turpentine

I've seen these people rapidly disappear in the last 5 years at a big tech co. Old UNIX heads that had experience back to the 80s being made redundant. Who is replacing them? Mostly offshore 20 something year olds on a fraction of the salary a tenured person had, being told to just follow runbooks, pasting the runbooks into Claude or ChatGPT. These people can't explain anything, didn't really cut their teeth on doing things out of curiosity, and if asked a question, will just be playing copy-paste-back-and-forth with a LLM.

Year of the sel4 desktop, when?

People who know less and have less experience doing things they don't understand are not likely to be associated with quality output.

reddit has been banning reddit accounts of people who use public cloud services as a vpn i.e. while travelling or in cafes, without recourse. Reddit's answer was afaik "don't do that, and create a new account."

I had plenty of backing under the original org to operate that way, but acquisition restructuring often means managers at multiple levels exiting. When I was put on garden leave pending payout, several of my colleagues reached out distressed asking if they should be threatening to quit to force a reversal of the decision, or start looking for other work out of dissatisfaction, and others offered to provide references. I of course thanked them, but said they should look after their own interests as nothing was likely to change.

> From my experience, it's definitely drifted away from a bunch of nerds solving problems to something more towards emotional/personal/politics. I recently saw someone cry when a person very kindly asked them to explain a discrepancy. "Back in my day" people would just state facts, point out flaws, and argue a bit, and have fun doing it, for better or worse.

In the last few years, I ended up at a bigtech co through an acquisition, and had been someone who was a go-between for solving issues across teams by having a good understanding of everyone else's codebases, tests, build processes, deployment, infrastructure etc. This papered over the culture of siloed development, refusals to think beyond single services etc. I would submit tests and patches, along with tickets describing the bug, impact statement, fix, test coverage, risk, and make myself on-call or directly supervise deployment, etc.

Attempting to continue that in an org x25 larger was met with people firing off angry emails to executives saying their authority was being undermined and made to look bad, when long standing issues were made trivial and fixed by "someone they had never met before", and wherever they came from can they please go back to. I have no idea what a lot of these people were spending so long doing, their commit history was often full of changes that would make you go think "???". I guess it's lucrative to run out the clock year after year on a 180k package, attending meetings where you argue that things are difficult and lets meet again in 3 months? After becoming highly visible for bringing things to attention, I was offered a package to leave, I assume so they could go back to a culture of top down authority and silence.

Barrier to entry? It is more or less just arithmetic.

Appeal to hypocrisy is not a valid refutation.

Additionally, I would ask what the economic benefits are.

If they are structured to end up running at a loss and generate almost zero tax revenue (i.e. just payroll tax on a dozen full time staff) on large amounts of revenue, is that good for the people of the city/state/country?

Studying and patching binaries has always been done. This is not new.

afaik up to 2020, IE and ActiveX was required for online banking. Past that I heard you had to install a local webserver that the browser could communicate with. I'm not sure if any security issues are mandated by law, but it does sound like a minefield.

You've erased your own voice and evidence of thinking and writing.

Syntax is listed right there in the GP comment. They've given plenty of rope to hang themselves by.

Someone who says that programming is not about working at the level of about data structures and algorithms without LLMs raises red flags.

> We are going from the era of manual, line-by-line mental model transcription to one where software engineers can focus on data structures, software architecture and algorithms.

Focusing on data structures, architecture and algorithms is what competency in programming has looked like since forever. Building systems out of smaller pieces gets you there.

If your complaint above is that you were struggling with syntax and reading documentation, one might ask if you failed to progress past beginner levels, and now AI is just your cheat-code?

> You would think that an engineering school would be wiser...

Schools are a business run by administrative staff who make purchasing decisions to solve business problems. Schools love to reduce billable teaching hours through online coursework, which invites academic dishonesty from students, and paying for honorlock is a way to achieve that reduction in expenditure, rather than paying tutors to supervise exams in person.

Ubuntu still considers 152.0.7977.64 stable.

What does your vibe-coded-in-C browser do to mitigate this kind of exploit?

We're exactly in that era of insanity that someone will use agent drivel development to cobble together a browser from existing browser sources in exchange for thousands of dollars of compute. Will it be standards conformant? No. Will it have security issues? Yes.

Qubes OS is looking less crazy lately too.

It's likely that regular Fastmail users are subsidising their AI costs. I've talked to several people who were a bit shocked when Fastmail decided to complicate their offering with the current hyped trash.

51% of people are still on 1080p according to the July 2026 steam survey.

Online tools to simplify this process like Perseus have existed for at least 15 years, and you could view original texts side by side with English for comparison, and original words have all their cross-references hyperlinked etc. All maintained by academics committed to rigorous and nuanced approaches to translation.

Ancient Library is some vibecoded alternative that the LLM translation it uses will be incorrect. Color me unimpressed.

For the sake of archival/computing history, do you know if a copy of the am29k High-C compiler could turn up on archive.org one day?

Yet the dev has posted here on HN saying they used LLMs to do the port, but have a preference not to communicate their AI use.

https://bsky.app/profile/neocities.org/post/3mnkqgxostk2k - This is recent and inexcusable sloppy work for a domain registrar. Private equity explains it if they're cutting and offshoring operations. Even if they hadn't been acquired by PE, it is still inexcusable. They didn't even bother to respond publicly to explain how it happened and that they're course correcting.

Try a different host machine to rule out it being a DAS enclosure.

> You can get cheap LSI PCI cards and do miniSAS to SATA if needed.

People say those generate a ton of heat because they're normally in a rack mounted server with plenty of airflow. Probably a significant drawback for a "cheap prebuilt PC".

jeffbee isn't offering any explanation, maybe because it's obvious to them they don't think they need to, or something like that... so I'll volunteer one.

If you send an email, your client would talk to your local MTA (i.e. the SMTP server you own or are authorised to relay mail through, e.g. ISP). The local MTA usally just accepts the email to insert it into a queue for attempting delivery. When your MTA processes the queue, and talks to another and gets 5xx or 4xx response, your MTA will generate a "bounce" (non-delivery report) email that lands in your inbox with the details of the response it received.

So jeffbee is correct that when the local MTA gets a 5xx or 4xx response code in the SMTP session with target MTA, that /the response code is not a bounce/. Microsoft responding with 5xx or 4xx in the SMTP session, they are not bouncing the email. They are refusing to accept delivery.

For Microsoft to "bounce every email" from the original parent commenter, it would have accept each email first, and then use the return path address of each email accepted to send a bounce email asynchronously, i.e. the bounce is not part of the original session.

If a MTA talks to another MTA who accepts a message for delivery, they can then bounce the email at any later point via the address specified in the return path header. Why? Maybe incoming email is queued and scanned, because it would take too long to determine if it passes secondary rules when it's initially being accepted.

Given how this works, you could take an email inbox you received a year ago, or five... and send an email with whatever content to the return path address, and you have "bounced" the original email.