Also infrequent purchases != storing wealth in Bitcoin.

How many users were told to verify the source code to make sure it was using good entropy? How many would actually do that even if told? Obviously not even the most hardline bitcoiners were looking at it.

> dice rolls

Yes, the new cope I've seen is that you should've been using casino-grade dice[1] to make sure your entropy is good LOL. Mass adoption soon, I'm sure.

1: https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1vcr4r4/dice_rolls...

There is no blockchain, seed phrases, nor cold wallets required for this amazing feat of money transfer/remediation to take place.

Or, you could realize that using a financial technology which relies on no software bugs ever is probably flawed at its core. "Not your keys, not your coins" was (is?) the zeitgeist but even people who did the "right thing" and used a cold wallet still got screwed. I don't know why anyone would keep their wealth in something that requires so much technical excellence.

The "masses" are well aware of crypto at this point and BTC is down 47% over this past year. It's just not that useful unless you're trying to skirt laws/regulations[1] or LARPing as a sovereign citizen.

1: Yes, I know, BTC is not even good pick for financial crimes either.

Berkshire themselves have made investments into Google this year, a company at the center of this supposed "bubble"... make of it what you will but I think the market is setup to do pretty well in the near future.

I always see catastrophizing and autarkist-coded takes like this which imply the US is a house of cards because we don't manufacture everything under the sun at all times. You have to realize that preparing for a doomsday scenario like 50% fatality rate pandemic has a cost that someone foots the bill for. Even in 2020 with a buffoon running the country, we still reacted very quickly and developed multiple vaccines to combat a novel virus (yes, the response was bungled in other ways but I digress)... people, markets, etc. are adaptable and we will figure it out.

The same could be said for people who suggest regulation for every problem that comes up, even for problems that were caused by regulation. Maybe we have our blindspots, but the "regulate everything" crowd is much louder and more prevalent on HN than the free market absolutists.

The other owner replied here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48696800

From Feburary:

https://www.axios.com/2026/02/23/iran-strike-trump-gen-dan-c...

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine has been advising President Trump and top officials that a military campaign against Iran could carry significant risks, in particular the possibility of becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict,

Recently:

https://www.ms.now/news/trump-iran-war-haberman-swan-book-in...

“He felt that this regime was a paper tiger, that this was going to be a fast war,” Swan said on “The Last Word.” “He just said he felt that that was going to be the case, that they were going to collapse very quickly.”

“It’s a form of magical thinking, actually, is what it all boils down to,” he added.

> IAEA concluded in May 2025 that Iran ran an "undeclared structured nuclear program" until the early 2000s

"nuclear program" is not the same as a weapons program and the IAEA sounding alarm bells over policy violations is not a conclusion that Iran is/was on a nuclear warpath.

He wasn't a member at the time of those statements nor did he have any involvement in their nuclear program. That's misleading to say the least.

Ali Motahari—former member of Iran’s Parliament—clarified that the interview dates back to May 2022, when he neither held a parliamentary seat nor any official role in nuclear affairs.[0]

So besides a single guy in Iran, are there official delegations that have concluded Iran was developing nuclear weapons? The US has had two National Intelligence Estimates, which consists of all 18 agencies in the intelligence community, conclude that they were not developing nukes.

0: https://wanaen.com/trump-shares-old-ali-motahari-interview-o...

According to whom? I know there's one country who says Iran is two weeks away from nuclear weapons, but who else?

Besides, you can look at the websites/apps/software you use everyday and evaluate whether or not the agentic era has produced better results. Personally, there's still plenty of bugs and annoyances. Banks still using SMS 2FA, library breakages in minor version bumps, inconsistent UIs between web and mobile, etc.

If all that was a hurdle before... because humans, regulations, or something else... then surely these magical machines that can supposedly replace us and do it much faster would've handled it by now? And they wouldn't introduce more bugs[0], would they? ;)

0: https://www.0xsid.com/blog/meta-account-takeover-fiasco

These are machines, not humans, so I don't understand the comparison. The point of tech advancement is that we eliminate entire classes of errors that humans make. You'd probably look at me funny if I wrote a production application that failed randomly in unexpected ways like corrupting data, opening security holes, etc. then explained it away with "well, humans do it too!"

What the Ladybird maintainers did here was messy and a punch in the gut to actual contributors who liked the project and the openness of it. There was no effort to shore things up, just a boilerplate message from a maintainer account then closing of your PR. Of course, Ladybird maintainers have no obligation to outside contributors but it shows a lack of grace nonetheless.

Reading between the lines, there seems to have been a stark shift in attitude from Andreas which is concerning. Ladybird started from SerenityOS (a hobby OS) and he always encouraged everyone to submit a patch. Sure, LLMs have increased the amount of slop PRs, but I feel like those are easy to spot and close accordingly. I don't have links handy, but maintainers would point to a section about AI usage in their CONTRIBUTING.md then close the PR whenever obvious slop was submitted. This idea that people "own" the code they contribute is strange to me; the code would be determined worthy of acceptance at review time, why does someone have to "own" it?

All that is to say: I think there's much darker things going on here and AI+security is a nice scapegoat. Time will tell, but this reeks of a rugpull in the future. Disappointing day.