Over editing is one of the biggest tells of junior engineers. Often, a very big task is reduced to a 1 line change if you spend the time to understand the core problem.
I feel like this was one of the most valuable skills an engineer could learn, as it protects the integrity of the system by making minimum viable changes.
If you need to refactor something, it should be clear that that is the task.
I think HN is the crowd that values MVPs. And LLMs are the best tool to quickly materialize an idea. So I think we should judge these submissions on merit and not on our collective rejection of reality. If they succeed I’m sure (or hope) their user facing app won’t remain vibe coded.
Yep, the hubris of techno-maximalism and absolutely zero worker rights history. Clowning on liberal arts classes when maybe one or two of those would have been a good supplement...
The interesting thing is this: no matter who they hire (because certainly they’ve already been hiring the best), will make a bank Mythos proof. It likely won’t even make it regular attacker proof.
The reason banks aren’t being hacked daily is a mix of physical and digital access controls, and processes, as well as the real threat of the FBI knocking on your door. It is not because the systems are hard to hack.
But now, they panic because some company told them their systems were not 100% secure? And how will they solve this? My making it 99.99% secure with a $10B yearly Mythos subscription?
I would just settle for not leaking any more s3 buckets. Start there.
I see this pattern for a long time. Large companies always release the same products at the same cadence, hours or minutes apart. Are they having the same ideas? Spying on each other? Are these products just the natural next step from the previous so as long as you’re not stopping, 10 companies would release the same products?
This is correct, and I avoided it for this reason, did not have the bandwidth to get into any cpp rabbit hole so just used whatever seemed to abstract it away.
If this is the case, this can be gamed. People can use stolen documents. Nothing says a person can’t own multiple computers so what happens if someone uses your id in 20 laptops? Will the companies just claim “but the machine said they where old enough?” The law may not have teeth, but will violate privacy.
Something like https://protocol.humanidentity.io (disclaimer: I built it, sorry for the plug) or any other privacy preserving service might work better. A platform can then require that a person verifies age in a privacy preserving way before viewing adult content.
I really like your solution. Have you considered making connections with well connected individuals and potentially making small compromises on your products integrity to appeal to the people who would make this a legislated standard across the board?
Or perhaps golfing at the right clubs to make it a defacto industry standard like ID.me seems poised to become?
I hate seeing stuff like this once and then never again due to people who are capable of making something this… Good being unable to “play the game” or whatever optimize to break the social-moral glass ceiling for a given problem space.
Thank you, this is very early stages. Still trying to validate the idea. But yes, the reason there is a sovereign verifier tier is because I am sure governments will want their own rules, and the protocol is meant to be decentralized. So one govt can legislate that they are the exclusive verifier for their country, while another takes a more hand off or hybrid approach.
From what I’ve seen, this always ends in some small fine/settlement and “no admission of guilt”. This type of protection is the source of these mishaps.
reply