<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: purkka</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=purkka</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2026 10:24:31 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=purkka" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "Moving beyond fork() + exec()"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Nope, the kernel can load static ELF binaries. ld.so is only needed for dynamically linked binaries, and in fact many Go applications (for example, as they're statically linked) ship as containers with nothing but the single binary.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2026 20:47:24 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48428860</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48428860</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48428860</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "The user is visibly frustrated"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I've found this to be effective as well. Claude generally immediately identifies the stupid code pattern it used and tries to fix it (with somewhat varying results).</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 10:43:45 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48277843</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48277843</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48277843</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "Cooling copper plates could slash data center energy use by 90%"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>90% of 30% of total energy use. So, actually 27%. What a title.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 18:46:42 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48212218</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48212218</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48212218</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "/e/OS is a complete, fully “deGoogled” mobile ecosystem"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I wonder how this compares to GrapheneOS in practice.<p>>Operated by Murena, your Murena Workspace account @murena.io is at the centre of the ecosystem, allowing to store, back up and retrieve your data safely on remote servers.<p>This sounds like their version is somewhat married to Murena. While probably better than Google, still not independent.<p>They're also advertising features such as "hiding your IP address [...] when you feel like it" – which sounds a lot like a VPN – without mentioning much about who the traffic is going through or how they might log it.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2026 09:51:49 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47215807</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47215807</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47215807</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "Euro firms must ditch Uncle Sam's clouds and go EU-native"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The Europeans have already cooperated with Americans so that each could read each other's citizens' private messaging which would be illegal for the locals.<p>Keeping the data overseas by design would just make this easier.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trojan_Shield" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trojan_Shield</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:06:39 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46836338</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46836338</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46836338</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "Why 451 Is Good for You – Greylisting Perspectives from the Early Noughties"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Greylisting is great until it delays your email login/signup verification codes for 20 minutes. Especially if they expire in 15.<p>I guess this only shows how email is used for entirely orthogonal purposes now.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 03 Jan 2026 10:07:14 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46474842</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46474842</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46474842</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "Rainbow Six Siege hacked as players get billions of credits and random bans"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Per the tweet linked in the article there were <i>also</i> random bans in addition to the ban feed shitposting.<p><a href="https://x.com/KingGeorge/status/2004902566434668686" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/KingGeorge/status/2004902566434668686</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 27 Dec 2025 22:56:09 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46406277</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46406277</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46406277</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "Log level 'error' should mean that something needs to be fixed"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Python has LiteralString for this exact purpose. It's only on the type checker level, but type checking should be part of most modern Python workflows anyway. I've seen DB libraries use this a lot for SQL parameters.<p><a href="https://typing.python.org/en/latest/spec/literal.html#literalstring" rel="nofollow">https://typing.python.org/en/latest/spec/literal.html#litera...</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 21 Dec 2025 09:36:26 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46343517</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46343517</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46343517</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "Unofficial "Tier 4" Rust Target for older Windows versions"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It does, especially at the scale of operating systems.<p>Bugs and vulnerabilities are always being found, with fewer and fewer people in the pool that might even theoretically want to pay for fixing them.<p>Also, hardware <i>does</i> deteriorate, and the story is the same for adding software support for whatever is currently available in hardware.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 13:07:39 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45965210</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45965210</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45965210</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "Grok 4 Fast"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Based on the various benchmarks linked here and in the OP, the name feels justifiable. "Mini" models tend to be a lot worse compared to the base model than this one seems to be.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2025 09:53:52 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45311905</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45311905</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45311905</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "The untold impact of cancellation"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>> Are you aware that here you are arguing for criminal sanctions on the order of 10 years in prison, for writing a letter?<p>It's about writing a letter that can result in someone else receiving criminal sanctions on the order of 10 years in prison, when that someone might not have even written a letter.<p><i>Provably false</i> is essential here.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2025 13:52:06 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44756844</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44756844</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44756844</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "JOVE – Jonathan’s Own Version of Emacs"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>> Unlike GNU Emacs, JOVE does not support UTF-8.<p>If this is still true in the latest versions, I find it pretty amazing that something like this has been maintained all the way until 2023.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2025 20:55:09 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44629235</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44629235</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44629235</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "Debian bookworm live images now reproducible"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Generally, yes: <a href="https://reproducible-builds.org/docs/timestamps/" rel="nofollow">https://reproducible-builds.org/docs/timestamps/</a><p>Since the build is reproducible, it should not matter when it was built. If you want to trace a build back to its source, there are much better ways than a timestamp.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2025 17:40:28 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43484689</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43484689</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43484689</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "Ask HN: How did the internet discover my subdomain?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>"Security through obscurity" can definitely be defined in a meaningful way.<p>The opposite of "bad security through obscurity" is using completely public and standard mechanisms/protocols/algorithms such as TLS, PGP or pin tumbler locks. The security then comes from the keys and other secrets, which are chosen from the space permitted by the mechanism with sufficient entropy or other desirable properties.<p>The line is drawn between obscuring the mechanism, which is designed to have measurable security properties (cryptographic strength, enumeration prevention, lock security pins), and obscuring the keys that are essentially just random hidden information.<p>Obscuring the mechanism provides some security as well, sure, but a public mechanism can be publicly verified to provide security based only on secret keys.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 15:38:50 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43291016</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43291016</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43291016</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "Sherlock: Hunt down social media accounts by username across 400 social networks"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>This is a Gmail-specific feature. I'd guess it's there for user convenience and some protection against typos (accidental or malicious).<p><a href="https://support.google.com/mail/answer/7436150?hl=en" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/mail/answer/7436150?hl=en</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 26 Dec 2024 10:47:02 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42514400</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42514400</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42514400</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "Museum of Bad Art"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Came across this today. Especially the collection highlights on Wikipedia [0] really made my day.<p>[0]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Bad_Art#Collection_highlights" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Bad_Art#Collection_h...</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2024 00:09:20 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42168504</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42168504</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42168504</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[Museum of Bad Art]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Article URL: <a href="https://museumofbadart.org/">https://museumofbadart.org/</a></p>
<p>Comments URL: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42168503">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42168503</a></p>
<p>Points: 207</p>
<p># Comments: 138</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2024 00:09:20 +0000</pubDate><link>https://museumofbadart.org/</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42168503</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42168503</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "Malicious SHA-1 (2014)"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>> The case I was making, is that weakhash(stronghash(m)) has the security of weakhash, no matter how strong stronghash is.<p>I'll have to disagree. There are no known collision attacks against SHA-1(SHA-3(M)), so in the applied case, a combination can be more secure for some properties, even if it isn't in the theoretical case.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2024 17:21:22 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41673207</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41673207</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41673207</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "Malicious SHA-1 (2014)"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>> H0(H1(m)) has the security of just H0. Hashes are not made to protect the content of m, but instead made to test the integrity of m. As such, a flaw in H0 will break the security guarantee, no matter how secure H1 is.<p>But this isn't true for all flaws. For example, even with the collision attacks against SHA-1, I don't think they're even remotely close to enabling a collision for SHA-1(some_other_hash(M)).<p>Similarly, HMAC-SHA-1 is still considered secure, as it's effectively SHA-1-X(SHA-1-Y(M)), where SHA-1-X and SHA-1-Y are just SHA-1 with different starting states.<p>So there's some value to be found in nesting hashes.<p>[1]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAC#Definition" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAC#Definition</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2024 12:17:31 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41669534</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41669534</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41669534</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by purkka in "GitHub was down"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I have to wonder how a company at the scale of GitHub can be so bad at keeping track of their status.<p>Now 4 out of 10 services are marked as "Incident", yet most of the others are also completely dead.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2024 23:16:50 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41251579</link><dc:creator>purkka</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41251579</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41251579</guid></item></channel></rss>