> It (the MD5 hash) might be published in the future when a thought's count passes a certain threshold (TBD). This might make it possible to recover certain short thoughts that were popular.
This makes little sense. Recovering a random preimage of an MD5 hash is marginally easier [1] than a (128-bit truncated) SHA256 hash, but this won't recover any sensible message.
Recovering a sensible (short) message is equally hard for both hashes.
I don't particularly care for your explanation, but if you do want to post these kind of comments at least explain yourself a bit so potentially a curious conversation can follow. Not doing so is arguably against this site's guidelines.
Can you please leave this comment on all the posts that state “we need to protest” or “look at the mad king” I don’t see any explanation or opportunity for curious conversation.
Why did you single mine out? Oh yeah, the default instinct to censor different ideas.
I support the US assuming control of Greenland because it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US, militarily beneficial to the US, we’d be on the hook for defending it in case of a war as the EU hardly has any expeditionary force left, and we’ve propped up Europe for 70 years.
It could greatly delay the collapse of the American empire that I love and enjoy living in.
We haven’t been a humble republic since the close of WW2, maybe even WW1.
Because I thought some kind of curious conversation would be possible with the reply you made. The two other examples you posted are devoid of anything interesting; hopeless cases.
I should have consulted your posting history however, which consists mainly of short, combative and indignant responses like the one you just directed at me.
> it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US
I fail to see how this is the case. The US and US companies have always been welcome to bid on mining concessions (at least, until recently), but the reality is that it's hardly profitable to do so, as there are ample cheaper opportunities available elsewhere.
Also, "assuming control" seems to be a euphemism for "invading" as the US buying Greenland is squarely out of the question. Invading is hardly humble, indeed, and you seem to be all too confident that such invading will allow for a republic and not lead to autocracy.
> I support the US assuming control of Greenland because it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US, militarily beneficial to the US
You immediately lose all of your NATO allies, and have the potential for an immediate war with not only all of them but also all the non-NATO members of the EU, which includes two independent nuclear powers, and who hold enough assets to cripple your economy without even firing a shot: both by fire-sale of bonds and other assets, and even just by ceasing trade with you.
China and Russia both have immediate and huge opportunities in both a hot war and an economic blockade. Of the two, I wouldn't put it past Russia to even attempt to use a nuke as a false-flag attack in this scenario, in either direction (US <-> former allies) or both directions. It would be really really stupid of them, but Putin's already shown consistent stupidity, so that's not enough to discount it.
The US would likely not have to fire a single shot. NATO would likely do nothing substantive. No economic repercussions.
If anything this is a wake up call for Europe to come to grips with how ineffectual they have become.
Any kind of financial maneuver any country would try against the US would mostly hurt them more.
France and Spain are probably the most independent of the US economically but the other member states not so much.
Any economic reaction would by symbolic or very short lived.
Governments protect themselves not the people. All those government employees need tax revenue.
All the rich people who run the world behind the scenes don’t want their assets to deflate.
The EU could fracture over any kind of major retaliation.
Estonia, Latvia, and Poland will want the US to stay in NATO at all costs with Putin next door.
Germany is dependent on exports. Their entire economy could collapse without US trade.
Don’t you feel the pantomime of it all? The leaders in Europe are saying what they absolutely have to say. Having the meetings they have to have.
There will probably be some kind of deal reached eventually so the leaders of the Europe can appear to have done something slightly better than giving Greenland away.
> NATO would likely do nothing substantive. No economic repercussions.
At best, you still lose all your allies.
At worst, why are you willing to make this gamble? You go immediately go from two nuclear armed nations who "threaten" US interests in Greenland, to four.
> Any kind of financial maneuver any country would try against the US would mostly hurt them more.
The former allies could cost you in the order of $1.3 trillion fairly directly.
Worth it, to defend their sovereignty. Especially as the other half of that trade is things they're already saying they want to move away from.
> All the rich people who run the world behind the scenes don’t want their assets to deflate.
And you think the US doesn't have this exact category of rich people, who will pull the US back from this seppuku?
There's a reason "TACO" was coined WRT Trump.
> The EU could fracture over any kind of major retaliation.
1. And you think the US is unified right now?
2. And you think the EU wouldn't be concerned about fracture over failing to retaliate?
> Don’t you feel the pantomime of it all?
No.
I am reorganising my assets on the assumption of a total, 100%, trade blockade. All potential backdoors in hardware and software being activated. All goods, all services, being subject to escalating tariffs to split the economies apart as fast as possible in order to show preparation and readiness for a hot war. With nukes being an open question by both sides, and MAD being relevant again, but preparing for that is beyond me.
How would the US respond to Russia trying this BS to get Alaska back?
Yes the US has the same rich people in charge but the President is willing to defy them. He defied them on tariffs and secure arctic access and mineral rights probably align with their interests.
The US is unified with one military, one economy, one budget, one State Department, etc. Europe is not. Internal division here is not the same as internal division in Europe.
UK, Germany, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, etc. will not substantively move away from the US even if they are hopping mad about Greenland.
Russia wouldn’t try because we are too strong. If the EU were strong we wouldn’t be trying to take Greenland.
That’s the whole point - if there is a race for control of the arctic with China and Russia the EU couldn’t do anything. You’d depend on the US to police the arctic for you and to enforce whatever treaties are signed with China and Russia. Better deal for us to do it ourselves.
> The US is unified with one military, one economy, one budget, one State Department, etc. Europe is not. Internal division here is not the same as internal division in Europe.
I give 50-50 you'd have a military coup if they were given the order to invade an ally.
More than half of your own government knows that invading an ally is not OK.
If Russia isn't enough of a threat to take advantage of this, they're absolutely not enough of a threat to take Greenland either.
The rest of us doing nothing is a direct signal to Russia to Blitzkrieg Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and as much of Poland as it can, and to know that "as much as it can" is as far as the tanks roll without refuelling.
Doing nothing about you invading our land, means our own death.
> UK, Germany, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, etc. will not substantively move away from the US even if they are hopping mad about Greenland.
Which guns do we need to show you before you back down?
Do we need to fire a missile at Mar-a-Lago before you take us seriously?
If this were civ, I'd be saying "Back off, we have nukes."
Because we do, in fact, have nukes. Pretty much the only substantial military thing the UK has at this point, but it has them.
> You’d depend on the US to police the arctic for you and to enforce whatever treaties are signed with China and Russia. Better deal for us to do it ourselves.
Not for you, not for us.
For us: As a nation, by the election of Trump, you have proven yourself as untrustworthy as Russia. Which is really really bad.
For you: you now have twice as many hostile nuclear powers with the means to hit you, combining to more than twice your GDP backing up those nukes.
Any attack you make on us, your treaty-bound allies, causes whatever treaties you sign with anyone anywhere in the world to be not worth the paper they're written on. China and Russia will immediately know this. Everyone will. Nobody will trust you.
You could've built bases in Greenland for free at any time without threatening us. You chose the threat. You're now going to face the counter-threats. We'll see how far those escalate. This is a game you never needed to play. You call it theatrics, we're not laughing, we're arming.
China is much more trusted right now than you are. Like, sure, we know they see Taiwan as their own, but we also know they're not going to screw us over. Even when it was the British Empire handing over Hong Kong, China understood that while they could take it at any time, it was bad to be seen as one who would do so dishonourably.
That’s delusional. The EU won’t even deploy economic countermeasures against the US, let alone military resistance. The US could take Greenland by force tomorrow and the EU response would be a poetry recital.
> I don’t think these things work the way you think they work.
Perhaps, but nobody reasonable would have forecast this situation in the first place, what Trump is doing here already wildly outside of any recent precedents for the USA's behaviour.
> Nobody really cares about Greenland.
Nobody should, the inhabitable parts are tiny, the rest is a massive ice sheet, the population wouldn't even half-fill the largest single stadium.
> Nobody is willing to allow there to be real consequences, or even real inconveniences, as a result of anything to do with Greenland.
Tell that to Trump, he's the one threatening military force to get an island he's already allowed to build whatever bases he wants on. There's no good reason for him to have burned his bridges like this. Even if he doesn't invade, he's already severely weakening relations with people who thought they were American allies, who have already come to American aid when asked.
> The EU is primarily an economic and regulatory structure, not a military alliance.
Primarily, yes, but it does also have a mutual defence clause. Never been tested, of course. Why would anyone be dumb enough to threaten an EU member state with military conquest?
And yet, here we are.
> NATO is a paper tiger anyway, people will invent some justifications and keep doing business as usual.
Article 5 has been invoked exactly once, to aid the USA. NATO-minus-USA is going to be wild, almost certainly forces a lot of other members to rapidly develop nukes of their own even if this all goes "peacefully".
The talk is great. Good into to Xous, to using the MMU sort of to do a rust borrow-checked owned memory system.
Also Bunnie talks about making the Baochip: a 1+4 small-tiny risc-v design. That hitchhikes on another company's core! "Can I also put fuses on so we can use this as a risc-v design?" "Sure"! So awesome!!
Thanks, of all the discussion on this HN comment page, your link (without even having to watch the video) finally answered my question of what the intended purpose is of this OS.
This was a really great talk. Full of interesting things. E.g. his BIO system for replacing Raspberry Pi's proprietary PIO. It uses RV32E (16 registers) and then uses x16-31 as custom registers to directly control the pins so you can do GPIO without the usual delays from MMIO.
It doesn't for me at all. If I go to the URL I provided in the OP, the Google server responds with a 301 status code and Location header. Both when logged into a Google account and without logging in. Strange that it behaves in a different way (?) for you.
It will probably filter the URL through Google Safe Browsing, but that doesn't help much for phishing as they mostly use new or reputable domains, and browsers check that list on default settings anyway.
"Shopify CEO doesn't understand how to install a DICOM viewer application which is widely available and open source for any platform [1], so decides to let Claude Code plagiarize one / use widely available open source DICOM libraries."
The plagiarism of open source accusation is interesting. If you didn't know you are using open source code, is it plagiarism not to acknowledge it? What if you have enough knowledge of how LLMs work that you should have known? Does it help any to include an acknowledgement that you probably used some open source code but don't know which?
I'd parse it the same way as for natural intelligence. If I ask Bob how to do it, and he tells me from what he learned from open source, neither of us are plagiarizing open source.
Claude Code mostly copies and amalgamates codes from others, without attribution. But you could argue that's very similar to what humans do.
In this case it's very likely that Claude Code used some library to parse DICOM (and not outright reproducing it), while the Shopify CEO passed it off as something very innovative or difficult. But that isn't plagiarism either.
It was more of a figure of speech to emphasize that nobody (and no tool) did the actual work here, and the party that did the work did not get any credit.
Perhaps we could call it paraplagiarism.
> I'd parse it the same way as for natural intelligence. If I ask Bob how to do it
Not to detract from your point, but Claude Code is a very much a tool, not another person with their own responsibilities. "natural intelligence" and "artificial intelligence" are not simply interchangeable here.
Are you passing off work you didn't do as your own? If so, it's plagiarism. Doesn't matter exactly where the work came from or how it was laundered, since you know you didn't do it. Simple as that.
Tobi Lutke very explicitly did not pass off the work as his own. He attributed it to Claude. Does the fact that he didn't know about and include all of Claude's sources make it plagiarism? Would he have had the same obligation if he learned it from Bob?
> Tobi Lutke very explicitly did not pass off the work as his own. He attributed it to Claude. Does the fact that he didn't know about and include all of Claude's sources make it plagiarism?
Yes. The OP wrote:
>>>> so decides to let Claude Code plagiarize one
Read it carefully: Claude Code is the actor that's doing the plagiarizing.
What Tobias Lutke is doing is gushing about plagiarism like it's original work.
It's like if I gave you a copy of To Kill a Mockingbird, but with my name as the author, and you then went around telling everyone how impressive of a writer I am.
Note the "general line". You know, bombing boats in international waters, abducting awful dictators and "running" the country sidelining the opposition, threatening to take over an autonomous territory of Denmark, meddling with German and British politics and generally behaving very much like fascists and a wannabe dictator.
The Italian 'piracy shield' is indeed reprehensible, but the tweet is very far out there as well. For all I care Cloudflare blocks the entirety of Europe for a week or so in protest, but aligning yourself with the bunch of fascists now in charge of the US government and prefacing that with "while there are things I would handle differently than the current U.S. administration" is pretty insane as Cloudflare will be at the complete mercy of their lawlessness, if not now, then in the future.
I'm on the opposite side: I paid extra for a PS5 with disc drive, but I have never since bought a disc game. Although I have used the drive this year to watch some old DVDs.
This makes little sense. Recovering a random preimage of an MD5 hash is marginally easier [1] than a (128-bit truncated) SHA256 hash, but this won't recover any sensible message.
Recovering a sensible (short) message is equally hard for both hashes.
[1] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-01001-9_...
reply