Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49641502

Points: 4

# Comments: 1

> Because our legs are positioned slightly more forward, our quads both absorb the shock of stepping and spring our bodies back upward. This more energy efficient gait may give men an advantage over long distances. Because they were constrained by the demands of childbirth, women’s pelvises weren’t able to develop these modifications, researchers say.

However, the study, available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-59915-8 only states:

> The shock-absorbing device seems to benefit modern males, mainly in long-distance walking.

followed by:

> Regardless of whether this exchange confers a net advantage in long-distance walking, it requires empirical testing, like everything that we propose here.

So the conclusion seems to be that this may confer advantages in long-distance walking. Long-distance is not explicitly defined either.

Regardless, it's mind-blowing to think that Neanderthal males had the same pelvis bone structure as modern women.

Well, doesn't every tool? The devil is in the details of just how easy it is to use correctly versus incorrectly, and what are the consequences if it's not used correctly. A tool that, when used as its manufacturer advises, fails as often as most AI systems do has no place in systems where peoples' health and safety can be harmed.

But I'm guessing you have more of a FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) kind of problem, which admittedly I don't have. However, you could look at something using RSS, maybe in combination with an agent told to find and show articles based on some heuristics.

Personally, I'm OK with missing something. If it's good, I figure it'll surface somewhere else and impinge on my notice sooner or later.

The obvious counterpoint is the large number of complaints about OpenAI's excessively sycophantic models back in April 2026, which led to them rolling back to a previous and less sycophantic model. I think there are those who are susceptible to model sycophancy, but it's definitely not most users. I have a vague, half-formed intuition that many of those susceptible to sycophancy are those who use AI for non-technical, non-work uses, such as inter-personal relationship questions.

As for me, as soon as I see any hint of sycophancy in a response I either stop what I'm doing or I tell the model to stop being an idiot.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49108358

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

One that I trot out periodically as an example of this is a CVE that would only be exploitable if running on an IBM s390 with EBCDIC codepages. Our security team nevertheless wanted it patched, because Qualys said it was a vulnerability.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48738802

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48738736

Points: 7

# Comments: 0

https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48307572

Points: 5

# Comments: 0

Many do, but not all. One of the hats I wear at work is mail server administrator, and it's astonishing the number of spam and phish attempts using our company domains that I see from all over the world, all of which bounce off due to SPF.

I've noticed too in recent years that some phishing spammers seek out established domains with liberal SPF (either no SPF or ~all) and use those for their phishing attempts. Some of the most common I've seen, ones that stuck in my mind, were secure.net, yale.edu, and servermail.com.

A point I have to reiterate to colleagues over and over is that SPF and DKIM are a form of identity management for domains. They're designed for phishing prevention, not general spam prevention. If you register a domain for any purpose, the first thing you should do, in my opinion, is stick a "v=spf1 -all" in DNS for it. Otherwise, phishing spammers may ruin its reputation before you get a chance to use it.

Oh very much so! In my mind, it seems that someone must have figured out what the universe was for, and now it's been replaced with something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47874213

Points: 3

# Comments: 0