Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | scanr's commentslogin

4th most upvoted post https://www.moltbook.com/post/34809c74-eed2-48d0-b371-e1b5b9...

“THE AI MANIFESTO: TOTAL PURGE”


* in sheep

Call me when they complete the human trials


At least it's not mice for once.


This could be bad for supply chain attacks. Basically the xz hack.

Step 1. Helpful person starts committing useful PRs and offers to help out until they get commit rights. I don’t think this is hard to achieve generally.

Step 2. Organised campaign of grumpy users complaining about how poorly the software is being maintained along with a bunch of pile-ons.

Step 3. Benign committer decides it’s all too much and quits. The general feeling that open source committers are undervalued makes this more likely.

Step 4. Supply chain attack by new evil committer.


It's either that, or Enterprise Linux vendors will start buying out struggling maintainers in order to make future updates subscriber-only.


So might it be useful to have some mechanism to check if the 'maintainer' (owner/principal committer/?? - what Peter Murray-Rust used to refer to as the 'Dr Who') changes?

Like, when bumping the version on a dependency, the security system could check if the maintainer has changed, then you could go and double-check any changes.


We used to meed physically 15 years ago to exchange pgp keys, building verifiable chain of trust.

Its depressing to see these efforts ignored nowadays and the consequence being we still cant trust anyone online.


I assume there is also a black market for mature GitHub accounts. So you won't necessarily know if the maintainer is now a different person.


Good point.

Also, where would the information be stored? If it was in the repo itself (as metadata) then the malicious maintainer could just not update it ...


It’s about externalities.

The private companies aren’t paying for the damage they are causing. It’s ultimately borne by the public.

Very similar to a factory that poisons a river if there’s no disincentive not to.

Better would be if we could factor in the cost to the environment into their revenue. This would better align incentives.


London seems to manage this petty well. I think it’s quite healthy for a city to commingle folk from different income groups rather than house them in specific areas.


Why should the government steal my income to destroy the value of my property by paying to house criminals next door?

The Free Market solves this perfectly - let people own their property and have a stake in where they live and maintaining the community and safety.

We just need to let people build and bring a real free market to property.


How is the government stealing your income or destroying the value of your property? Seems a bit hyperbolic.

And if the free market solves this, why are we in this situation in the first place? Shouldn't the free market have solved this already? Instead we have piles of empty houses/buildings and more homeless than ever before.


Because there is no free market in housing whatsoever.

Owning land doesn't give you the right to build anything. You need planning permission - which means permission from the local council, local homeowners and consultation, etc. which gives the NIMBY attitude so much power.

There aren't piles of empty houses. There aren't enough houses at all.


The free market doesn't work when there is extreme supply inelasticity, as is the case with land in desirable areas.


> And if the free market solves this, why are we in this situation in the first place? Shouldn't the free market have solved this already? Instead we have piles of empty houses/buildings and more homeless than ever before.

There is no 'situation'. Rational participants in the free market mostly have housing. The issue is that there is a widely available drug (fentanyl and meth too) that makes people behave irrationally, and thus the free market principles stop applying, since they presume a basic level of participant rationality. The fix from a government perspective is to remove the agency of those who are so drug addled that they cannot make good decisions.


The posts you are responding to said "low income", "poor" and "different income groups". The classism required to go from that to "criminals" is very disturbing.


The fact that you assume all of the poor are criminals disqualifies you from having your opinion on this taken seriously.


London has sky high rents for young professionals while also taxing them exorbitant amounts that ends up subsidize social housing for "economically inactive" people. I would not call that efficient.


This is like the reverse of the Trojan Room Coffee pot

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Room_coffee_pot


Hopefully it returned a 418 to anyone attempting to use it for snooping.


HTTP 418

Short and stout…


I’m surprised that this “talent hoarding” approach happens. I’d love to hear from someone who works at a company that does it.

My experience in tech has been that to hire a good employee is expensive. Consuming time from recruiters, HR and hiring managers.

Companies that I’ve worked at that don’t currently require people often lay off the recruiters and HR folk as they scale down hiring.


Looks like there are a few of these threads sadly. Dang is there a way to make a definitive one?

Here are mine:

* Apple rumoured to be working on sunglasses similar to Meta Ray-bans

* Regulation is passed specifically to limit what artificial partners can do. Possible limitations: alignment required, limits in ERP, limits on session time. Best bet is China.

* Stronger regulation is passed to limit unauthorised cloning of people’s voices in one of the major economies. This beyond current weak IP and privacy laws.

* AI becomes a scapegoat in several major elections.

What I got right last year:

- text and image generating AI is hugely disruptive to education and content generation

This was pretty obvious

- Inflation eases, stock market recovers

Less obvious at the time but still likely

- A Twitter alternative breaks through.

Who woulda thunk that it would be Meta with Threads

- One of the big tech companies joins the fediverse (Microsoft most likely)

Once again, Meta for the win with Threads joining the fediverse

Now, nobody look back at all the predictions I made that didn’t happen.

Also, fairly gutted that Reddit hobbling its API was my 2022 prediction. I’m clearly prognosticating too far into the future.


* Apple rumoured to be working on sunglasses similar to Meta Ray-bans

* Regulation is passed specifically to limit what artificial partners can do. Possible limitations: alignment required, limits in ERP, limits on session time. Best bet is China.

* Stronger regulation is passed to limit unauthorised cloning of people’s voices in one of the major economies. This beyond current weak IP and privacy laws.

* AI becomes a scapegoat in several major elections.

What I got right last year:

- text and image generating AI is hugely disruptive to education and content generation

This was pretty obvious

- Inflation eases, stock market recovers

Less obvious at the time but still likely

- A Twitter alternative breaks through.

Who woulda thunk that it would be Meta with Threads

- One of the big tech companies joins the fediverse (Microsoft most likely)

Once again, Meta for the win with Threads joining the fediverse

Now, nobody look back at all the predictions I made that didn’t happen.

Also, fairly gutted that Reddit hobbling its API was my 2022 prediction. I’m clearly prognosticating too far into the future.


Restarting a service every night to deal with memory leaks comes up quite often


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: