They raised $17M to build what appears to be solvable by some git wrapper scripts that could have been written by AI in 5 minutes?

To me the extra "wat" about this is that if I spend the sub-$1 to get the git wrapper scripts, I can get them exactly the way I want them, instead of being mandated to use the commands they made up. A huge gain for AI is the ability to have exactly the software you personally want, even if nobody else wants it just so.

So they are building the exact opposite of the need that AI brings forward. What they are building is not even median software that is in danger of being replaced (e.g. see Cloudflare spending a week to build "a wordpress"), but something that's the most extreme example of AI-will-replace-this that could possibly exist.

Who will buy this?

The only way this makes sense is as a plea for being acqui-hired (and the project dropped).

> Sounds like ipv6 is a good solution for people who choose ISPs with CGNat.

I mean… this is just "not even wrong".

> Is it just CGNat on poor ISPs?

I already said no to this.

Look, like I said, you appear to be unaware of so much about everything about the Internet, running an ISP, running a service provider, corporate networks, ISP-customer relationships, small businesses, BGP viable policies, cloud economics, etc… that it's hard to know where to even start. And while HN is great for some things, HN comments are just not suitable for something that is shaped more like a course or internship. This can't even be described as "gaps" in your knowledge.

I'm put off by your confidence without the knowledge, and of course also by your implication that if you have CGNat then you should have just worked a little harder to not be so poor, to pay a better ISP, or you should move to a more expensive place where other ISP options exist. Of course ignoring that this doesn't scale to the population at all, and extra address bits are very relevant to scaling.

I'm struggling to assume good faith on your question, since it's so strange. I feel like I need to start from scratch explaining the internet, since asking this question reveals a lack of knowledge about everything networking.

seccomp could only do this partially, in that there are other avenues (e.g. io_uring), and I want it to be the case throughout the boot process.

That addresses all of your concerns, and you have that option.

Yes, I hate it too.

Put yourself in the position of the employee on the other side. They currently have 647 bugs in their backlog. And they also have actual work to do that's not even related to these bugs.

You come to work. Over night there's 369 emails (after many filters have been applied), 27 new bugs (14 of which are against a previous version). You triage. If you think 8h is enough to deal with 369 emails (67 of which are actionable. But which 67?) and actually close 27 bugs, then… well then you'd be assigned another 82 bugs and get put on email lists for advisory committees.

Before you jump to "why don't they just…", you should stop yourself and acknowledge that this in an unsolved problem. Ignore them, let them pile up? That's not a solution? Close them? No! It's still a problem! Ask you to verify it (and implicitly confirm that you still care)? That's… a bit better actually.

"Just hire more experts"… experts who are skilled enough, yet happy to work all day trying to reproduce these bugs? Sure, you can try. But it's extremely not a "why don't they just…".

It's not a requirement for a contract to be written by a lawyer, any more than a python script needs to be written by a professional coder. But in both cases the result tends to have problems. (skipping here how LLMs fit into this)

The way in which scripts and contracts can be "fixed" later are different, with no clever sound byte about just how these apples are different from oranges.

If you want to follow Vaclav Havel's "Living in truth", then I commend you for it. But that's always a legal risk, and we're no longer talking about the law.

That's why your analogy doesn't work.

This is a terrible take. All it takes is a litigious jerk, and you could get bankrupt. And that jerk will be legally in the right.

Did you see the actual lawyer saying they don't know what it means?

The dumbest person can be right, but as a lawyer, your guess is much better.

I don't cede the law. It's just that if I find this unclear, then J Random Hn commenter's opinion wouldn't reduce my risk.

I won't be acting based on your opinion either, of course, but the quality of your reply is clearly in a different class from the other two.

I've heard of large organizations reaching out to places who use amateur T&Cs and licenses, saying "if we give you $X, can you dual license this as MIT, Apache, BSD, or hell anything standard?".

> Access is not conditioned on approval

Is this obvious enough legalese to not waste tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees if you get sued?

Note before you reply: I will not argue with you about how obvious it is. If you are actually a lawyer then it'd be interesting to hear your guidance, which I very much understand is not legal advice. If you're not a lawyer then I'm not.

> I have decided to move as many services and subscriptions as possible from non-EU countries to the EU or to switch to European service providers. The reasons for this are the current global political situation and improved data protection.

"or switch to European service providers". EU or not, CH is still in Europe, so would qualify?

I don't believe there's anybody who can reason about them at code skimming speeds. It's probably the best place to hide underhanded code.

I don't know why you're trying to explain an outcome that is opposite of the observed outcome.

Are you saying that while more money is correlated with less fertility (the fact), that somehow even more money will reverse the trend and start going the other way?

Based on observed data, one could almost make the case that if only billionaires start stealing from the poor even more, then birth rates should go up.

> The fact is, most of the freedom I had before kids, I never used.

That just seems like close to the definition of freedom. I have the freedom to go outside right now and eat dirt. I've never used it.

If you didn't do something then I guess you didn't want to, more than the things you did choose to do instead.

The only way you'd have enough life to do "most" of the things you'd be free to do, is if you're not free to do but a tiny thing.

> See what I did there?

Yup. Made no sense at all, is what. A UAE passport makes you free to visit 181 countries either visa free or visa-on-arrival. It's still freedom even if you don't take the time to visit all 181 countries.

It's not even an interesting paradox. It's just an obvious part of freedom.

Most people don't visit more than 35 countries. An Afghanistan passport gives you access to 35 countries.

First of all, I said one million people, not 38 million people.

But second (no pun intended), this waste of human life doesn't just aggregate across people, but also for multiple offenders one any one particular victim.

A second on this website, a second on that site, a 10 second "loading" animation screen on a blog. It adds up. It adds up to all individual users actually wasting their life and productivity.

Your implication that it's fine to willfully waste a second from a million people is either not understanding what "a million people" means, or a borderline psychopathic disregard for other people.

You can also throw your trash on the ground, because really, is the city measurably worse off just because of you throwing just two candy wrappers in the park once a day? If someone accidentally drops trash, or makes a slow website because they don't have skill or time to make it faster, then that's a completely different matter.

But yes, in fact if this page succeeds then it's wasting human life on things as productive as spam phone calls. People have solved the latter by simply not answering for unknown numbers.

Not sure what you mean by "fatalistic". To the point where I'm not sure that's the word you mean. It's fatalistic as in fate. Maybe you mean morbid?

Standing in line at the DMV is also all "counting flowers on the wall, that don't bother me at all"? But even at the DMV it's (hopefully) not done maliciously.

> cosmetic inconveniences

Sometimes things suck. That's not remotely as frustrating as knowing that someone went out of their way to make your life worse.

> is it really that big of a deal? Surely not.

If we capped all laptop CPUs to 600MHz, would it really be that big of a deal? Maybe they did it because of the acoustic preference of not needing to spin the fans as much, and therefore you are not allowed faster CPUs?