computerfriend

I found the linked Bloatberg article very funny. https://bloatberg.com/2026/11/02/ubuntu-canonical-extends-lo...

He just vibe coded it.

Fractional reserve banking but for Bitcoin.

No, it is open for as long as these certificates are trusted.

This was a decision I made in my old job, seems to be proved correct.

I untrusted all of their certificates after their (disgraceful) press release (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50195110).

Go does not. For Java, I would not look at their x509 handling for inspiration.

I am surprised that cs.utexas.edu uses a TLS certificate chain who's root is eMudhra's "emSign Root TLS CA - G1".

This is already the case for Go.

Programming languages are useful?

Oh yeah I remember this guy. Amazing work.

> The Assisted-by: tag is no longer requirement

Do you have a link? Because this contradicts the kernel documentation.

https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-assistants.html

> the idiot DIA officer

Do you have a link? Think I missed this one.

This happened to me a couple of times (out of thousands of meetings) and it was because the audio was for some reason being piped to a different audio device.

In my anecdote, the tattooed person was Asian but non-Japanese. We did this several times, but of course it's still a small sample size, so take this with a pinch of salt.

Usually a bandage will suffice to cover it. Even for very tattooed people, can be quite liberal with it.

* Not everyone is doing it.

* Yes, I do.

* It's not, that is from a stray Copilot commit.

* My main issue is not related to the non-disclosure.

The medium article was enthralling, thanks for sharing it.

The readme and commit messages were written by an LLM without disclosure. I didn't look at the code.

Code that works is such a low bar. This is not the only property that we require from software engineering.

How did they configure this, do you know?

Oh, sorry, misinterpreted you! Although I am not sure I agree with your dismissal of nay-sayers. We can equally dismiss the opinions of early proponents. Perhaps maybe we should be hedging on all early opinions regardless.

Tao was not an early nay-sayer.

That was dismal. The LK-99 discourse was much more fun.

> congratulations on lack of ability to read with understanding

This seems weirdly aggressive and not nice.

> There is also a marked increase in dense, AI-written papers. AI tools are making it easy for authors to flood arXiv and other repositories with these low-value papers.

arXiv should ban these submitters.

Yeah, I also don't believe it.

The hashing algorithm's security properties are a security property of Git. This is because:

* we pin to commit hashes and expect this to refer to immutable content,

* commit and tag signatures are over the hash.

The Linux quote about trusting the distribution doesn't make sense to me, as Git is content-addressable and decentralised, although possibly at the time it was a reasonable position to take for kernel development, but [1] could equivalently happen for Git and the hash algorithm being non-broken is required for it to be noticed. Not having to trust the forge is a very desirable property.

[1]: https://lwn.net/Articles/57135/

Having a fetch break is better than having a fetch pull down malware.

Wireguard is secure against a quantum computer though, via an additional pre-shared key.

> If an additional layer of symmetric-key crypto is required (for, say, post-quantum resistance), WireGuard also supports an optional pre-shared key that is mixed into the public key cryptography.

(From https://www.wireguard.com/protocol/.)