution can be done without needing the victims to call for it, and in this case I would argue it's necessary, as it will help ensure companies don't treat their act of gross negligence as "business as usual".

> Sure, but does slowing down the development of new models count as "adopting safety standards"? I very much doubt it.

I mean, the point (if the claim is to be believed) isn't just to "slow down the development", it's to take more time during development to properly assess the risks the models pose, develop methodologies to reduce that risk, and standardize that across companies. I doubt those wouldn't count, especially in the eyes of regulators of an administration calling for that same slow down.

I've had bugs the agents can't fix or figure out. Sometimes those involve third-party, proprietary, broken code (read: Windows APIs). Sometimes they just involve complex deployment situation on the client code (I work on desktop apps) where the agent can't figure out what's wrong/makes wrong assumptions/goes nowhere. Sometimes the agent is just very dumb and tunnels vision on the wrong fix.

FWIW, I've also had bugs the agent fixed that I probably never would've figured out without LLMs - LLMs are definitely useful! But I need to keep understanding how the code works so I can take over the reigns when the LLM fails.

I tried a lot of tools. Claude code, deepseek with kilocode and OMP, codex... I still use claude quite a bit. But frankly, all of them produce some absolutely godawful code. Review load went way up with AI, and it's not just the volume that caused it, but also the quality. It's extremely verbose, hard to read, often repeats code instead of factoring it into reusable components. And yes, sometimes it's also buggy. Except now, you have to debug a problem that's in code you didn't write yourself, and is awful to read.

LLM is incredibly valuable for debugging complex problems, codebase exploration, and planning large changes. But the writing code part itself, I find, LLMs are just not very good at it yet.

I don't really understand this comment. The simplest way to put pressure on companies to align with their user's objectives is to complain loudly. It's not that HN "assumes" anything, it's just that people call shitty things as they are, in the hope that if enough people agree, it'll create enough pressure for the company to change course.

Will it work? Probably not. But not even trying would be self-defeating.

AFAIK, the OS-specific Qt themes don't wrap the native widgets, it reimplements them. They are rather thorough though, making sure their OS-specific theme matches the look and behavior of the native OS, which makes it one of the best framework to do something that feels close to native.

As someone using AltStore PAL to install some third-party apps that would never be allowed on the App Store (such as emulators and manga readers), I heavily disagree.

The government won't limit you - they can't really know what you use those proofs for anyways, that's the zero knowledge part, and supposedly they'll be necessary for social media at some point, so a ZK proof won't necessarily mean porn use. The only thing the govt knows is how many proofs are being downloaded. And you can bet politicians wouldn't do anything to prevent voting-age you from accessing social media - how else are they supposed to get you to vote for them (or hate their opponents).

Now, a scenario I can see happening is, the ZKP-issuing agency may find a single client downloading several orders of magnitude more proofs than the average citizen, find that suspicious, refer them to the police, who'd get a warrant to investigate said person. Then, the police may manage to connect said person with a proof distribution service. Something along those lines.

Again, I'm personally not a huge fan of the whole age gating, but if we're going to go about it, this is the least worse option. Which is really saying something.

Each individual proof is zero knowledge, but downloading a _bunch_ of them is an indicator, yes. There's no real way to work around this with the current ZKP scheme. I'd argue ZKP is, in theory, the least worse option of all current age verification scheme.

My personal opinion is that age verification itself is a bad idea, but if we're going to go ahead with it, I'd much rather we use ZKP for it than the current mess of "upload your passport and picture of yourself to dodgy 3rd parties that likely now have your browsing traffic associated with your real name"...

Yes, my bad X).