strbean

Seems like that's... one more substantive meeting?

First link is announcing the initiative was submitted, second is a private meeting where the initiative was presented to the comission by the organizers.

Then there was a public meeting on 16 April 2026 and a public meeting on 20 May 2026.

Is there a specific part of one of those meetings that indicates they want to go a different direction than the California bill?

From the last link:

> If designed responsibly, most games that connect to the internet can operate indefinitely without publisher support. This has been a customer expectation for over 50 years. We are open to any solution that solves the problem. We are flexible on specifics and implementation by publishers. We understand that not all game features may be operable in a discontinued game. We are not seeking ongoing support from publishers after a game has been discontinued

This sounds like the California bill would address these issues.

edit: Particularly, I'm wondering if there is any serious push for release of binaries / source code prior to the end-of-life of a game, which seems to be of particular concern.

If a game is popular enough for anyone to care, some turbonerd will get the server running on a massive cloud instance, and then people will be able to play the game.

Fans have reverse-engineered and stood up servers for tons of games with no access to the server binaries. The idea that they wouldn't figure it out when given much better resources (server binaries or source code) is crazy.

> but not the EU which is currently being drafted (in a different direction)

Where can we find information about the direction the EU is going on this? AFAICT there has just been one meeting on the topic?

Imagine if every tweet had to go through a one-at-a-time queue before being persisted. There's about 6000 tweets per second, so you would have to be able to save them at <0.17ms per tweet or else you would become backlogged. If you are getting backlogged, you have to buffer those incoming tweets somewhere until they can be writted, and eventually that buffer gets full and you start losing tweets.

So for masses of solid tissue, we can't effectively deliver the payload to all the cells?

How about for lymphomas?

> You'll note that even Java now recognises that "public static void main(String[] args)" was pointless ceremony.

There is still the part of the ceremony that actually mattered: having a single entrypoint instead of the option to litter side effects throughout the file and having those side effects execute automatically on import.

> It sucks, but what's the alternative?

3.0 was a big missed opportunity to kill a lot of the deprecated cruft.

What's the status of just using CRISPR to fix pathogenic variants?

Plug for my buddy's project: http://agentsh.org/

Block agents from misbehaving at the OS level instead of asking them to behave.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-stranded_RNA_activated_...

This one is quite tinfoil-hat inspiring, as the research was moved to defense-focused Draper Labs and then immediately disappeared.

I know a an accomplished CS professor, ACM fellow, cited in Knuth's TAOCP (as well as being an easter egg!), who still hunt-and-pecks. In fact, hunt-an-pecks incredibly slowly.

Seeing him type really reinforced this idea.

A lot of really good reasons:

1) Higher level code is easier for LLMs to review and iterate upon. The more the intent is clear from the code, the easier it is for humans and LLMs to work with.

2) LLMs get stuck or fail to solve a problem sometimes. It is preferable to have artifacts that humans can grok without the massive extra effort of parsing out assembly code.

3) Assembly code varies massively across targets. We want provable, deterministic transformation from the intent (specified in a higher level language) to the target assembly language. LLMs can't reliably output many artifacts for different platforms that behave the same.

4) Hopefully, we are still reviewing the code output by LLMs to some extent.

Well, assembly languages are generally Turing complete. Not sure what the parallel would be in proof engines.

Ironic, you've got some typos but make a good point :)

Damn, maybe I can throw an agent at trying to unlock IMEI spoofing on my Unifi LTE modem. That one guy on twitter who does all the LTE modem unlocking never replied to my tweet :(

I was recently introduced to the term "vcware", ala shareware or vaporware, to describe these products. "Don't use that, it's vcware, enshitification is coming soon."

There's a pretty big difference between:

1) wanting functionality that isn't provided and working around that

and

2) restoring such functionality in the face of countermeasures

The absence of functionality isn't a clear signal of intent, while countermeasures against said functionality is.

And then there is the distinction between the intent of the software publisher and the intent of the user. There is a big ethical difference between "Mozilla doesn't want advertisers tracking their users" and "those users don't want to be tracked". If these guys want to draw the line at "if there is a signal from the user that they want privacy, we won't track them", I think that's reasonable.

They should just add a "Security Console", with black background and green text, and a simple shell interface for enabling/disabling flags that gate whether these requests are automatically denied or create a permissions popup. Anything dangerous starts disable by default.

Short of crippling capabilities to save dumb users, the best we can do is make the process scary enough that Grandma won't do it without calling her grandson first.

Having stars isn't a positive metric, it's more that not having stars is a disqualifier unless I want to use someones brand new toy.

My first scan of a GitHub repository is typically: check age of latest commit, check star count, check age of project. All of these things can be gamed, but this weeds out the majority of the noise when looking for a package to serve my needs. If the use case is serious, proper due diligence follows.

> It looks like they focused on receiving emails

That's wild. $6M for an MCP server for SMTP?

Guess: there is likely some repetition in articles in a series, but there is a ton in the discussion here, and that is what HN wants to avoid. Discussion on a link that bundles together the parts of a series helps avoid excessive rehashing in the comment sections.

Tried to check out your link and got:

> Application error: a client-side exception has occurred while loading code.claude.com (see the browser console for more information).

I think this is the novel bit:

> This includes constants such as e, pi, and i; arithmetic operations including addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and exponentiation as well as the usual transcendental and algebraic functions.

There is still an inherent negative aspect to the "Don't Fuck with Cats" doxxing. Vigilantes publicly revealing the identity of (suspected) perpetrators can enable further vigilante action, and this can cause harm to innocent people if the identification was incorrect, or unwittingly impede law enforcement. And that's before considering whether vigilantism is inherently good or bad.

See the canonical example of this going wrong: the Reddit 'investigation' of the Boston Bomber, where someone was misidentified, doxxed, and their family was harassed.

Of course, law enforcement is capable of making the same mistakes. But ideally they have better safeguards, and victims of their negligence have much better recourse.

Unfortunately here in the US we are pathologically incompetent.

One day we will attempt to roll out such a system. We'll pay McKinsey billions to develop and operate it, set no targets, and they will take the money and disappear for 10 years, and then deliver some unusable website developed by one offshore developer.

Maybe I can use one of these to get in to my organization azure account from my alma mater. The email was deleted right after I graduated, but Microsoft has been trying to bill me (for a reserved IP or something) for close to a decade. Support is useless of course.

> everyone in the transaction wins

Nobody ever thinks of the poor banks!

To be fair, parking structures always look and feel pretty distopian.

I like the approach of making downtowns walkable and having a bit of parking at the periphery of downtown, along with good public transit. Encourages people to use public transit to get to town in the first place. Downtown residents can use transit or a zipcar or equivalent when the need to get out of town, instead of devoting a ton of space downtown for storing their cars.

Not sure if that approach is really practical, but if it can be made to work it is much nicer.

But not the educators teaching the farmer's kids, or the doctors and nurses treating their wounds? What about the clerks at the grocery store serving those farmers? The liquor store?

Trying to create an elaborate regulatory regime to decide who is justified to live in a rural area is absurd and a waste of money. Especially considering that most people living in rural areas are either employed in a necessary industry that needs to be rural, or work in professional or service industries either directly supporting said rural industry (e.g. tractor repair) or indirectly supporting it's workforce.

Furthermore, the marginal cost of providing broadband to all those "slightly-less-necessarily-rural" people is minuscule. Skipping every other house doesn't save you much when the majority of the cost is building infra to get broadband to the town/road in the first place.

> Or, we could zone areas to encourage people to live in towns where it's feasible for both corporations and the government to provide infrastructure and services at a reasonable cost.

This is assuming there isn't a good reason why we might want some percentage of the population to be rural. To have farms and ranches, for example.

I think this is very short-sighted, on the order of "Why should we subsidize package / letter delivery to people in the sticks?"

The economic benefit of making those people available as consumers, lowering barriers to their engagement in markets, is enormous and certainly pays for itself.