fresh_broccoli

We have to get used to it, HN these days consists mostly of LinkedIn people and bots. BTW, the latter is often operated by the former.

>the reporter should not be the one responsible for reporting separately to every single downstream of the thing they found a vuln in.

Not "separately to every single downstream", there is the "linux-distros" mailing list for disclosures: https://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/distros

This random blogpost from 2022 serves as a proof that disclosing kernel vulnerabilities to the distros list is a well-known practice: https://sam4k.com/a-dummys-guide-to-disclosing-linux-kernel-...

I agree it's a shame that the process isn't more streamlined and the kernel developers aren't forwarding the reports to the distros list.

Fun fact: XPM bitmaps were designed to be #included unmodified, the files contain C boilerplate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_PixMap

They officially support OpenCode: https://github.blog/changelog/2026-01-16-github-copilot-now-...

Well, if Carmack wants to give gifts to AI companies then he's free to do it, but it doesn't mean that other people want it too.

I think this debate is mainly about the value of human labor. I guess when you're a millionaire, it's much easier to be excited about human labor losing value.

>So many projects now walk on eggshells so as not to disrupt sponsor flow or employment prospects.

In my experience, open-source maintainers tend to be very agreeable, conflict-avoidant people. It has nothing to do with corporate interests. Well, not all of them, of course, we all know some very notable exceptions.

Unfortunately, some people see this welcoming attitude as an invite to be abusive.

To understand why it's happening, just read the downvoted comments siding with the slanderer, here and in the previous thread.

Some people feel they're entitled to being open-source contributors, entitled to maintainers' time. They don't understand why the maintainers aren't bending over backwards to accomodate them. They feel they're being unfairly gatekept out of open-source for no reason.

This sentiment existed before AI and it wasn't uncommon even here on Hacker News. Now these people have a tool that allows them to put in even less effort to cause even more headache for the maintainters.

I hope open-source survives this somehow.

As far as I know, there's still no real RISC-V equivalent to Raspberry Pi, and I think that's what early adopters want the most.

The closest thing is probably Orange Pi RV2, but it has an outdated SoC with no RVA23 support, meaning some Linux distros won't even run on it. Its performance is also much poorer than of the RPi5.

Did you paste the wrong link? While the OP of that thread was accussed of using LLMs, the thread doesn't really match what the article describes.

I think this one is a much closer fit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46661308

I am not announcing a scientific breakthrough.

I find it worrying that this was upvoted so much so quickly, and HN users are apparently unable to spot the glaring red flags about this article.

1. Let's start with where the post was published. Check what kind of content this blog publishes - huge volumes of random low-effort AI-boosting posts with AI-generated images. This isn't a blog about history or linguistics.

2. The author is anonymous.

3. The contents of the post itself: it's just raw AI output. There's no expert commentary. It just mentions that unnamed experts were unable to do the job.

This isn't to say that LLMs aren't useful for science; on the contrary. See for example Terence Tao's blog. Notice how different his work is from whatever this post is.

In hindsight, one possible reason to bet on November 18 was the deprecation date of older models: https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1oom1lq/google...

Right, the website lists the accusations with links, but the links seem unrelated to the accusations.

For example, I'd expect "criticizing expert medical and scientific consensus on healthcare for our minors" to link to some kind of article describing what Jesse Singal said about this topic and why it's incorrect, but instead it links to a general page about "healthcare providers serving gender diverse youth" that doesn't even mention anything about the accused person or their writings.

But to my eyes, this PR does look like spam. It has no description, its title and commit messages are meaningless. Changing random auxiliary files is also a common sign of PR spam. This PR really looks no different from other spam PRs that popular GH repos have to deal with all the time.

This is not the right way to contribute to a project. If I were the maintainer, I wouldn't engage with it either, just like I don't reply to spam emails.

Also, they talk about "echo chambers" and "full spectrum of global perspectives". Representing all perspectives sounds great in theory, but how far should it go?

Should all politicians' remarks be reproduced verbatim with absolutely no commentary, no fact-checking and no context? Should an article about an airplane crossing the Pacific include "some experts believe that this is impossible because Earth is flat?"

Excessive bias in media is definitely a problem, but I don't think that completely unbiased media can exist while still being useful. In my expierence, people looking for it either haven't thought about it deeply enough, or they just want information that doesn't make their side look bad.

I think this is the wrong direction. We need better journalism, not better summarizing aggregators.

Summaries are no substitute for real articles, even if they're generated by hand (and these apparently are not). Summaries are bound to strip the information of context, important details and analysis. There's also no accountability for the contents.

Sure, there are links to the actual articles, but let's not kid ourselves that most people are going to read them. Why would they need a summarizing service otherwise? Especially if there are 20 sources of varying quality.

There are no "lifehacks" to getting informed. I'll be harsh: this service strikes me as informationally illiterate person's idea of what getting informed is like.

I suppose these figures don't include the worst-behaving crawlers that hide their identity, e.g. by using residential proxies.

This article isn't about that newspaper. It's about the "Pravda network", a group of fake news websites, that according to the report linked in the article[1] produced "20,273 articles per 48 hours, or more than 3.6 million articles per year".

Clearly there's no need for "PhD in mental gymnastics".

[1] - https://www.americansunlight.org/updates/new-report-russian-...

Delays aside, I wonder what kind of license they're planning to use for their weights.

Will it be restricted like Llama, or fully open like Whisper or Granite?

>I'm wondering if ChatGPT (and similar products) will mimic social media as a vector of misinformation

Russia is already performing data poisoning attacks on LLMs: https://www.newsguardrealitycheck.com/p/a-well-funded-moscow...

So many forums died in favor of Reddit, a centralized platform that is currently undergoing the process of enshittification.

I miss the old internet.

This is one guy's project with extremely misleading branding that suggests it's an official EU project.

It certainly succeeded in misleading the public, as evidenced by the amount of publicity it received.

It's very annoying that Google's websites, including this blog, are automatically translated to my browser's preferred language.

Sillicon Valley devs clearly believe that machine translation is a magical technology that completely solved internationalization, like in Star Trek. No, it's far from it. Ever since internet has been flooded with automatically translated garbage, the experience of international users, at least bilingual ones, got much worse.

The slow adoption of QUIC is the result of OpenSSL's refusal to expose the primitives needed by QUIC implementations that already existed in the wild. Instead, they decided to build their own NIH QUIC stack, which after all these years is still not complete.

Fortunately, this recently changed and OpenSSL 3.5 will finally provide an API for third party QUIC stacks.[1] It works differently than all the other existing implementations, as it's push-based instead of pull-based. It remains to be seen what it means for the ecosystem.

[1] - https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/26683

So apparently this is one person's project, but the branding makes it seem like it's some kind of official European Union initiative.

Also, I don't see what problem a national Linux distribution would solve. It would either duplicate the effort of a "normal" Linux distribution, or more likely, it would be just a rebrand of an existing distro.

This article talks about easily verifiable, objectively false information such as "Zelensky banned Truth Social in Ukraine". It just didn't happen, even Truth Social itself confirms that.[1]

You have to be deep in a misinformation bubble to characterize it as "anything you disagree with".

[1] - https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/02/26/zelenskyy-hasn...

>1) memory safety at compiler level

Ada isn't memory safe. It doesn't have anything resembling a borrow checker. The spec used to allow an optional garbage collector, but that was never widely used in practice and was removed in Ada 2012. The average production codebase relies on Unchecked_Free/Unchecked_Deallocation for memory management.

I find it genuinely baffling that so many people who praise Ada clearly don't know and/or don't use the language.

> I had a Ryzen 1700 that didn't meet the windows 11 tpm standard.

It's not TPM, Zen1 does support TPM 2. Also, its instruction set is identical to Zen+ (Ryzen 2xxx), which is supported by Win11. After all, Zen+ was just a die shrink of Zen1 with some minor fixes.

It really seems like they blacklisted Zen1 for no real reason.