I'm assuming people are using the AUR to install programs that are sufficiently complex and the idea one can trivially audit a complex program and all of its dependencies is foolish. The foolishness of that expectation scales with the number of complex programs installed.

The idea that users should "just check the source code every single time" has never been, nor will it ever be, a reasonable solution to supply chain attacks.

Expecting users to manually review every single change, for every single AUR package they are using, every single time they do an update or installation is just unreasonable if you want to AUR to be useful at all for the general user.

Is it truly fair to place the blame entirely on Dario? He has stated his support for sound new policies designed to mitigate the issues that will arise.

The article itself notes that no one with the power to shape this transition has seriously considered the impact on people alive today, so it is unclear what the author expects Anthropic to have endorsed at this stage.

>This is ahistorical bullshit.

It's ironic to criticize optimists for grounding their expectations in historical precedents while simultaneously dismissing proposed solutions to mass AI displacement due to historical precedents.

Furthermore, "Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism" does not provide a strong foundation for the author's argument, as the case study involves numerous confounding factors contributing to rising suicide rates, drug overdoses, and alcoholic liver disease that cannot be attributed solely to a perceived loss of economic purpose.

In reality, people still had economic purpose, even if it was not the specific purpose they desired. The remaining available work often proved inferior: lower in status, less secure, less meaningful, inadequate for supporting a family, and disconnected from respected social roles. Perhaps some of these factors contributed a bit more to the aforementioned negative outcomes than a simple feeling like you're not contributing sufficiently to the economy.

>People don’t want a check. They want work. They want purpose.

While that may well be true, we should first ensure that everyone can meet their basic necessities each month before addressing secondary concerns.

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies: Go, Python, Kubernetes, PostgreSQL, AWS, gRPC, GraphQL.

Résumé/CV: https://drive.proton.me/urls/F2YRZV8NTG#QJdrJ8wtSm7I

Email: gqgs@protonmail.com

Senior software engineer with 8+ years building and scaling backend systems. Led teams of 4–6 engineers, migrated large monoliths to Go-based microservices, and designed APIs, distributed systems, and AI-integrated workflows (including LLM/RAG systems) that saved millions in costs. Experience spans enterprise environments and high-traffic consumer platforms. Focused on performance, reliability, and observability in cloud-native systems.

Ideally looking for backend/distributed systems roles with Go as a primary language.

All of those are still prone to censorship if the attacking group is motivated enough. Even crypto, which should be the ideal solution to this problem, is not ideal because most transactions are performed through centralized exchanges which can easily blacklist whatever transactions they want.

$ curl -L https://gitmcp.io -v

< HTTP/2 308

< date: Sat, 05 Apr 2025 20:56:33 GMT

< content-type: text/plain

< location: https://gitmcp.io/

< refresh: 0;url=https://gitmcp.io/

...

* Connection #0 to host gitmcp.io left intact

* Maximum (50) redirects followed

curl: (47) Maximum (50) redirects followed

Axioms are true by their own definition. Therefore, discovering an axiom to be false is a concept that is inherently illogical.

Discovering that a formal verification system produced an incorrect output due to a bug in its implementation is a perfectly well-defined concept and doesn't led to any logical contradictions; unless you axiomatically define the output of formal verification systems to be necessarily correct.

I believe this definition don't make sense in the general case considering the number of vectors that can introduce errors into software.

This issue appears to present an intrinsically unsolvable problem, implying that a formally verified system could still contain bugs due to potential issues in the verification software.

While this perspective doesn't necessarily render formal verification impractical, it does introduce certain caveats that, in my experience, are not frequently addressed in discussions about these systems.

This task may be a good proxy to measure how well LLMs are able to coordinate the aforementioned efforts.

That's the hypothesis this experiment is trying to validate but so far I have no reasons to believe they will behave much worse than human portfolio managers.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43136806

Points: 20

# Comments: 5

>nix-channel --add https://nixos.org/channels/nixos-24.11 nixpkgs

>This command sets your nixpkgs channel to the latest stable version (in this example, 24.11). In the future, check the current stable version on the NixOS homepage.

Any particular reason for not having a "latest" that will automatically detect the latest release instead of forcing each user to manually check and set the latest stable release every time?

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies: Go, Python, Ruby on Rails, TypeScript, JavaScript, PHP, Lua, Postgres, SQLite, Redis, WebRTC, Docker, Kubernetes, Terraform, GraphQL, Nginx, AWS (AppSync, Kafka, SQS, S3, EC2, EKS, RedShift, OpenSearch)

Résumé/CV: https://drive.proton.me/urls/CR465S6YVG#zc3taQgE5Fod

Email: gqgs@protonmail.com

This is a strange one. Arguably this is the objective of marketing in general. Therefore, I'm not sure why draw the line only when AI is involved.

Based on my experience with Vision, I'd be extremely surprised if this OCR system is more accurate and cost effective overall.

For me it seems like this might be yet another example of the sunk cost fallacy.