Hacker News: decidu0us9034

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "GLM-Legal"

decidu0us9034 — Mon, 12 Oct 2026 18:30:28 +0000

so they eliminate your talent pipeline and cut down on billable hours? is this good?

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "Cloudflare/Security-Audit-Skill"

decidu0us9034 — Thu, 17 Sep 2026 17:14:53 +0000

but they're very huge markdown files. look how much junk they're polluting the conext window with.

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "A.I. companies are recruiting electricians and carpenters by the thousands"

decidu0us9034 — Wed, 29 Jul 2026 19:25:28 +0000

"Those people" who? Homebuilders? You're saying you think the cost of homebuilding should be much higher? When I listen to some of you guys it's not hard for me to see why these DCs are so unpopular

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "India's surprise baby bust"

decidu0us9034 — Sat, 06 Jun 2026 00:45:10 +0000

I love how the original post says this happens across vastly different societies regardless of all these different variables people are offering as possible explanations. For example, in India (which this article is about), women have a much lower rate of workforce participation than other industrialized countries. I think a lot of people who are replying are men and don't understand how physically tasking and painful pregnancy is. It seems like most women are fine having two if there's a high chance they'll make it to adulthood and they have access to family planning/contraceptives. That makes sense to me. Not sure why this is so confounding to people. Not much more of an explanation needed than that lol

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit"

decidu0us9034 — Wed, 27 May 2026 23:17:34 +0000

This also sounds like rich people problems. Vast majority of people with a W-2 take the standard deduction.

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "I think Anthropic and OpenAI have found product-market fit"

decidu0us9034 — Wed, 27 May 2026 23:13:56 +0000

The upper decile of income earners account for more than half of all consumption in the US. Household balance sheets and wealth have never looked stronger, again when you account for all the appreciated stocks and properties owned by the upper quartile. True incomes for the lowest decile rose significantly for the first time since 1970 in 2022 and then sort of stayed flat again. Sure, statistically significantly, not "significantly" as in personally meaningful after figuring in rising consumer costs. There is a narrative where you can see all this as hugely positive but this is also largely a "vibes" based narrative. I don't know why you'd expect most people to care about what the "vibes" are like for the best off in society, that's a bit removed from their daily concerns.

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "I don't think AI will make your processes go faster"

decidu0us9034 — Sun, 17 May 2026 16:04:37 +0000

Maybe for some subset of sotware (like CRM panels or something) PMs will do everything. But if you're projecting the way one sort of software (ie user-facing, business use oriented software) is developed and put to use with software writ large, then no I don't think so

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "Show HN: Agentic interface for mainframes and COBOL"

decidu0us9034 — Tue, 12 May 2026 20:13:37 +0000

It sounds like they will still need to hire and train human talent who can understand the code, and evaluate and integrate outputs of AI systems that conform to the specific compliance and data retention requirements of these industries. And also people who can enforce said compliance, and a lot of other things. Sounds like a complex problem without a neat off-the-shelf solution

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "Claude Design"

decidu0us9034 — Fri, 17 Apr 2026 18:35:25 +0000

I think a big part of the reason AI is so divisive and only declining in popularity, is because much of the discourse is shaped by mid to senior career SWEs who fantasize about putting everyone who's not a mid to senior career SWE out of work. People who want to replace everything we like with streamlined slop and want everyone we love struggling to get by. Everyone is inessential except the guy who just sits there telling Claude "can confirm, looks good ship it" who of course isn't deserving of even a paycut

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "Small models also found the vulnerabilities that Mythos found"

decidu0us9034 — Sat, 11 Apr 2026 21:28:12 +0000

Right now, we accept false positives as long as you can sort them out. I think it's pretty typical that >99% of fuzzer runs don't result in new coverage. Of course they're far from useless without feedback but it's better to have it if you can. I guess the question is does the llm approach have lower costs for validation and triaging vs just fuzzing alone, unclear to me. Anthropic would like people to believe automation is this scary new unknown

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "Small models also found the vulnerabilities that Mythos found"

decidu0us9034 — Sat, 11 Apr 2026 21:12:19 +0000

In a large codebase there will still be bugs in how these components interoperate with each other, bugs involving complex chaining of api logic or a temporal element. These are the kind of bugs fuzzers generally struggle at finding. I would be a little freaked out if LLMs started to get good at finding these. Everything I've seen so far seems similar to fuzzer finds.

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "Small models also found the vulnerabilities that Mythos found"

decidu0us9034 — Sat, 11 Apr 2026 20:55:33 +0000

I think there is already papers and presentations on integrating these kind of iterative code understanding/verificaiton loops in harnesses. There may be some advantages over fuzzing alone. But I think the cost-benefit analysis is a lot more mixed/complex than anthropic would like people to believe. Sure you need human engineers but it's not like insurmountably hard for a non-expert to figure out

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "Claude wrote a full FreeBSD remote kernel RCE with root shell"

decidu0us9034 — Wed, 01 Apr 2026 18:38:31 +0000

I could see that being an incremental time save (perhaps not worth the token spend except for the dev team, not a high-value bug). But nbody finds this kind of bug "by hand" and hasn't for a long time now. Do people here really care about kernel security or testing automation? They're just talking about it because Claude? Everything on HN is people doing unpaid promotional work for Anthropic, just talking about all the promise Claude holds and all the various ways you could be spending more money on Claude. bored aimless vibes.

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "How we hacked McKinsey's AI platform"

decidu0us9034 — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 17:14:56 +0000

Analysis of what? What does that mean? What's something you conceivably would need a consulting firm to "analyze?" I don't understand why management consulting firms would hire software people in the first place, and then punish them for not being on a client-facing project. That seems a bit contradictory to me, but this is all way out of my wheelhouse

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy"

decidu0us9034 — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 22:22:23 +0000

Well it's an operating system. Ideally safety and reliability are prioritized. I think the scope and complexity of an operating system are large enough both to make a lot of changes non-trivial and to trip up LLMs. I think it's fine if you have an unstable release stream or you have bleeding edge forks that move faster than upstream. This is already the case...

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy"

decidu0us9034 — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 21:58:14 +0000

It's an operating system, not a website.

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification"

decidu0us9034 — Sat, 28 Feb 2026 02:42:42 +0000

The law defines an operating system provider as "a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general computing device." If the intent were to target mobile vendors or app store vendors, I would be fine with it, but that's not the text. Of course it's the case that US lawmakers often write incoherent or extremely onerous legislation and then turn around and say, like, "Oh that's obviously not what we actually meant. We don't know what any of this stuff is, it just sounded good."

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification"

decidu0us9034 — Sat, 28 Feb 2026 02:26:40 +0000

Well the problem is, there is no consensus standard. The onus is on every individual vendor to figure out how to comply. And it's so poorly written that there is no clear path to compliance. Even attempting to comply is burdensome and subjects you to a lot of legal risk. Only the largest vendors can afford to take on this risk. For others, the only winning move is not to play. Classic regulatory capture.

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification"

decidu0us9034 — Sat, 28 Feb 2026 01:53:11 +0000

It's not privacy-respecting at all to create some side channel between your browser and OS to transmit some information about a "user profile." If this were about browser vendors it might make sense but they're targeting operating systems (presumably for the malicious vendor lock-in type of reasons you cite? idk, it's strange). I would like someone to explain how this would even be implemented securely. It's certainly non-trivial.

New comment by decidu0us9034 in "A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification"

decidu0us9034 — Sat, 28 Feb 2026 01:30:06 +0000

I'm not sure it's worth entertaining these hypotheticals. Just another absurd CA law that's impossible to comply with. "When you set up your account and it asks for your birthdate." What does this mean? "Setup" what account? "It" what? Some graphical installer? What if I don't want to use one? How would this protocol be implemented in such a way where it's not trivially easy for the user to alter the "age signal" before sending a request? The "signal" is signed with some secret that you attest to but can't write? So it's in some enclave? What if my smart toaster doesn't have an enclave? Does my toaster now have to implement software enclave? I'm not aware of a standard, or industry standards body, or standard specification, or implementation of a specification, around this "age signal" thing. Is this some proprietary technology that some company has a patent on, and they've been lobbying for their patent to be legally mandated? If so that's very concerning and probably has antitrust implications (it is ironic that ever-tightening surveillance of people is a downstream consequence of all this deregulation of corporate persons; fine for me but not for thee I guess). I would love to know the full story here, since this is being shopped around in several states, but I haven't seen any sort of investigative journalism about this which is disappointing. This whole thing is really curious.