Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | owl57's commentslogin

> Many people love to generate text with LLMs, but most of same crowd apparently hates to read LLM output. An interesting phenomenon.

Are you sure it's the same people? I feel the opposite: it's the same people who happily read tons of LLM output themselves and send some of it to others.


> just looking at the pics it is impossible to gauge whether it is 400sqft or 900sqft

Those are not good pics. Probably* for the same reason, to hide size and maybe something else.

*Depends on culture and I don't know about NYC. I've seen another landlord's market where quite a few landlords just post one or two useless photos — and even heard advice to pay attention to such postings as they're definitely not prepared by a professional agent.


If you have a service that shares information between people all over the world, a few big companies and one government is for most cases an improvement over all the involved ISPs and all of their respective governments.


That's not the trade-off you make though.

The involved ISP and respective governments do still see everything, but also cloudflare and the US ISPs they use see it in the clear.

Also the US has a history of abusing its position here, even with less honeypot like companies.


If the malicious-npm-package-of-the-week is reading arbitrary files on your workstation, isn't it usually able to run git clone/push/whatever with your current credentials anyway?


Yes, but also no. For example in GitLab a user who’s infected could push code to a branch. Then it could even make a merge request to pull that branch into main (if main is protected).

But then someone else on the team should have to manually approve that MR to allow it to be merged to main.

This kind of defeats the ability of malware to push stuff out automatically.


Not if they're touch required in a secure enclave like a yubikey


Malware running on your computer can engineer a situation where you would naturally press that without suspecting anything.

1. Malware logs you out of github.com

2. It waits for you to navigate to the login page

3. It initiates an SSH/signing operation requiring physical touch

4. You hit login on github.com, a 2nd FIDO operation is queued up

5. You press the yubikey button, confirming the SSH operation

6. "Nothing happens", so you press it again to log in

7. You're now logged in, and your SSH credentials have just been hijacked.

Or it could just inject itself into your shell profile, and do this the next time you ssh anywhere. You never really know what you're confirming so Yubikey's threat model implicitly depends on the host device being trustworthy.

This is why hardware wallets for crypto have a physical display to confirm the address and the amount before signing the transaction.


But then why change the renewal process for the people who were already fingerprinted for the original visa?


I often use vim despite knowing only a few basic commands because I'm already running various commands on the remote machine in the terminal and don't want the context switch. And because connection / file path completion in TRAMP is annoyingly slow if the server is far enough.

As an extreme example, today I needed to combine parts of two files into one and decided that

  cat foo bar > foobar && mv foobar bar && vim bar
of all things will better keep me in the flow than either googling how to insert one file into another in vim or starting up TRAMP.


This idea of everyone producing absurd amounts of git objects is less fantastic now [1]. We're still far from these numbers, but an order of magnitude less far than last year [2].

Also an interesting bit of history here: apparently there was a time when people were already writing books on Git but "one enormous Git repository" wasn't yet the most common mode of using it.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47932422

[2] https://x.com/kdaigle/status/2040164759836778878


And the U in GNU, while we're at it.


And most of them are pretending to be Chrome. If Google had a good case against someone reusing their user agent, maybe they would already have sued?

Or maybe not. Got some random bot from my server logs. Yeah, it's pretending to be Chrome, but more exactly:

"Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36"

I guess Google might be not eager to open this can of worms.


> scrapers can ingest them and say "nope we won't scrape there again in the future"

Do all the AI scrapers actually do that?


Not all, stuff like unstable diffusion exists.

But a good many, perhaps even most(?), certainly do!


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

Search: