Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | trevor-e's commentslogin

Very nice, I did something similar a while back and was going to make a poster of interesting ones to hang in my office: https://www.telkins.com/blog/visualizing-file-formats

Never got around to that poster though. :(

If anyone is interested we open-sourced https://github.com/getsentry/launchpad which can produce a treemap visualization for Mach-O. I've been working on ELF support in my free time too but it's not finished.


Not trying to sound alarmist at all but I am wondering if ultrasounds are safe to be used like this? My understanding is it's basically a high-frequency sound wave which is probably fine for most tissue usage, however here it says it's scattering off of red blood cells. I don't know why that feels so unsettling to me.


Waves scatter off of everything so that's not of concern. Depending on the intensity, frequency, and tissue in question ultrasound can have an effect. Someone elsewhere linked to a couple academic papers on the topic.

I share your hesitation about using this on the brain, at least barring exhaustive long term animal model trials. Subject a mammal to this every day for 10 years and show that there are no negative effects relative to the control.


it specifically addresses this in the "The escape hatch" section...


So, the threat actor now, after making the compromise, just needs to announce that the previous version has a 0-day, and folks need to install the latest version? I love the idea of a cool down, but it can still be thwarted. I would just hope folks that are trying to patch a 0-day take extra caution to vet the new version. I wouldn't be opposed to a --cooldown 0 doing a side by side diff. I may not know what's going on in the code, but a 0-day shouldn't be a ton of new code either.


What an ordeal, this stuff really scares me, like the post about the Gitlab founder having to diagnose and treat himself. Great to hear you are recovering. If you find yourself in Cambridge I will gladly buy you a beer for how much rg has helped me.


<3


This looks pretty neat and the anti-AI hate in here is getting pretty tiresome.

From what I can tell looking at the codebase compared to Django's, the top-level modules are structured much better and more obvious for AI to discover them. And then inside each module is a descriptive README with lots of description and examples that are helpful to an agent (and human). Not sure why this is being written off as slop or arbitrary changes, it seems pretty obvious to me this is the direction of frameworks.


These are odd takes to me.

> was submitted by someone so lazy they couldn’t even edit the commit message. You can see the vibe coded PRs right away.

As others mentioned, this is very intentional for me now as I use agents. It has nothing to do with laziness, I'm not sure why you would think that? I assume vibe coded PRs are easy enough to spot by the contents alone.

> I would like to know when someone is trying to have the tool do all of their work for them.

What makes you think the LLM is doing _all_ of the work? Is it really an impossibility that an agent does 75% of the work and then a responsible human reviews the code and makes tweaks before opening a PR?


> It has nothing to do with laziness, I'm not sure why you would think that?

Because even with as far as Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.4 have come, they still produce a lot of unwanted, unnecessary, or overly complex code when left to their own devices.

Vibe coding PRs and then submitting them as-is is lazy. Everyone should be reviewing and editing their own PRs before submission.

If you're just vibe coding and submitting, you're passing all of the work on to your team to review your AI's output.


Right, and I agree with all of that, but that's not related to my point.

You are saying "if you leave the AI attribution in the PR/commit description, it HAS to be a slop PR that was not reviewed by a human beforehand". And I'm saying that's not true at all and you shouldn't assume that.


>I heard about how beautiful it is

This used to be the case around Swift 4, but since then they've added so many features and keywords to the language. Now the simplicity and elegance is gone.

Also it seems like there was a marked change in the culture of Swift. It somehow attracted a lot of the "ackchyually" crowd which resulted in a lot of massively complicated features. I liked to occasionally browse the evolution docs and they got more and more complex over time.


Flutter still doesn't support liquid glass on iOS so it doesn't seem like a serious contender to me at this point. And due to the nature of how Flutter is implemented, it's going to continuously be an uphill battle. Maybe it's fine if you intend on having a completely custom UI and don't care about platform look and feel.


> Flutter still doesn't support liquid glass on iOS

Literally every iOS developer under the sun will tell me that this is a good thing.


Why? I'm an iOS developer and, while I don't love everything about liquid glass, that is the current design language of iOS.

I certainly don't think having my app sticking out like a sore thumb, using a design language from old outdated iOS versions is "a good thing"


The new direction isn’t Liquid Glass, but a more unified branding across Android and iOS. WhatsApp, Google Maps, Instagram, Netflix, Prime Video, and many others don’t look dated, because they don’t make heavy use of the older iOS design language at all.


No. I’m an iOS developer and will not tell you that, except to say it’s a good thing to have one more reason for the people not to use flutter.


That’s not a good thing if you don’t adapt liquid glass. I’m an iOS developer.


In general, the "render UI as if it were a video game" route feels like a bit of a dead end on mobile to me. On desktop it's more workable but still isn't without issues.


I've heard bad things about liquid glass and plan to skip that OS release, so not implementing it seems like an advantage from my perspective.


Is it slop if enough people enjoyed it to be on the top charts?


Yes, it's cheaply made en-masse, like actual slop.


There are a couple issues with that definition: - quality is not always correlated with "cheaply made en-masse" - actual slop, assuming you are talking about the food, is more about preventing food waste although it happens to also be cheap.

I'm being pedantic AF because most people refer to AI slop as "low-quality or careless work". And AI is just a tool so it's possible to spend a lot of time making something of high quality with it. I get the outrage with respect to copyright and artist rights, but it certainly doesn't look like slop to me.


Eeeeh your definition is as good as mine. To me, slop is used to convey the fact that whatever it is applied to was made with quantity/efficiency in mind rather than quality/purpose, like what is fed to pigs. Indeed, ultimately slop could be good by that definition. Lots of people like McDonald's, but I think most people also realize it is slop.


telkins.com

I have an endless list of blog posts to write and so little time :(


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: