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

This is the right idea IMO but I don't want to trust a third party tool for it either (no offense OP!).

Ever since I started running coding agents with shell access I've jailed them inside of VMs. Since I run Linux I can just use incus[0] for the VM management layer.

It's extremely simple, and you can vibe code a shell script to customize your workflow in a few minutes.

[0] https://linuxcontainers.org/incus/


containarium did the same thing with lxc as a container isolation and use eBPF for network safeguard. https://github.com/FootprintAI/Containarium

No offense taken! Curious what your actual setup looks like, and whether you do any network filtering on the incus VMs?

I guess the downside of the lower barrier to entry to use these tools is the lack of basic understanding of exactly this sort of concept.

This sort of thing is why I'm hopeful I'll continue to have employment going forward. Some expertise is hard won and there's just no replacing learning through experience.


I think you're right in principle but I just hope I can hold out long enough for my experience to become appreciated and whose corresponding hourly rate isn't something which is suddenly being scoffed at (i.e. markets can remain irrational longer than I can remain solvent).

"I'm not political" or "don't make it political" type posts on Musk-related topics are often signs that somebody agrees with the worldview that Musk espouses.

I used to think the HN policy of "do not discuss politics unless it intersects with tech or is novel" was useful, but lately I feel this perspective is part of how we got here, with a white supremacist controlling more wealth than any other human and exerting political influence in heretofore unseen ways. We've decided it's OK to simply look the other way if there's some shiny bauble, and we've missed the forest through the trees.

Musk doesn't do anything that is not politics. This must be called out more, not less, and we need to bring shame back for supporting such an agenda.


I'm sorry but this mindset is just exhausting. Everything doesn't need to be apocalyptic all the time.

Its so unbearable that people arent able to talk about anything anymore without some bozo chiming in with their political crusade.


Do you really believe that people keeping politics out of technical discussions is how we got here. I mean, do you actually believe that, or are you just using that rhetoric to bolster your argument?

Because from where I'm sitting, politics has entered almost every possible discussion since at least 2015, and it has not made things one whit better .


> The main issue with ibuprofen is that it can have fairly annoying (but non-life-threatening) side effects like stomach upset and GI bleeds even with normal dosing.

Those side effects are more problematic when used chronically. This is when acetaminophen shines, because it has virtually no side effects at all when used as directed.


> You can say it's inconvenient but it's hard to argue they're being greedy when they do these things to merely lose a little bit less money on every subscription they sell.

TFA is probably overly inflammatory but it's worth pointing out how this loss leader cycle works.

These companies are not your friends, they're burning VC money to subsidize services before the eventual rug pull, enshittification is coming.


> 2 months ago management was showing us scoreboards, praising leaders who used most tokens. Last few weeks, we're getting weekly emails, telling us that whenever we can - we should use cheaper models, and that we should watch the page which shows our tokens usage.

GPT 5.5's double token cost was the threshold for me. These things are getting expensive quickly - the subsidized pricing can't go on forever.


> I agree with you, but every non-engineer I know using these tools 100% will drag and drop a PDF into a chatbot

I'm an engineer and use my coding agent to deal with PDFs all the time. It can reach for unix tools if it needs them.

I don't think I understand why this is a problem - it uses tokens, but it removes drudgery. This is the entire promise of the technology.


We're moving to a world where it makes sense to have one cheap locked down phone with the society mandated garbage apps on it, and another device that you use for real computing.

How about saying no to these "mandates"?

We aren't given the choice, in many cases. For example I remember a poster here who was forced to have an Android or Apple phone because his kids' school required an app to pick up the kids after school. So his options were to get a big tech phone, or get in trouble for not picking up his kids. "Get the school to come to their senses" was, unfortunately, not an option available to him.

I've been using several GNU/Linux smartphones as my only phones for the past 18 years (with a short exception around 10 years ago when I carried an Android phone too as there was a gap on the market) so I can say from first-hand experience that it's really not such a big deal as everyone keeps painting it. For these kinds of odd needs where you have no hope to fight back you just launch Waydroid, use the app and stop the container afterwards. However, when you do fight back it often turns out that this "mandatory app" isn't actually so mandatory and in turn you contribute to making the world around you a bit better.

The question is should the sane minority jump from the roof in one of the allowed ways - headfirst or assfirst - only because the majority decided (or was duped into believing) it was convenient to do so, or better not partake in madness?

Android is going to bifurcate between "phones that run proprietary apps from the play store" and "phones that run software from anywhere else." And while maybe you can get by without banking apps, your life is going to get increasingly harder when you want to do many other things.

Ride hail app? Transit fare app? Government ID app? Airline app? Maybe you don't need them yet, but the best way to model this future is to consider what you'd do if you didn't have a phone at all, and the amount of friction this will generate as the expectations are only entrenched and expanded.

I'm glad people are saying no. It's good to do it as long as we can. But the final outcome seems inevitable now and to me it feels very close.



I actually agree that the "two-phone future" makes sense, but I still wouldn't bet on it actually taking off on a large scale, because 95% (maybe even 99%) of people won't carry a second device just to preserve a freedom they don't really feel they're losing in their daily lives. Large corporations are able to make such radical decisions with ease precisely because of this inertia of the masses.

Yes!

But as a Plan B, why aren’t we emulating Android on these devices (or is it the Secure Enclave that’s the spicy bit that these apps need)?


Fortunately Google thought about this, so government ID and banking apps usually check that they are running on a sufficiently locked down and officially blessed phone through the Play Integrity API.

This makes emulation basically impossible.


If 'society' can mandate garbage on us, that is a bigger problem.

> I think the zeitgeist today is different. Because Trump has dialed the crazy up to eleven in his second term and a lot of Dems are now pissed. That’s why democratic socialism/leftism is having a resurgence. And, based on what I’m seeing on the ground, there’s now a strong appetite for justice and retribution.

Does it really matter how much the minority party is pissed though? The American public knew how corrupt this guy was, shrugged, and voted him back into office.

If Democrats do win back the house and senate it will only be by the thinnest of margins. There seems to be little appetite to fix any of these structural problems outside of the "Democratic base."


> They can't pick and choose "oh no they are in jurisdiction of law A but not in law B". Jurisdiction is a fundamental concept, there's no middle ground.

I mean, they shouldn't do this but clearly they can rule however they want with any pretext they want, because they answer to nobody but themselves. Who's going to tell them they can't do something? Who is left to appeal to?

It's a deeply corrupt and undemocratic institution, with virtually unchecked power to rewrite legislation and even the Constitution at a whim.


I'll point out how many cases are decided unanimously. It's quite rare for a case to be decided 6-3 on ideological lines.

They can be impeached, though the efficacy of that is questionable these days.

Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

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

Search: