<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: smoppi</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=smoppi</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2026 17:54:08 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=smoppi" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by smoppi in "Ask HN: Why is the HN crowd so anti-AI?"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>There is no such thing as an "AI". It's just a marketing term for so-called neural networks (that supposedly emulate a brain) running large language models. They don't have intelligence, they are merely guessing machines. They can generate sentences and fake images and videos. We shouldn't be wasting gigawatts of computing energy to run these things.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2026 22:51:26 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48429841</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48429841</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48429841</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by smoppi in "Sami Tikkanen Explains Rust Language and Its Goals"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It's now been about five years since I heard about the Rust programming language for the first time. It was when I was starting to write an operating system in C and the "Rust people" (as they seem to often refer to themselves, which should already be a red flag) told me that I should write it in Rust. (Later, they have several times told me to <i>re</i>write it in Rust.) Rust is "memory safe", which in the context of Rust means that the whole language is designed in such way that it is impossible to have memory-related bugs in programs that are written in Rust.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2025 18:27:58 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43415627</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43415627</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43415627</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[Sami Tikkanen Explains Rust Language and Its Goals]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Article URL: <a href="https://techrights.org/n/2025/03/19/Sami_Tikkanen_Explains_on_Rust_Language_and_Its_Goals.shtml">https://techrights.org/n/2025/03/19/Sami_Tikkanen_Explains_on_Rust_Language_and_Its_Goals.shtml</a></p>
<p>Comments URL: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43415626">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43415626</a></p>
<p>Points: 2</p>
<p># Comments: 1</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2025 18:27:58 +0000</pubDate><link>https://techrights.org/n/2025/03/19/Sami_Tikkanen_Explains_on_Rust_Language_and_Its_Goals.shtml</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43415626</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43415626</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by smoppi in "The UEFI hype and Microsoft's lies"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>More than a year ago I wrote a document that I named "UEFI fact sheet". The purpose was to create a more truthful counterpart to a similarly named document which the UEFI forum was spreading on various Internet sites. For a long time my document was the first search result on most search engines when searching for "UEFI fact sheet". Recently I noticed that Bing (which is owned and maintained by Microsoft) had put my document to the second page of search results, and the first result now points to a disinformation document that is published by the UEFI forum.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 09:47:53 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43264745</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43264745</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43264745</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[The UEFI hype and Microsoft's lies]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Article URL: <a href="http://techrights.org/n/2025/03/03/The_UEFI_hype_and_Microsoft_s_lies.shtml">http://techrights.org/n/2025/03/03/The_UEFI_hype_and_Microsoft_s_lies.shtml</a></p>
<p>Comments URL: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43264724">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43264724</a></p>
<p>Points: 2</p>
<p># Comments: 1</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 09:45:18 +0000</pubDate><link>http://techrights.org/n/2025/03/03/The_UEFI_hype_and_Microsoft_s_lies.shtml</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43264724</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43264724</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by smoppi in "ST-DOS"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>ST-DOS is a DOS implementation, but it is not meant to be a clone of MS-DOS. It is mostly syscall-compatible with MS-DOS, but the driver API and many other things are completely different. After all the definition of DOS is just "disk operating system".<p>All real mode programs that are compiled with Watcom C/C++ should work. The most recent versions of Watcom's protected mode runtime don't currently work, because they use some undocumented MS-DOS syscalls that are not implemented in ST-DOS. I intend to create a compatibility TSR that will solve most issues with those MS-DOS programs.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:41:49 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39852180</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39852180</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39852180</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by smoppi in "Web Environment Integrity API Proposal"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>>I was there too. People always say this, but just because a thing changed once does not mean it will happen again.<p>The problem is that the web standards have now grown so much that it is impossible to write a complete new web browser from scratch<i>. Firefox is not coming back, because Mozilla seems to prioritize other things than code quality and the actual usability of their software.<p></i>And yes, I know that the SerenityOS developers are trying to do it, but while some very advanced things work "good enough" in their browser so that Twitter and Discord's web client works to some extent, the more basic things are so broken that their browser cannot even render basic HTML 3.2 sites properly.<p>Google's end goal is probably to "deprecate" HTTP 1.x and force everyone into using their own replacement for the protocol. Their protocol is going to be like the thing they call "HTTP2", an insanely complex protocol that is impossible to implement by a small developer team. In the end their own protocol becomes a "rolling release" protocol that only works with Google's own app, at which point they can completely stop releasing RFCs for it.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 22 Jul 2023 19:32:33 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36829074</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36829074</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36829074</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by smoppi in "Acer Aspire E15 and its firmware problems (unable to boot other OS than Windows)"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The text was too long, so I had to put it in pastebin.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2023 06:17:19 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35243043</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35243043</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35243043</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[Acer Aspire E15 and its firmware problems (unable to boot other OS than Windows)]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Article URL: <a href="https://pastebin.com/9UZFK0fd">https://pastebin.com/9UZFK0fd</a></p>
<p>Comments URL: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35243042">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35243042</a></p>
<p>Points: 2</p>
<p># Comments: 1</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2023 06:17:19 +0000</pubDate><link>https://pastebin.com/9UZFK0fd</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35243042</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35243042</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by smoppi in "Why HTTP without encryption and self-signed sertificates are OK"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>> Non-corporate-supported browsers might transition to being more friendly to this process instead of the unhelpful and scary SSL warnings provided now.<p>That's exactly what I would like to see happening. The current warnings make no sense and they only make security worse.<p>Browsers are not different from any other applications at this.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2022 13:40:37 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837026</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837026</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837026</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by smoppi in "Why HTTP without encryption and self-signed sertificates are OK"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>When I'm talking about "lookalike domains", I mean domain names that look exactly the same. It is simply not possible with 7-bit ASCII.<p>A self-signed certificate can also be used to make sure that the connection is private. Sometimes the private key may have leaked and then the certificate can be "trusted" without being private - though it's easier to just register a lookalike domain and a certificate for it than have a leaked private key.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2022 13:34:49 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32836962</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32836962</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32836962</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by smoppi in "Why HTTP without encryption and self-signed sertificates are OK"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Clearly it is not suggesting anything like that. You misunderstood it on purpose.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2022 13:20:25 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32836781</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32836781</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32836781</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by smoppi in "Why HTTP without encryption and self-signed sertificates are OK"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I am living in reality. I don't want to limit the user's freedom. Sometimes people have to learn the hard way, but the other option (giving away your freedoms) is always worse.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2022 13:19:18 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32836762</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32836762</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32836762</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by smoppi in "Why HTTP without encryption and self-signed sertificates are OK"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>1: You can always use a stronger encryption. You don't have to use decades-old encryption that has already been compromised.<p>2: So clearly in this case the route wasn't trusted. The encryption was however used correctly, but the users were ignorant and continued using the service even after the certificate suddenly changed.<p>3: Intranets are vulnerable only if there is untrusted devices in the network.<p>As I wrote, encryption is a good thing and improves security when used correctly, but all software must respect the user's choices. Nothing can fix stupidity and ignorance.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2022 11:01:14 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32822717</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32822717</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32822717</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[Why HTTP without encryption and self-signed sertificates are OK]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Article URL: <a href="http://sininenankka.dy.fi/~sami/httpencryption.txt">http://sininenankka.dy.fi/~sami/httpencryption.txt</a></p>
<p>Comments URL: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32820722">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32820722</a></p>
<p>Points: 37</p>
<p># Comments: 46</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2022 04:45:13 +0000</pubDate><link>http://sininenankka.dy.fi/~sami/httpencryption.txt</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32820722</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32820722</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by smoppi in "Show HN: My 486 Server"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>After the OOM handler had halted everything the 10:th time, I finally decided to do something (at least the kernel and the TCP/IP stack seem to be very stable, because it still did not crash!)<p>I set the maximum amount of sockets to 32, the maximum amount of file handles of the DOS kernel to 40, and the maximum amount of file descriptors per one VPU process to 40. Now it should (maybe) be able to do its work without randomly running out of memory.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:18:42 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29979458</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29979458</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29979458</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by smoppi in "Show HN: An HelloWorld x86-Bootloader"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>A hello world for an IBM PC compatible does not require much. Sadly UEFI has made everything exponentially more complex. If you want to be more minimalistic, this also works with if the BIOS is newer than 1/10/86 (written in NASM syntax):<p>[org 0x7c00]  ; code offset<p>xor dx, dx  ; row 0, col 0<p>mov ds, dx  ; set data segment to 0<p>mov ax, 0x1300  ; ah = 0x13 (write string), al = 0x00 (write mode)<p>mov bx, 0x0007  ; bh = video page number (0), bl = attribute byte<p>mov cx, 11  ; string len: 11 bytes<p>mov es, dx  ; ES:BP = pointer to string<p>mov bp, message<p>int 0x10  ; interrupt 0x10<p>end:   ; do nothing to prevent crashing<p>jmp end                 ; (cli & hlt also works)<p>message: db "Hello world"<p>times 0x01FE-($-$$) db 0 ; padding<p>dw 0xAA55  ; boot sector signature</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2022 14:04:47 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29966630</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29966630</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29966630</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by smoppi in "Show HN: My 486 Server"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I recorded that video from a computer that is connected to the same ethernet hub as the 486 server.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2022 04:51:55 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29963442</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29963442</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29963442</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by smoppi in "Show HN: My 486 Server"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Yes. I wrote a special mouse driver that hooks to the keyboard interrupt and makes it possible to use the numpad keys as a "mouse". Sadly most DOS programs seem to replace the BIOS's keyboard interrupt handler with their own, so my driver does not work with them.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2022 04:49:51 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29963429</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29963429</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29963429</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by smoppi in "Show HN: My 486 Server"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It consumes about 30 watts.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2022 04:45:53 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29963410</link><dc:creator>smoppi</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29963410</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29963410</guid></item></channel></rss>