Always wondered how long it'd take to catch this. The fraud detection algorithms for postage must be pretty robust these days.

Solving an 1840s bug report. Bet they wished for better logging back then, like some legacy systems I've dealt with.

Reading Kay's take reminds me those guys were the BIOS. Fascinating how computing evolved from pure hardware, not just software.

Go concurrency seems simple on the surface, but mastering select and proper error handling takes practice. Good to see this topic distilled.

Good enough AI for security auditing feels like asking for "good enough" brakes. There's just no room for complacency.

Not sure I follow the analogy, so apologies if I'm reading it backwards, but we do in fact have standards for "good enough" brakes without being brake-maxxers.

Similarly here, I'd argue that a verified implementation with correctness proofs, mechanical translation, and easily auditable theorems seems close to good enough? A lot rides on the Claude-built translator, I suppose, but the trusted code for that project seems to be tiny in comparison to what it would have been 2 years ago!

I suspect you two are using the same words for different terms / connotations.

"Good enough" in colloquial speak usually means the minimum required for some particular requirement.

For security, there is usually no exact threshold that differs between insecure and secure. It's a spectrum that involves costs and tradeoffs, which are subjective value judgements.

A SaaS startup in pre-seed mode with no customers will have VASTLY different value judgements than a bank that handles $trillions in assets. Hence they will make very different security choices and "good enough" will mean very different things in their different sectors.

I don't get the analogy. Brakes that are good enough for a Honda Civic driven at regular speeds are not good enough for a fire truck or a race car, but there are in fact standards that are "good enough" for all of those.

People on HN have a tendency to shove in analogies where it doesn't need one. Even worse when most of the time the analogies do not make sense.

You could even say we are like a glass carpet: the color may be attractive but the texture is terrible...

All security is a negotiation of allocating resources. It always ends with “well, that’s good enough for this.” There is never a “Ahhhh we’re done!” It can always be “more secure”.

There is an area where an AI audit can add some real value: the huge multitude companies that have never looked at security at all. Small businesses.

This is why we all use ceramics in our daily-drivers, of course.

Imagine a decentralized system rewarding actual transit usage with tokens. That could actually work and incentivize more.

Reminds me of the woods behind my childhood home, now just another housing development. We lose so much, so fast.

The geometric nightmare thread is wild. Getting the same shifting shapes across unrelated people suggests it's wired into how the visual system fails, not learned.

Finally, a practical use for those notification LEDs. Definitely adding this to my travel toolkit if it proves reliable.

Love seeing this kind of dedication. Reminds me of the wild contraptions my own father made to fix our ancient NES controllers.