And, btw, great infographics within the post.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43002053

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

While I don't have any answers to this, I've realized that it's an ideal showcase of why fuzzy testing is useful.

> SHA-2 family of hashes was designed to be fast. BCrypt was designed to be slow.

Slow == harder to brute-force == more secure.

It's great to hear that Zig covered both cases. However, I'd still prefer the opposite behavior: a safe (without truncation) default `bcrypt()` and the unsafe function with the explicit name `bcryptWithTruncation()`.

My opinion is based on the assumption that the majority of the users will go with the `bcrypt()` option. Having AI "helpers" might make this statistic even worse.

Do you happen to know Zig team's reasoning behind this design choice? I'm really curious.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42955176

Points: 377

# Comments: 166

- OpenAI created their models by parsing the internet by disregarding the copyrights, licenses, etc., or looking for a law loopholes

- by doing that, OpenAI (alongside others) developed a new progressive tool that is shaping the world, and seems to be the next “internet”-like (impact-wise) thing

- NYT is not happy about that, as their content is their main asset

- less democratic countries, can apply even less ethical practices for data mining, as the copyright laws don't work there, so one might claim that it's a question of national defense, considering the fact that AI is actively used in the miltech these days

- while the ethical part is less controversial (imho, as I'm with NYT there), the legal one is more complicated: the laws might simply say nothing about this use case (think GPL vs. AGPL license), so the world might need new ones.

And so on...

> What is anti-competitive tho, is stuff like Apple Music and Spotify, where spotify has to pay 30% cut to apple while apple music doesnt have to pay anything.

Yeah, that's why the monopoly is rarely a good idea for the customers, in my opinion.

While the unsatisfied employees are the target, my observations indicate that a high percentage of active and skilled people are willing to take this offer, as they are sure that they will find a new place within a reasonable time, so it's basically, free money. And those are the people that the company should try to keep as much as it could. While the "give me a task with the perfect description, and I will do it" folks will stay until they are kicked out, as, usually, they are not up to taking the initiative.

That's why I saw how the companies that were changing the rules in the process: "well, it's an offer, but your manager needs to approve that first", and other tricks to be able to reject it for the top performers. Needless to say, it leads to the bad moral.

However, the companies I'm mentioning had way fewer employees than the federal workforce, so the chances are that with that size it's impossible to do it the "right" way.

> a team that will not run out of money and sell my data

While "not run out of money" is true, the "sell my data" part is not given. For example, in 2023 Google sold its domains business (https://domains.google/) to Squarespace. Also, while not directly selling your data, they might sell the outcomes of your data in a form of ads or AI models, for example. I believe that can objectively bother some people.

Another point: this is the way to build a monopoly, or a global dominance on the market, and then dictate the rules. I see that stories about some Big Tech monopoly controversial moves are often quite popular on HN, as those situations resonate with many tech enthusiasts.

As for the rest of the point, I agree with you, that a free, high-quality, and decent service is a benefit for us, consumers, over another subscription. I still feel sorry for small bootstrapped services. But that's my subjective feeling, I'm aware of that.

- I'm glad to see this, as it might be an easily accessible alternative to Facebook events, which I tend to miss as I'm checking my FB only once in a while

- on the other hand, each new Apple release adds apps that might kill some small start-ups that are offering similar services for the small fee. Having a free alternative on your phone out of the box with most of your contacts using will lead to a decent number of subscriptions' cancellations. A good lesson to build smth that is harder to reproduce, though...

I did a short experiment by trying to build an app with Cursor in the stack and domain I know nothing about. I got it to the first stage, and it was cool. But the app kept crashing once in a while with the memory issues, and my AI friend kept coming up with solutions that didn't help, but made the code more and more overengineered and harder to navigate. I'd feel sorry for those who'd need to maintain tools like this on stages like the one I described. Maybe that's the state of future start-ups out there?

For example, the city I live in has access to the sea. Which means that there are plenty of seagulls and another type of bird that looks similar but has a slightly larger size (not sure about its name). However, I can observe that many of them are searching for food not in the sea, but rather in the trash bins quite far from the sea, in front of McDonald's and other fast food places, where they can steal the food from the hand of the person leaving the building.

This gives me a hint that their behavior changed quite a lot due to the new conditions they live in. Is the same possible with the mussels that the "mussels are well known for clamping their shells shut when water quality is poor" fact might change within a short time? Or does it take generations to evolve like that?