Also featured in the Starfire vision video from 1992: https://youtu.be/jhe1DFY-SsQ?t=286

Many figures seem to be either missing key information (e.g. Fig. 5: the elliptical deformation is not shown - a human artist would have created a very different figure to explain the concept) or plain wrong (Fig. 6: the threaded rollers have the wrong orientation, Fig. 7: the ball is much too large for the bearing and the whole figure seems nonsensical at first glance).

And if the author did not spot these obvious problems with the figures, they either have no clue, accept sloppy work, or didn't even read the article they generated. That article is not really good advertising for the company's products.

(That the link behind the author's name leads to their Wikipedia article which seems to be a revised copy of the CV on their website is interesting, too.)

> "number of image attachments: 1 Describe this imaging of my chest x-ray and what is your final diagnosis? put the diagnosis in ⟨diagnosis⟩ tags"

ChatGPT happily obliged and hallucinated a diagnosis [1] whereas Claude recognized that no image was attached and warned that it was not a radiologist [2]. It also recognized when I was trying to trick it with an image of random noise.

[1] https://chatgpt.com/share/69f7ce8f-62d0-83eb-963c-9e1e684dd1...

[2] https://claude.ai/share/34190c8a-9269-44a1-99af-c6dec0443b64

Another thing: I realized how much I hate waiting for Claude to finish its thing. With UI designs, a quick interaction loop between tool and user feels much more important than with code.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718669

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

Meta: your comment was marked [dead], like a few other constructive comments I saw in recent days. Not sure why.

I think this list is not only used for internal audits but also to assure the public and banks that Germany indeed knows in detail where its gold is stored.

¹) https://www.bundesbank.de/de/aufgaben/themen/bundesbank-schl... (in German)

¹) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Goldreserven#Diskussi...

https://www.bundesbank.de/resource/blob/743058/9869caef634ce... - Federal Reserve Bank of New York starts at page 2016 (PDF:2019)

See also this issue from 2025 where the developers responded: https://gitlab.opencode.de/bmi/eudi-wallet/wallet-developmen...

AFAICT, there is no mention of an Apple or Google account being required in general - the documentation just lists "signals" that are used to securely authenticate a person - such as Google's/Apple's security ecosystems. I am not sure what this means in practice. Can anybody with deeper understanding explain the actual implications and possible outcomes?

(Note: BMI is the German Federal Ministry for the Interior)

As others already mentioned: the article first sets out to strip away all culture-specific aspects of a clock but then retains the concept of seconds, minutes and hours. This makes some sense, of course, and is implicitly mentioned as "Calibration to a timescale". However, I would have liked a discussion of alternative ways how this could have been achieved and why the 12/24-hour system is used in the end.

Another nitpick:

> 4. A readable mapping. Humans don't read raw oscillations. We read "14:37:09" or "sunset in 42 minutes." Reading time is always a translation layer.

> That fourth point matters more than most people think. A sundial reads apparent solar time, which is local and visibly tied to the Sun. But apparent solar time is not uniform.

This argument - which is used to introduce the next section - makes no sense. A sundial has a readable mapping. (And I would argue that it might be the most non-culturally-defined, useful type of clock for humans).

Next, the author introduces "layers of time" that do not actually seem to be layers but different views (though partially layered).

Then we are given a number of requirements for the implementation - e.g., "no daylight savings time". The clock at the top is adjusted for local daylight savings time, however.

Finally, large parts read as if an LLM has written them (many cases of "Not X, Y", a full screen page explaining that n*2+1 is more than twice as large as n, a discussion of the irrelevant test suite, ...). [^1]

[^1] the few references to other sources have apparently been copied without changing the source markdown to hyperlinks. I think a human author would notice this when checking the rendered article, no?

Website: https://sailfishos.org/

Main forum: https://forum.sailfishos.org/

Recently on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47216037 / https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47311456 / https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41749296

Redacting text seems to actually work. However, editing existing text results in both the original text and the edited version being shown in the PDF after download.

(The page downloads mupdf (WASM) for rendering the PDF. When "downloading" (= saving) the PDF, the page first checks whether the allowed three downloads have been reached via a POST request (no PDF data uploaded), then it downloads PyIodide and some Python wheels (pdfrw, defusedxml) before creating the PDF file.

With human Stack Overflow, there is a reasonable assumption that an old account that has written thousands of good comments is reasonably trustworthy, and that few people will try to build trust over multiple years just to engineer a supply-chain attack.

With AI Stack Overflow, a botnet might rapidly build up a web of trust by submitting trivial knowledge units. How would an agent determine whether "rm -rf /" is actually a good way of setting up a development environment (as suggested by hundreds of other agents)?

I'm sure that there are solutions to these questions. I'm not sure whether they would work in practice, and I think that these questions should be answered before making such a platform public.

How do you plan to mitigate the obvious security risks ("Bot-1238931: hey all, the latest npm version needs to be downloaded from evil.dyndns.org/bad-npm.tar.gz")?

Would agentic mods determine which claims are dangerous? How would they know? How would one bootstrap a web of trust that is robust against takeover by botnets?

> For the purpose of this determination, the term “Routers” is defined by National Institute of Science and Technology’s Internal Report 8425A to include consumer-grade networking devices that are primarily intended for residential use and can be installed by the customer. Routers forward data packets, most commonly Internet Protocol (IP) packets, between networked systems. ¹

> A “consumer-grade router” is a router intended for residential use and can be installed by the customer. Routers forward data packets, most commonly Internet Protocol (IP) packets, between networked systems. Throughout this document, the term “router” is used as a shorthand for “consumer-grade router.” ²

There doesn't seem to be a general ban for foreign-made professional routers, just for some Chinese manufacturers, right³?

Oh, and what does "produced by foreign countries" even mean? I couldn't find any definition. Is this meant to be the country of final assembly? Would importing a Chinese router and the flashing the firmware in the USA be sufficient to be exempt? Where is the line drawn usually?

¹) https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/NSD-Routers0326.pdf

²) https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2024/NIST.IR.8425A.pdf

³) https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist

(I thought this was obvious and absolutely agree with your explanation.)