Hacker News: asdewqqwer

New comment by asdewqqwer in "To study how chips work, MIT researchers built their own operating system"

asdewqqwer — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:39:15 +0000

Yet a published peer-reviewed research should be against humanity. I am also curious whether such research can bring knowledge that apple don't know, otherwise even it is impressive, there is a level of sadness in it from my view.

New comment by asdewqqwer in "Claude Fable 5"

asdewqqwer — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 06:52:09 +0000

Evidently Fable is so powerful that it already allow Anthropic to break Shannon's theory.

>We will require 30-day retention for all traffic on Mythos-class models, on both first- and third-party surfaces. We won’t use this data to train new Claude models

>The data will help us defend against complex and novel attacks (including new jailbreaks and attacks that operate across many requests) as well as help us identify and reduce false positives.

New comment by asdewqqwer in "Claude Opus 4.8"

asdewqqwer — Thu, 28 May 2026 23:24:44 +0000

As if the dishonesty of human who are good at business has not been criticized since business ever exists

New comment by asdewqqwer in "Claude Opus 4.8"

asdewqqwer — Thu, 28 May 2026 22:56:23 +0000

So you're trying to convince a community of mostly engineers — using the example of a terribly outdated technology that stays overpriced purely through symbolization because the luxury industry's bubble keeps holding — that flashy looks, advertising, and fancy concepts aren't really beloved and worthy? Fascinating.

New comment by asdewqqwer in "Write some software, give it away for free"

asdewqqwer — Wed, 06 May 2026 16:06:37 +0000

I keep noticing a wrong narrative when it comes to FOSS software. Comparing software to traditional labouring jobs is quite pointless: you designed and built a car for yourself, building a second one for someone else has costs; you cleaned your own private garden, cleaning someone else's garden has costs; repairing every bike, however sophisticated you are, has costs (Just listing the narratives I see on this page). Giving away a software you already have wrote for yourself has almost 0 cost, and I think this is the main motivation (at least at the beginning) of most FOSS software: the developer themselves needs to use it anyway. This uniqueness is what I consider one of the main reason why FOSS can succeed in the first place unlike in almost any other engineering fields. In a sense, you can say it is exactly what Marx call "all sources of collective wealth flowing abundantly".

This is very different from: I see an ongoing demand for X, and thus I work to provide a product that supplies X. In this case, naturally, I will not want to give it away for free, even if it is software.

New comment by asdewqqwer in "An update on recent Claude Code quality reports"

asdewqqwer — Fri, 24 Apr 2026 10:22:00 +0000

I think there are plenty of such reply on github. For example the one to AMD AI director's issue.

New comment by asdewqqwer in "Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era"

asdewqqwer — Wed, 08 Apr 2026 12:56:54 +0000

yet the poc exploit itself take $2000 and one day, I don't know how the math works, maybe there is some extremely clever way to figure out runs that are not worthy to attempt exploit.

New comment by asdewqqwer in "Project Glasswing: Securing critical software for the AI era"

asdewqqwer — Wed, 08 Apr 2026 11:51:07 +0000

There is a huge gap between the shining examples and actual use case: What is the false positive rate? How to judge false positive?

If you need 1000 run that cost 20000 USD to find a vulnerability, and you need 2000 USD to generate a exploit (which makes it self-verifiable to be not false positive), than your cost is not 22000 USD but 1000x2000+2000 which is 2 million USD: you have to try generating exploit for every trial before you know it is true, or you need to hire one (or several) senior security people to audit every single of them.

A broken clock being correct twice a day is not impressive.

New comment by asdewqqwer in "LibreOffice and the art of overreacting"

asdewqqwer — Thu, 26 Mar 2026 12:53:43 +0000

> assume it is the single client that will operate that account

You are still making wild assumption without actually thinking about what means to writing an email client.

New comment by asdewqqwer in "LibreOffice and the art of overreacting"

asdewqqwer — Thu, 26 Mar 2026 12:30:30 +0000

If you ever try to write a email client, you will immediately realize how difficult, if not impossible, to fix all the bugs for a email client. It is a multi-different-protocol-version-async-client-handling-same-database-with-thousands-of-race-condition backwards compatibility nightmare.

Writing a email client with support of just up-to-date protocols and assume it is the single client that will operate that account is trivial, write one that covers all corner cases is a totally different story.

New comment by asdewqqwer in "No adblocker detected"

asdewqqwer — Tue, 09 Sep 2025 13:30:10 +0000

Sure, then governments are also just people. How about we restore Monarchy now so someone can actually be held responsible? Also we should completely abandon Nulla poena sine lege since evidently the imbalanced power does not exist between people and also people (government).