williamstein

> In cryptography, most of the problems believed to be exponentially hard, such as factoring, don't have proofs of an exponential lower bound.

There are subexponential algorithms for integer factorization, e.g., the general number field sieve and Lenstra’s ECM.

LEAN.

If only one company had AI and nobody else did, then that one company would be expected to start seeing an explosion in growth/revenue. As it is, everybody has access to AI, so extensive use of AI should just result in keeping up with the competition. The ROI to spending on AI is "not dying".

Turns into an Ad for exe.dev

> This means that the model can support defensive cybersecurity work while still blocking vulnerability discovery in compiled binaries, which is more commonly used offensively.

Annoyingly, this is a concrete argument that open source software may be easier to attack.

Agreed, it's definitely Kevin. His writing style is unmistakable.

I strongly disagree with "Claim 1: Every goal of code review can be served by agents at lower cost and higher throughput." They define the goals and include this one:

> "Knowledge transfer. Agents can actively generate on-demand explanations, architectural summaries, and updated documentation at merge time, which is a more reliable and scalable mechanism for propagating knowledge than the incidental commentary of a busy colleague.

Knowledge transfer is much more than what they claim. An critical goal of code review is making sure humans do deeply understand overall what software actually does. Code is far more precise and detailed than any "on-demand explanations, architectural summaries, and updated documentation."

> Some of the numbers that you saw from the number of students who receive failing grades were because we caught them (cheating) and prosecuted them and are sending their cases to the center for student conduct,” Garcia said. According to Garcia, nearly 30 students in CS 10 were caught cheating on take-home exams in spring 2026.

Wow, finally an alternative to xterm.js?