I had a post on here this week that was briefly popular. There were numerous folks who posted that the material “wasn’t new.”

I felt like it should be implicit that people who already know what I was writing about are not the target audience. But here they were, commenting.

At the same time, the page got upvoted quite a lot and the comments were filled with folks who had lots of interesting reactions and additions. Despite the fact that this was “old news”, it seemed implicit that for many it was new news.

Sometimes we should trigger conversation. I believe we shouldn’t index on novelty- we should index on impact. Your post is a nice defense of those who discover and share what they discover.

You are correct in my intentions on this post generally.

I want to highlight:

I want to measure performance of the LLMs over time- which includes assessing the quality of their outputs. I don’t perceive the reasoning output to be anything other than a measurable signal of possible drift in model performance.

Except it isn’t, because I’m only getting a low value summary of the thinking.

It’s like asking your buddy how fast he thought that last pitch was when radar guns are behind the plate.

Yeah, it’s a description related to what happened, but it’s not the thing I want to measure.

Having access to the reasoning text and output would help with performance measurement.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48630535

Points: 324

# Comments: 223

New guy learns nessus, now tells everyone at the bar he's basically Mr. Robot.

A pox on the labs and the government. InfosecDrama.exe just took out a frontier model because a noob learned how to use a tool.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48451624

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Where are you pulling your datasets from? Is there a Strong’s dataset available for integration?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47949870

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

???

No obvious reason? What if the Executive Branch is a dog chasing cars?

It’s just doing things.

Look elsewhere.

When the models have an off day, the workflows you’ve grown to depend upon fail. When you’re completely dependent on Anthropic for not only execution but troubleshooting- you’re doomed. You lose a whole day troubleshooting model performance variability when you should have just logged off and waited. These are very cognitively disruptive days.

Build in multi-model support- so your agents can modify routing if an observer discovers variability.

FWIW- IMO, being locked into a single model provider is a deal breaker.

This solution will distract a lot of folks and doom-lock them into Anthropic. That’ll probably be fine for small offices, but it is suicidal to get hooked into Anthropic’s way of doing things for anything complex. IME, you want to be able to compare different models and you end up managing them to your style. It’s a bit like cooking- where you may have greater affinity for certain flavors. You make selection tradeoffs on when to use a frontier model on design & planning vs something self hosted for simpler operations tasks.

Man that is totally a fair point.

I feel like I’ve struggled with the tutorials on these configs so many times in my life that I’ve kind of munged several ideas together here. There’s so much subtlety to the iptables/nftables rules that I failed to understand for so long, that I forgot that some folks might not understand that WiFi has specific weirdness. You’re right- I open with routing as a topic, but I’m in a very specific nuance right away.

“The Linux box instantly turns into a router as soon as you run `sysctl net.ipv4.ip_forward=1`, because the default policy for FORWARD table is ACCEPT.”

In the setup I presented, we are bridging an Ethernet and a WiFi network. This would be desirable if you wanted to use an upstream dhcp server for your WiFi clients- or if you wanted to avoid double nat’ing.

In 802.11 infrastructure mode, a station can only send frames with its own MAC address. The AP won’t accept or forward frames from unknown MACs. So you can’t transparently bridge Ethernet devices’ MAC addresses through a WiFi client interface. This is why we need hostapd.

In every other circumstance- I think your statement holds.

I tried to do some weird alerting on new MAC addresses and ran into this weirdness. Bridging WiFi and Ethernet gets weird.