<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: dfabulich</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dfabulich</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Jun 2026 01:54:31 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=dfabulich" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "Transformers are inherently succinct"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It's the last line of the abstract.<p>> As a consequence of this succinctness, we show that basic verification problems for transformers, such as emptiness and equivalence, are provably intractable: specifically, EXPSPACE-complete.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 22:34:43 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48419225</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48419225</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48419225</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "Transformers are inherently succinct"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The last line of the abstract has the most important takeaway.<p>> As a consequence of this succinctness, we show that basic
verification problems for transformers, such as emptiness and equivalence, are
provably intractable: specifically, EXPSPACE-complete.<p>If you were hoping to formally prove the correctness of a large transformer, it turns out that you're going to need an exponentially <i>larger</i> amount of space to do your verification, more than you could possibly afford.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 20:32:01 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48417808</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48417808</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48417808</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "API proposed by Chrome: Declarative partial updates"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Declarative partial updating "sets the stage for client-side includes." <a href="https://github.com/WICG/declarative-partial-updates" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/WICG/declarative-partial-updates</a><p>The linked article suggests a potential syntax:<p><pre><code>  <template for="footer" patchsrc="/partials/footer.html">
</code></pre>
That would transclude the content of /partials/footer.html in your HTML.<p>But the road ahead for this is still quite bumpy. Here's a good video from a year ago, talking through the obstacles. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0NBcve0enY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0NBcve0enY</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2026 05:10:24 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254585</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254585</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254585</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "API proposed by Chrome: Declarative partial updates"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p><p><pre><code>  <p>
    <em>Some replaced text
  </p>
</code></pre>
Which, by the HTML standard, will automatically close the `</em>` as the `</p>` closes.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2026 05:05:04 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254554</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254554</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254554</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "API proposed by Chrome: Declarative partial updates"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>When you have questions like this, the best places to check are the "standards positions" Github repositories for Mozilla and WebKit.<p><a href="https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1369" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1369</a><p>Mozilla hasn't officially weighed in, but one decision maker (hsivonen) did vote in favor of it.<p>Apple WebKit is officially in favor of it, as of just a few days ago.<p><a href="https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/628" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/628</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2026 05:01:00 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254537</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254537</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254537</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "API proposed by Chrome: Declarative partial updates"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The WICG explainers do a somewhat better job than this article.<p><a href="https://github.com/WICG/declarative-partial-updates" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/WICG/declarative-partial-updates</a><p><a href="https://github.com/WICG/declarative-partial-updates/blob/main/patching-explainer.md" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/WICG/declarative-partial-updates/blob/mai...</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2026 04:57:12 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254511</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254511</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254511</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "API proposed by Chrome: Declarative partial updates"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The new element syntax is needed to signify DOM ranges that may cross the boundaries of HTML element trees.<p><pre><code>  <p>
    <em>Some <?start name="hl"?>text</em>
    to replace<?end name="hl"?>.
  </p>
</code></pre>
Jake Archibald at Mozilla has a good video about this. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/shorts/yARSOcqOWvY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/shorts/yARSOcqOWvY</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2026 04:54:25 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254493</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254493</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48254493</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "Why Japanese companies do so many different things"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I made a very small and highly defensible claim.<p>You argued that this article (by David Oks) is an example of "how Westerners idealize Japan." I argued that this article does not idealize Japan, and that, if you interpreted Oks' article that way, then you didn't understand the article.<p>I didn't say that Japanese business culture is more "horizontal" than Western business culture, or that Japanese business culture is better in any particular way. I didn't even say that the article is right or wrong about anything.<p>All I did was to restate the thesis statement of the article, to clarify what the article actually says.<p>I don't harbor any particular affinity for Japan, or Japanese business culture. I know very little about it. I'm not an authority to speak on it, and I didn't.<p>You assumed what I believe without understanding what I wrote. You did exactly the same thing to me that you did to David Oks.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 21:57:46 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48242194</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48242194</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48242194</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "Why Japanese companies do so many different things"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>What article were you reading? This article isn't idealizing Japanese companies, and specifically discusses the drawbacks of the Japanese approach, including zombie companies.<p>The article's thesis statement isn't "the Japanese approach is better," but that business practices like these bundle together, that they're very difficult to change, and that each bundle has different advantages and disadvantages.<p>Ironically, you've proved a deeper point about how amusing HN is: we all tend to project our fantasies onto the articles we're discussing, even if we didn't fully read or understand the article.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 19:09:37 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48240098</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48240098</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48240098</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Rovelli writes, "I fail to make sense of the claim that there is such an “explanatory gap.”"<p>Carlos Rovelli has failed to understand the arguments for dualism, and is proudly sure that they must be nonsense.<p>If there's ever to be a "solution" to the dualism/materialism argument, it cannot possibly end in a "slam dunk" where it turns out that one side or the other was simply <i>nonsensical</i>.<p>IMO, the problem is actually one of epistemological framing. If I ask what "I" know, <i>assuming</i> that my internal experiences are the basis of my knowledge, then I can't accept materialism. But if we ask what "we" know, as a society of scientists and philosophers, together we find only natural material, and no evidence for dualism.<p>(It's like the prisoner's dilemma. What's best for <i>me</i> is to defect. What's best for <i>us</i> is to cooperate.)</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2026 03:54:04 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48175388</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48175388</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48175388</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "StackOverflow: Retiring the Beta Site"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>> In an ideal world, LLMs would take all of the basic RTFM style questions, and leave SO for the harder, but still general enough to be applicable to others-questions.<p>I think the deeper question is how SO would get paid for that.<p>Historically, SO has been funded by advertising. Users would google their question, land on SO, get an answer, and SO would get paid by advertisers. (The job portal was a variation on the advertising product.)<p>Even in your ideal world, newbies and experts would first ask their questions to an LLM. The LLM might search SO and find the answer there, but the user would get the answer without viewing an ad, so SO wouldn't get paid for that.<p>The same issue is facing Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't funded by commercial advertisers, but they are funded by donations, which are driven by ads. If LLMs just answer the questions based on Wikipedia data, the user won't see the Wikipedia ad asking them to donate; they may not even know that Wikipedia was the source of the information, so they may not even develop a fondness for Wikipedia that's necessary to get users excited to donate.<p>This is why you see people shouting about how LLMs are "killing the web." I think it's more correct to say that LLMs are killing free web resources. Without advertising, not even donation-funded resources can remain available for free.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2026 18:10:55 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47652200</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47652200</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47652200</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "Judge blocks Pentagon effort to 'punish' Anthropic with supply chain risk label"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Indeed, and the dead comments (from new users!) overwhelmingly favor the government position.<p>But, this is a non-story, because those comments were correctly killed precisely so they wouldn't clog up this thread.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 01:24:51 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47538020</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47538020</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47538020</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[WebKit Features for Safari 26.4]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Article URL: <a href="https://webkit.org/blog/17862/webkit-features-for-safari-26-4/">https://webkit.org/blog/17862/webkit-features-for-safari-26-4/</a></p>
<p>Comments URL: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47506357">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47506357</a></p>
<p>Points: 2</p>
<p># Comments: 0</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 17:37:25 +0000</pubDate><link>https://webkit.org/blog/17862/webkit-features-for-safari-26-4/</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47506357</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47506357</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "Apple Business"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Strategically, Apple's not setting themselves up for success here by giving Apple Business away for free (with paid per-user storage bumps).<p>As a lot of people on this thread have pointed out, Apple's Business Manager needs a lot of improvements. ("Bring your own device" support is terrible, for example. Changing business names requires a perilous migration step. Support reps don't have the tools to fix serious issues.)<p>If Apple Business were a real revenue source, if they charged luxury prices for a luxurious business support experience, they could pay for developers to fix their stuff.<p>Instead, Apple Business is a free side hustle for Apple, a hobby. But they're proposing to control your entire domain, to Domain Lock all Apple accounts for your domain, to put your businesses's life in their hands, for "free."<p>Don't fall for it.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 17:26:09 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47506183</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47506183</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47506183</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "Hypothesis, Antithesis, Synthesis"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>If that's not motivation enough for you to rename it, well, TypeScript already has a static type checker called Hegel. <a href="https://hegel.js.org/" rel="nofollow">https://hegel.js.org/</a> (It's a stronger type system than TypeScript.)</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 16:14:01 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47504922</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47504922</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47504922</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "OpenClaw is a security nightmare dressed up as a daydream"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>> <i>"Give it access to everything, even if it doesn't need it" is not the only security model.</i><p>You're using stavrobot instead of OpenClaw precisely because the purpose of <i>OpenClaw</i> is to do <i>everything</i>; a tool to do everything needs access to everything.<p>OpenClaw could be kinda useful and secure if it were stavrobot instead, if it could only do a few limited things, if everything important it tried to do required human review and intervention.<p>But stavrobot isn't a revolutionary tool to do everything for you, and that's what OpenClaw is, and that's why people are excited about it, and why its problems can never be fixed.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2026 23:16:24 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47483375</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47483375</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47483375</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "OpenClaw is a security nightmare dressed up as a daydream"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Yes and no. You're right to notice that this is an example of a more general problem called the principal-agent problem. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...</a><p>We have no general-purpose solutions to the principal-agent problem, but we have partial solutions, and they only work on humans: make the human liable for misconduct, pay the human a percentage of the profits for doing a good job, build a culture where dishonesty is shameful.<p>The "lethal trifecta" is just like that other infamously unsolvable problem, but <i>harder</i>. (If you could solve the lethal trifecta, you could solve the principal-agent problem, too.)<p>Since we've been dealing with the principal-agent problem in various forms for all of human history, I don't feel lucky that we'll solve a more difficult version of it in our lifetime. I think we'll probably never solve it.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2026 21:43:23 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47482497</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47482497</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47482497</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "OpenClaw is a security nightmare dressed up as a daydream"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>> <i>Separate Accounts for your OpenClaw</i><p>> <i>As I have mentioned, treat OpenClaw as a separate entity. So, give it its own Gmail account, Calendar, and every integration possible. And teach it to access its own email and other accounts. In addition, create a separate 1Password account to store credentials. It’s akin to having a personal assistant with a separate identity, rather than an automation tool.</i><p>The whole point of OpenClaw is to run AI actions with your own private data, your own Gmail, your own WhatsApp, etc. There's no point in using OpenClaw with that much restriction on it.<p>Which is to say, there is no way to run OpenClaw safely at all, and there literally never will be, because the "lethal trifecta" problem is inherently unsolvable.<p><a href="https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/16/the-lethal-trifecta/" rel="nofollow">https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/16/the-lethal-trifecta/</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2026 19:33:24 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47481214</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47481214</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47481214</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "The three pillars of JavaScript bloat"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Android phones update to the latest version of Chrome for 7 years. As long as you're using browser features that are Baseline: Widely Available, you'll be using features that were working on the latest browsers in 2023; those features will work on Android 7.0 Nougat phones, released in 2016.<p>Android Studio has a nifty little tool that tells you what percentage of users are on what versions of Android. 99.2% of users are on Android 7 or later. I predict that next year, a similar percentage of users will be on Android 8 or later.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2026 04:22:16 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47474427</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47474427</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47474427</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by dfabulich in "Google details new 24-hour process to sideload unverified Android apps"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>As a legitimate developer developing an app with the power to take over the phone, I think it's appropriate to ask you to verify your identity. It should be an affordable one-time verification process.<p>This should not be required for apps that do HTTPS requests and store app-local data, like 99%+ of all apps, including 99% of F-Droid apps.<p>But, in my opinion, the benefit of <i>anonymity</i> to you is much smaller than the harm of anonymous malware authors coaching/coercing users to install phone-takeover apps.<p>(I'm sure you and I won't agree about this; I bet you have a principled stand that you should be able to anonymously distribute malware phone-takeover apps because "I own my device," and so everyone must be vulnerable to being coerced to install malware under that ethical principle. It's a reasonable stance, but I don't share it, and I don't think most people share it.)</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2026 19:27:20 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47444591</link><dc:creator>dfabulich</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47444591</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47444591</guid></item></channel></rss>