News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

CGMthrowaway

Re:Today, we hacked what we'd set out to hack: the iPhone on Friday October 23, 2026 @02:33PM (#50213431)
Only if it's in updateable software. Hardware takes longer to correct.

Hence Sam Altman's latest public comment: "I don't even know a dramatic enough word to use… models can find bugs that are outside of the normal threat model of what we think a hacker can do… hardware-level, insane stuff… I no longer think we're gonna be able to just patch all the bugs."

>only at unrealistic levels of bad

Bad water or water service is not unrealistic.

It took FIVE YEARS for Flint Michigan's water to be re-declared "safe to drink without a filter." The solution involved FEMA and the National Guard.

That can't have been the best way.

"Shareholder value" is just another way of saying return on capital. Do you want to reduce return on capital? (the answer could be yes or no, just advancing the discussion)

Or do you want to redistribute the ownership of capital?

This guy thinks waste in government is only 15%.

At the low end, the GAO estimates of federal spending, 3-7% is fraud, 3% is improper payments, 7-10%+ is legal but wasteful (e.g. zombie programs) - totaling 13-20%.

In the middle, DOGE (don't smite me, just citing multiple sources) estimated 30-33% was waste.

And at the high end, the American public according to Gallup polling perceives 59% to be waste. https://www.cato.org/blog/americans-say-federal-govt-wastes-...

Even if there is only one set of pipes under the street, the owner of those pipes is constrained from acting in a predatory way if the market is free. They are disciplined by potential competition (if prices too high or lets the water quality drop, it suddenly becomes financially viable for a competitor to dig a rival pipe, or set up localized system, or offering water trucking to your site).

Under a government-granted monopoly, that threat is legally banned (except for maybe water trucking)

What was the hypothesis here, did we think they would be charging less?
Re:Whatever Happened to Fire Escapes on Wednesday October 21, 2026 @06:42PM (#50188723)
>Good example is ETOPS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS - some time ago, we required flights over ocean to have three or four engines. Now, reliability improved a lot, and the engines got good enough that single-engine operation is not so catastrophic as before.

And yet, single-engine jets are prohibited from operating under Part 121 and must use Part 135 (the analogy here might be to an apartment building where the developer takes on the responsibility of structural code-compliance and safety, vs. a single-family home where the homeowner does).

There's a big difference in going from 4 to 2 engines, vs going from 2 to 1. And to be certified single engine jets must have battery backups, rapid depressurization tech, and a host of other things twin engines don't have to. In one case (Vision Jet) they use a whole-plane parachute to compensate for the lack of a backup powerplant

Re:SimCity, but with Permits on Wednesday October 21, 2026 @09:44AM (#50180855)
Sounds like a decoherence trap
Re:Whatever Happened to Fire Escapes on Wednesday October 21, 2026 @09:33AM (#50180696)
>We don't really need multiple exits in case of fire because fires are occurring less often and people are getting plenty of warning.

I'm not a fire expert but I don't think that logic holds. The point is redundancy. If one exit gets blocked, you have another one you can use. Hospitals don't stop carrying backup power supply for life-saving equipment just because "the power grid downtime has improved."

Re:SimCity, but with Permits on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @11:48PM (#50175864)
Yes, a small one, only as large as is necessary to accomplish a limited and enumerated set of objectives...
So the debunkers using AI to make the upsidedown flag look like it was rightside up, were the actual deepfakers?
I'm confused. So was the flag really upsidedown or rightside up?
Re:SimCity, but with Permits on Tuesday October 20, 2026 @05:58PM (#50173261)
> impossible it is to get 40 different families who all live on the same street to unanimously agree on something

There's your problem. You are requiring unanimous agreement? Republics (et al.) were invented for a reason.

> It’s extremely common for local governments to make an HOA a legal requirement for new developments.

Then people ought to be complaining about their local governments, not HOAs.

What's the problem? He gets the house at (what you think is) a lower price than could otherwise be had, and he gets to enjoy living even more
That is a risk you freely accept when choosing to buy in an HOA. Co-ops, which are related but distinct, solve for this risk by requiring the co-op board to vote to approve any new residents. You have a co-op as an option for your living arrangements, as well. Optionality is a good thing.
Which is why Jefferson, who would agree with you, thought that a well-informed people (education) was critical and without it self-governance would fail. It's not an oxymoron - it just comes with caveats.

> "I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people...whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government"

> "The most effectual means of preventing tyranny would be to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large"

The implication is that you ought to move into a neighborhood with people who share your values.
>To an extent they might make sense where there are shared facilities that need to be funded, like a swimming pool or something. Most of what they seem to do is just bullshit though.

You can say the exact same about the government. To be clear, are you in favor of more liberty for homeowners, or are you in favor of the government stepping in to regulate HOAs?

People love to hate on HOAs but not all are bad, and in general they are a good example of self-governance, when the alternative is having people who DON'T live in your neighborhood regulate your neighborhood. Which would you prefer?
Re:Claude reveals ECDSA curve origins on Friday October 16, 2026 @03:45PM (#50123558)
Why did they specifically skip other apparently suitable curve candidates? The B-163 seed and the base point origins of several other curves are still not explained
Re:Neural Networks Are Already Clean on Thursday October 15, 2026 @06:55PM (#50111525)
What did it say? One comment is totally flagged away now

Older »