It's coordination problems and large scale distributed action, not some moral character of how serious the people are. Effort is not fungible. To make php good, you only have to act at one point, in a localized way, at the php foundation. To ditch php, you have to act in a coordinated way across any resource strapped companies and individuals. Just see how hard it was to ditch Python 2 or how ipv4 is still not ditched.

Trying to understand underlying reasons and incentive structures is much more productive and useful than simply venting about the worse moral character and seriousness of people in one industry vs the next. Curiously, the grass seems always greener - when you ask people in other industries, you'll often hear endless complaints about the state of things there too.

> A hands-on look at dual-booting Linux on the Nvidia RTX Spark laptop, the GPU clock throttling bug found, and why WSL still wins.

Man it really is exhausting to read a title that sparks my interest, just to be greeted with the most basic Claude-isms in the subheading.

We are not but we need a better approach, https://www.ethicalacceleration.org

I concur. WezTerm is my driver for the past 3-4 years. For anyone wishing to try it, make sure you grab a nightly build.

I wish there were regular official releases that would help it get more traction. Last official release is 2.5 years ago, despite continuing development. This could drive some people away. OTOH, maybe that's the point...

> For anyone wishing to try it, make sure you grab a nightly

Might be helpful to explain why someone should run a nightly build of something as critical as a terminal :D

I'm running WezTerm stable currently, so am curious.

If you use have the first team use one provider to write the spec and a completely different provider for the implementation team, I would expect you would be covered, but it probably will take the first players in this game to establish that precedent by having their cases tried in court.

Why do providers even matter? They are nearly identical weights produced from mostly overlapping corpa. You can reduce it to two instances but that only shows how fishy this copyright-laundring is.

I'm 35. I had a preventative colonoscopy done (I had to insist). I payed out of pocket since these checkups normally start at 50.

Adenoma found and removed.

This is a type of cancer that is almost entirely preventable with screening. Get your tubes checked.

I would rephrase it as: "Verification is not human knowledge", but that doesn't really matter. We are going to be several steps behind AI as it reaches a level of intelligence far beyond human capabilities, and we are not going to be able to catch up with it. It's like trying to beat AI at chess: we are bound to be left behind as AI continues to expand its knowledge in mathematics, physics, computer science, and other fields. Eventually, no human being will be able to reach that level of knowledge within their lifetime.

Ahhh, epistemology... Does any academic researcher even care about these things anymore?

If you're in academia, you've probably noticed a major shift recently. Research production at an industrial scale through AI.

Grants have "always" been awarded to professors based on quantity multiplied by quality. Now, some professors are churning out 1–3 papers a month with the same group of co-authors. All the grant money goes to them. Grant givers are just only counting the numbers of papers being published.

The Industrial Revolution has hit academia, and some academics are busy arguing for the artisanal value of research while some are creating factories for research.

Yes we care! People are having intense debates about this stuff!

> OpenAI and Anthropic let the public use their AI models.

Oh, how nice of them, such charitable souls...

> A hands-on look at dual-booting Linux on the Nvidia RTX Spark laptop, the GPU clock throttling bug found, and why WSL still wins.

Man it really is exhausting to read a title that sparks my interest, just to be greeted with the most basic Claude-isms in the subheading.

You can't put a price of sending all your IP to a dubious third-party. Sorry. You argument apples vs oranges.

Can't they just... sell github back like when the germans sold the nuclear plant back to mr burns?

       - - >  i wake up - -
       |                  |
       |                  V
       github has an outage

Again and again?

nothing :) hope they'll release a statement soon, this is was an assumption on my side, it might be totally wrong. I had intermittent issues with basic git pull/push ops locally so I went to dig a bit. ps: if you do have money to spare, consider donating to the EFF (https://www.eff.org) though B)

> the effort that went into making it good should have gone into ditching PHP

What effort? PHP foundation has one employee!

> The bandaid mentality is what got us in this situation.

> We're a clown industry.

We are clown industry becauee nobody would sponsor solid research, infrastructure and fixing all those bugs! PHP is junk literslly written over nights by some volunteers!

As a DGX Spark user, this article title gave me conniptions.

But, on the other hand, having my DGX Spark stack at hand, I know the solution:

    /btw reverse engineer the Nvidia Platform Controllers and Framework component and build a Linux version

"AI views proprietary components as damage and routes around them."

Again and again?

       - - >  i wake up - -
       |                  |
       |                  V
       github has an outage

Can't they just... sell github back like when the germans sold the nuclear plant back to mr burns?

As of 2026-11-04T10:25:34Z the domain MicrosoftPleaseGiveGithubToGoogle.com is still unclaimed.

Or, best known to others as being the guy that made Gravity Google way back when.

These are the misteries of HN.

I thought it was a mid-term election mystery

As you said, "Science is an ideal." I think you and I have fundamentally different views of science. You are an idealist, whereas I am a practical person who has seen how the sausage of science is actually made.

What I have heard from AI it is anything but KISS... More features and more code as fast as machinelly possible.

>Oddly, the direction of the problem flips depending on power source. Unplugged, Linux hit around 61 to 67 tokens per second on LM Studio, comparable to Windows. Plugged in, that same test dropped to about 15 tokens per second.

Absolutely hilarious.

This is just incompetence. No reason Nvidia with its TRILLIONS of market cap couldn't of tested and fixed this on Linux before shipping.

Or a day one patch.

I have no doubt that'll it'll work right eventually. Long after RTX Spark laptops flop and can be purchased for half off.

Last night I pulled out my 5070TI laptop and installed CachyOS. I was running various models within about 20 minutes.

That 12GB of VRAM is a hard limitation, Unsloth can't split jobs between vram and system memory.

As a DGX Spark user, this article title gave me conniptions.

But, on the other hand, having my DGX Spark stack at hand, I know the solution:

    /btw reverse engineer the Nvidia Platform Controllers and Framework component and build a Linux version

"AI views proprietary components as damage and routes around them."

Do you know that 1 + 1 = 10 in binary?

Well, at the very least, that gate needs to be centralized in some way, right? Unless ... are you suggesting using a blockchain ledger for that?

It looks like today there was maintenance scheduled to deprecate support for certain categories of SSH keys: https://github.blog/changelog/2026-09-22-security-improvements-for-ssh/

> November 4, 2026: We’ll have a brownout of the removal of the ssh-rsa signature type (i.e., RSA keys using SHA-1) and the diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha256 key exchange algorithm.

I guess something went sideways.

hey how much do I owe you for this INCREDIBLY important information? This is not sarcasm btw.

https://soundcloud.com/replyall/140-the-roman-mars-mazda-virus

I went to the website to play the game, and was disappointed that it was only a marketing web site for a phone app. Why not let me play the game?

Thank you. Fair enough, I'll add a line saying that the suspects are played by a language model.

As someone who has been programming for about 25 years now and has always been frustrated by the tendency of software devs, and in particular web devs, to not address the root issues but just scaffold on top of them and try to hide the ugly bits under the carpet, I feel a bit vindicated.

Everybody in the industry knows that we've been building on quicksand. Moore's law meant that we could just sacrifice performance and add a dozen layer on top of technology from the 90s (if not older) and keep the thing chugging along.

Look at the PHP situation:

- HTTP is an old and quirky protocol with a lot of surface open for attackers that are rarely useful nowadays and might be better left off to higher layers. But of course, we can't break compat, so everybody still implements all the naughty parts, just in case.

- PHP was a joke language from the start, we were making fun of it in the early 2000s, the fact that over 20 years later it still powers a huge chunk of the web is enough to demonstrate that we're not serious people. Cue the PHP fans telling me that "it's good now". Maybe, I don't really care, the effort that went into making it good should have gone into ditching PHP for a better language 20 years ago. The bandaid mentality is what got us in this situation.

- And of course to add insult to injury, PHP, this security-critical language, is still implemented in garbo C using things like setjmp/longjmp. Just to make sure to absolutely maximize the damage if a vuln is discovered, I suppose. Brilliant.

- Oh and all of this is still running overwhelmingly on top of x86 which is its own bag of legacy garbage. "No but you don't get it, modern CPUs are really more like RISC CPUs, the RISC ISA is translated internally" yeah exactly that's my point let's stop doing things like that.

We're a clown industry. We only made it this far because, usually, buggy code doesn't kill people and we can iterate and patch things quickly. We never had to do things correctly, we could flourish with abysmal levels of quality acceptance. This may not be true anymore.

Of course the reason things are done this way is generally to maintain backward compatibility and make transition easier. At least now that we have LLMs this excuse will hopefully vanish: porting even huge codebases to a new language/framework, something that was a tremendous undertaking mere months ago, is now vastly easier and faster. We can leave the 1990s behind us.

> What are you saying then?

I literally said that "I'm just having hard time accepting it."

> And why are you implying that using AI does not improve those skills?

I'm not.

It’s like UI outsider art. The Shaggs [1] of interface design. Can’t decide whether it’s hideous or wonderful.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shaggs

Should have hosted it on Radicle, with the main node served over Tor.

Frankly all RE and emulation projects should at least have a mirror there.

As someone who has been programming for about 25 years now and has always been frustrated by the tendency of software devs, and in particular web devs, to not address the root issues but just scaffold on top of them and try to hide the ugly bits under the carpet, I feel a bit vindicated.

Everybody in the industry knows that we've been building on quicksand. Moore's law meant that we could just sacrifice performance and add a dozen layer on top of technology from the 90s (if not older) and keep the thing chugging along.

Look at the PHP situation:

- HTTP is an old and quirky protocol with a lot of surface open for attackers that are rarely useful nowadays and might be better left off to higher layers. But of course, we can't break compat, so everybody still implements all the naughty parts, just in case.

- PHP was a joke language from the start, we were making fun of it in the early 2000s, the fact that over 20 years later it still powers a huge chunk of the web is enough to demonstrate that we're not serious people. Cue the PHP fans telling me that "it's good now". Maybe, I don't really care, the effort that went into making it good should have gone into ditching PHP for a better language 20 years ago. The bandaid mentality is what got us in this situation.

- And of course to add insult to injury, PHP, this security-critical language, is still implemented in garbo C using things like setjmp/longjmp. Just to make sure to absolutely maximize the damage if a vuln is discovered, I suppose. Brilliant.

- Oh and all of this is still running overwhelmingly on top of x86 which is its own bag of legacy garbage. "No but you don't get it, modern CPUs are really more like RISC CPUs, the RISC ISA is translated internally" yeah exactly that's my point let's stop doing things like that.

We're a clown industry. We only made it this far because, usually, buggy code doesn't kill people and we can iterate and patch things quickly. We never had to do things correctly, we could flourish with abysmal levels of quality acceptance. This may not be true anymore.

Of course the reason things are done this way is generally to maintain backward compatibility and make transition easier. At least now that we have LLMs this excuse will hopefully vanish: porting even huge codebases to a new language/framework, something that was a tremendous undertaking mere months ago, is now vastly easier and faster. We can leave the 1990s behind us.

> too easy to game certs like ISO27001

These certs only exist for compliance, not for security. Nobody cares they don't add any extra value, because they allow every business to say "my supplier was ISO certified, so I did my due diligence".

And nobody really ever gets prosecuted for lying during their audit.

As someone who went down the rabbit hole of local AI, there is so much exhausting debugging already. Even if this is "just" another step you have to find, it's toxic.

imho you should act as if everything you type, not even send, is stored forever and might be used for training whenever they decide to retro actively change their TOS, no matter how much money you pay

I remain puzzled why anyone would want to do inference on a laptop if they have a home internet connection and a phone.

If you really want to do DIY inference, plug it in at home and set up tailscale so you can access it on the go.

No huge battery drain or toasty hot laptop required. Lower cost laptop. Lighter laptop. Longer battery life laptop. Win win win win.

Ahhh, epistemology... Does any academic researcher even care about these things anymore?

If you're in academia, you've probably noticed a major shift recently. Research production at an industrial scale through AI.

Grants have "always" been awarded to professors based on quantity multiplied by quality. Now, some professors are churning out 1–3 papers a month with the same group of co-authors. All the grant money goes to them. Grant givers are just only counting the numbers of papers being published.

The Industrial Revolution has hit academia, and some academics are busy arguing for the artisanal value of research while some are creating factories for research.

An infallible oracle tells Archimedes that the speed of light in vacuum is ~1.08 billion kilometers per hour. Archimedes, with the iron age tools and methods at his disposal, might be able to verify this and make some use of it himself. Maybe. In any case, what he has gained is knowledge itself.

The same goes for our own time. A powerful AI can tell us things at the edge of what we can grasp -- or beyond what we can grasp -- and it would nevertheless be knowledge that we possess. We can work to verify it, we can have it explained to us as though we were schoolchildren, or we can simply accept it as a static fact of the natural world.

In truth, we're going to have to learn to coexist with minds that are more powerful than ours. At least in some respects, if not in all respects. The good scenario is that they share information with us, and we receive it however we can. "Head in the sand" and "mutual disdain" are bad outcomes.

It doesn't work on Windows. What are your favorite Windows alternatives?

Outsider art, outsider music refer to art, and even in those practices a lot of celebrated artists are the ones that eschew the established norms.

But design is functional. Grows organically by needs of the user. If so many people swear by Calibre, it is well designed for calibre’s use case. It is not only about the aesthetic design trends. They don’t need to apply a coat of liquid glass and modern icon treatment to make it well designed. Software like Calibre are a toolbox full of screwdrivers and random things that are not in the same color hue and size and rounded corner treatment. You open the toolbox and immediately know what you need to reach for and where, get the job done and close it.

This appeal to authority is why we end up with everything looking like Juicero of software. Shiny, the same components and pricing plan as everything else. But absolutely soulless and often user hostile.

> It could help cure diseases, end boring work and give us more free time.

Seriously? It seems to be causing more problems, giving us more boring work, and less free time.... sounds like absolute bullshit.

As someone who has been programming for about 25 years now and has always been frustrated by the tendency of software devs, and in particular web devs, to not address the root issues but just scaffold on top of them and try to hide the ugly bits under the carpet, I feel a bit vindicated.

Everybody in the industry knows that we've been building on quicksand. Moore's law meant that we could just sacrifice performance and add a dozen layer on top of technology from the 90s (if not older) and keep the thing chugging along.

Look at the PHP situation:

- HTTP is an old and quirky protocol with a lot of surface open for attackers that are rarely useful nowadays and might be better left off to higher layers. But of course, we can't break compat, so everybody still implements all the naughty parts, just in case.

- PHP was a joke language from the start, we were making fun of it in the early 2000s, the fact that over 20 years later it still powers a huge chunk of the web is enough to demonstrate that we're not serious people. Cue the PHP fans telling me that "it's good now". Maybe, I don't really care, the effort that went into making it good should have gone into ditching PHP for a better language 20 years ago. The bandaid mentality is what got us in this situation.

- And of course to add insult to injury, PHP, this security-critical language, is still implemented in garbo C using things like setjmp/longjmp. Just to make sure to absolutely maximize the damage if a vuln is discovered, I suppose. Brilliant.

- Oh and all of this is still running overwhelmingly on top of x86 which is its own bag of legacy garbage. "No but you don't get it, modern CPUs are really more like RISC CPUs, the RISC ISA is translated internally" yeah exactly that's my point let's stop doing things like that.

We're a clown industry. We only made it this far because, usually, buggy code doesn't kill people and we can iterate and patch things quickly. We never had to do things correctly, we could flourish with abysmal levels of quality acceptance. This may not be true anymore.

Of course the reason things are done this way is generally to maintain backward compatibility and make transition easier. At least now that we have LLMs this excuse will hopefully vanish: porting even huge codebases to a new language/framework, something that was a tremendous undertaking mere months ago, is now vastly easier and faster. We can leave the 1990s behind us.

I remain puzzled why anyone would want to do inference on a laptop if they have a home internet connection and a phone.

If you really want to do DIY inference, plug it in at home and set up tailscale so you can access it on the go.

No huge battery drain or toasty hot laptop required. Lower cost laptop. Lighter laptop. Longer battery life laptop. Win win win win.

Ahhh, epistemology... Does any academic researcher even care about these things anymore?

If you're in academia, you've probably noticed a major shift recently. Research production at an industrial scale through AI.

Grants have "always" been awarded to professors based on quantity multiplied by quality. Now, some professors are churning out 1–3 papers a month with the same group of co-authors. All the grant money goes to them. Grant givers are just only counting the numbers of papers being published.

The Industrial Revolution has hit academia, and some academics are busy arguing for the artisanal value of research while some are creating factories for research.

Awesome project! What you've built is a Cable-Driven Parallel Robot, and since you are using gravity to keep the cables in tension it is a suspended cable-driven parallel robot. Using the four cables you are able to move a point in 3D space. I happen to know this because I wrote my phd on the accuracy of these types of robots and their kinematics. At that time Jean-Pierre Merlet was probably the most famous/prolific researcher on this topic (https://www-sop.inria.fr/members/Jean-Pierre.Merlet/merlet_eng.html). You may also have heard of a company in Germany trying to commercialize this technology on a slightly bigger scale: https://redcablerobots.com/en/. There is also a conference on these types of machines in Europe: https://cablecon2027.sciencesconf.org/ the original being organized by Andreas Pott (another high impact sholar on this).

I have not worked in this field for many years but had a fun time learning about a very wide array of topics.

For anyone interested, this is the interview with Tom Lane: https://www.snowflake.com/en/blog/engineering/30-years-of-postgres-architecture-tom-lane/

This article about MVCC is also quite interesting: https://boringsql.com/posts/mvcc-bad-bad/

So why did he start to develop it in the 1970s?

> It could help cure diseases, end boring work and give us more free time.

Seriously? It seems to be causing more problems, giving us more boring work, and less free time.... sounds like absolute bullshit.

Thank you for your feedback. It's a fair point, LLM stories are often flat, I totally agree. And yes, the cases are written by AI, but through a pipeline rather than from scratch. I pick the idea and the city, then we develop the pitch together via Claude (I'm alone on this for now), then, only after my validation, the engine generates the case from it. After that, it makes sure the case is solvable by having multiple models play it as the detective, simulating different player profiles.

> ColdFusion, CGI, ASPX ... it was not exactly a beautiful world back then.

Pffft. VRML is the whole game, baby! Once everyone runs out and gets an SGI oxygen, Nobody is going to use freaking web browsers ever again. I mean, HTML, what a joke.

> A hands-on look at dual-booting Linux on the Nvidia RTX Spark laptop, the GPU clock throttling bug found, and why WSL still wins.

Man it really is exhausting to read a title that sparks my interest, just to be greeted with the most basic Claude-isms in the subheading.

GitHub outages can be a drain on productivity. If your stack is pulling artifacts from GitHub, and this consistently fails during GitHub outage, you can consider having a file-cache in between.

Some of our customers unexpectedly started using the service we're running as a file-cache around GitHub to mitigate GitHub outages.

We wrote about this use case in our blog: https://www.stablebuild.com/blog/protect-your-builds-from-github-outages-with-a-file-cache

We should all be writing bots that constantly spam all of these so-called AIs with random nonsense to poison the well.

As someone who has been programming for about 25 years now and has always been frustrated by the tendency of software devs, and in particular web devs, to not address the root issues but just scaffold on top of them and try to hide the ugly bits under the carpet, I feel a bit vindicated.

Everybody in the industry knows that we've been building on quicksand. Moore's law meant that we could just sacrifice performance and add a dozen layer on top of technology from the 90s (if not older) and keep the thing chugging along.

Look at the PHP situation:

- HTTP is an old and quirky protocol with a lot of surface open for attackers that are rarely useful nowadays and might be better left off to higher layers. But of course, we can't break compat, so everybody still implements all the naughty parts, just in case.

- PHP was a joke language from the start, we were making fun of it in the early 2000s, the fact that over 20 years later it still powers a huge chunk of the web is enough to demonstrate that we're not serious people. Cue the PHP fans telling me that "it's good now". Maybe, I don't really care, the effort that went into making it good should have gone into ditching PHP for a better language 20 years ago. The bandaid mentality is what got us in this situation.

- And of course to add insult to injury, PHP, this security-critical language, is still implemented in garbo C using things like setjmp/longjmp. Just to make sure to absolutely maximize the damage if a vuln is discovered, I suppose. Brilliant.

- Oh and all of this is still running overwhelmingly on top of x86 which is its own bag of legacy garbage. "No but you don't get it, modern CPUs are really more like RISC CPUs, the RISC ISA is translated internally" yeah exactly that's my point let's stop doing things like that.

We're a clown industry. We only made it this far because, usually, buggy code doesn't kill people and we can iterate and patch things quickly. We never had to do things correctly, we could flourish with abysmal levels of quality acceptance. This may not be true anymore.

Of course the reason things are done this way is generally to maintain backward compatibility and make transition easier. At least now that we have LLMs this excuse will hopefully vanish: porting even huge codebases to a new language/framework, something that was a tremendous undertaking mere months ago, is now vastly easier and faster. We can leave the 1990s behind us.

The default theme / fonts / colors are a lot more esthetically pleasing combination, that’s likely why you think it’s more polished ?

I’m surprised no one out together a ghostty theme for kitty. Kitty seems to pushing boundaries with features and concepts

As someone who has been programming for about 25 years now and has always been frustrated by the tendency of software devs, and in particular web devs, to not address the root issues but just scaffold on top of them and try to hide the ugly bits under the carpet, I feel a bit vindicated.

Everybody in the industry knows that we've been building on quicksand. Moore's law meant that we could just sacrifice performance and add a dozen layer on top of technology from the 90s (if not older) and keep the thing chugging along.

Look at the PHP situation:

- HTTP is an old and quirky protocol with a lot of surface open for attackers that are rarely useful nowadays and might be better left off to higher layers. But of course, we can't break compat, so everybody still implements all the naughty parts, just in case.

- PHP was a joke language from the start, we were making fun of it in the early 2000s, the fact that over 20 years later it still powers a huge chunk of the web is enough to demonstrate that we're not serious people. Cue the PHP fans telling me that "it's good now". Maybe, I don't really care, the effort that went into making it good should have gone into ditching PHP for a better language 20 years ago. The bandaid mentality is what got us in this situation.

- And of course to add insult to injury, PHP, this security-critical language, is still implemented in garbo C using things like setjmp/longjmp. Just to make sure to absolutely maximize the damage if a vuln is discovered, I suppose. Brilliant.

- Oh and all of this is still running overwhelmingly on top of x86 which is its own bag of legacy garbage. "No but you don't get it, modern CPUs are really more like RISC CPUs, the RISC ISA is translated internally" yeah exactly that's my point let's stop doing things like that.

We're a clown industry. We only made it this far because, usually, buggy code doesn't kill people and we can iterate and patch things quickly. We never had to do things correctly, we could flourish with abysmal levels of quality acceptance. This may not be true anymore.

Of course the reason things are done this way is generally to maintain backward compatibility and make transition easier. At least now that we have LLMs this excuse will hopefully vanish: porting even huge codebases to a new language/framework, something that was a tremendous undertaking mere months ago, is now vastly easier and faster. We can leave the 1990s behind us.

> We're a clown industry. We only made it this far because, usually, buggy code doesn't kill people and we can iterate and patch things quickly

I think you have things backwards. Devs aren't clowns who make it this far. But in industries where buggy code doesn't kill people, devs are expected to ship fast and iterate, because they can and more importantly, it serves the business.

Personally, I'm all about good software engineering principles, unfortunately I don't think you can last long in most companies if you're too opinionated about this and can't compromise (and it's getting even worse with AI, reading the code is no longer a requirement, go explain your teammate that there's an abstraction leak in their code...).

I like to think of it as a new abstraction layer on top of something we've been comfortable with for years. The developers of the past had to trust that human-readable code would compile to the machine-level bytecode they were used to write, and that even though it wasn't as efficient as they could make it, one day the benefits would outweigh the negatives. Today most developers don't understand compilers well enough to even begin questioning if the code doesn't work because the compiler has a bug or because their code has a bug. They have to trust the abstraction layer beneath their current domain, and they have to find ways to prove that their work is correct in that domain (e.g., writing a sufficient number of unit- and integration tests, compiling with different compilers to different targets, etc.).

We, too, have to adjust to this change, this new abstraction layer, because whether we like it or not, the code an LLM will produce in no more than five years will arguably be much, much better than the code any 10x developer could produce even if given months of time and an infinite supply of caffeine.

We "just" need to find a way to confirm that our work in this new abstraction layer - primarily prompt engineering - results in the code functionality that we had in mind, not necessarily the code implementation that we had in mind.