Your phrasing is illuminating that perhaps they aren't engaged in the creation, understanding, or integration of these proofs by humanity; they just have them. For them, this is a slidedeck they can pass to investors, creditors, the marketing department. Something they can add to the employee onboarding pamphlet.

What should they do? Hyperbolic maybe, but perhaps engage with humanity.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Naively I would expect solutions out of Mainland China to be more sophisticated due to the internet restrictions within the country and the number of people who are digitally-connected.

But perhaps they cover for usecases one doesn't see outside the gfw.

That means "the platform" itself is actually teaching people to work "off platform" and arguably will always have gaps as functionality and expectations evolve.

Admittedly, the habit really ought to be 'I need to make a combobox -> does the platform have what I need? -> Research, evaluate, test -> Otherwise, make it' but I don't begrudge people for skipping the middle steps.

Is this still true, or has it become a truism? It seems nations like Iran and China (and events like Kashmir come to mind) have progressed the state-of-the-art and playbook to where we can't actually say it definitively will route around it.

Now seeing that the US and EU are flirting with these similar restrictions it's making me wonder how we'll be able to keep hold of these principles.

Maybe my concern with that adage is ultimately its passive voice, since it takes 'active' action by people to give us those options, and will probably take more actions by more people to keep it alive now.

From his Kernel Recipes 2026 slide on Mythos

```

  Mythos's 79 vulnerabilities:
  24 - no detail at all "something crashed"
  14 - not a bug at all
  3 - totally made up data
  15 - already fixed in latest release
    - 11 by others
    - 4 by anthropic
  20 - fixes were needed
    - 7 "assume a malicious filesystem image"
    - 2 "assume you can inject a malicious network packet into the middle of the stack"
    - 2 "NOMMU"
    - 6 sctp networking issues for untrusted devices
    - 2 ipv6 minor network issues 
    - 1 gpu driver for local malicious user

GHK called this "10 'real' bugfixes", which to me sounds like there's a wild hype machine around these companies and uncritical parroting of every press release they make that falls apart when you engage the affected real experts.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49929391

Points: 345

# Comments: 128

Better late than never?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49898457

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49850999

Points: 71

# Comments: 21

But I think another perspective is a more dangerous effort to chip away at state responsibility for the process and procedures of voting. Once this is owned or easily influenced by a national institution then a single-party state disguised as a republic becomes far simpler to implement.

The danger here being that our system has relied on decentralized states handling these tasks and thus has not created the guardrails necessary (if ever they could survive a unitary executive theory) to ensure fairness.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49762493

Points: 77

# Comments: 71

If you want this class of LLM error to also become habitual and neutral then fine, I don't, and I think many others don't.

But on reflection I don't disagree it was probably made for similar effect in the era of human software development. That sounds like it strengthens my point?

In any other software it would be an error, regression, bug. And in a human process it would be at ~least something someone would call 'bullshit'.

Is this speed of capability because hacking is almost entirely machine verifiable, thus training quicker/deeper than other domains?