cyanmagenta (u/cyanmagenta)

cyanmagenta commented on Debian 13 Trixie Review: 11 Features That Make It the Biggest Release in Years dtptips.com/debian-13-tri... · Posted by u/teleforce

cyanmagenta · 21 days ago

It always feels weird when Linux distro articles brag about new releases that are mostly just updated versions of third-party software. The stuff in the article (GNOME 48, KDE Plasma 6.3, python 3.13, etc.) have cool new features for sure, but it’s not like they were created by Debian.

That’s not a knock on the distro. Debian is great. It’s just a strange state of affairs.

cyanmagenta commented on US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders theguardian.com/us-news/2... · Posted by u/leotravis10

xtiansimon · 2 months ago

> “…the procedure here is to just use class action lawsuits to get nationwide injunctions.”

I recently learned my company’s Handbook has a passage which says I cannot participate in a class action lawsuit against the company. Sure, they can _just say_ I can’t eat green M&Ms, but what’s the twist?

cyanmagenta · 2 months ago

The context here is suing the government for unconstitutional executive orders, so wouldn’t be an issue.

But yeah, ever since the Supreme Court blessed those provisions in National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc (2018), companies have been adding them to employee agreements.

cyanmagenta commented on US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders theguardian.com/us-news/2... · Posted by u/leotravis10

acoustics · 2 months ago

The majority seems too trusting that the government will appeal its losses.

Strategically, the government could enact a policy affecting a million people, be sued, lose, provide relief to the named plaintiffs, and then not appeal the decision. The upper courts never get the opportunity to make binding precedent, the lower courts do not get to extend relief to non-plaintiffs, and the government gets to enforce its illegal policies on the vast majority of people who did not (likely could not) sue.

cyanmagenta · 2 months ago

That was a concern noted by the dissent.

That said, the procedure here is to just use class action lawsuits to get nationwide injunctions. The opinion explicitly notes that it is an option. And today there was a big flurry of people amending their complaints to do just that.

cyanmagenta commented on A federal judge sides with Anthropic in lawsuit over training AI on books techcrunch.com/2025/06/24... · Posted by u/moose44

paxys · 2 months ago

Will be interesting to see how this affects Anthropic's ongoing lawsuit with Reddit, or all the different media publishing ones flying around. Is it okay to train on books but not online posts and articles? Why the distinction between the two?

cyanmagenta · 2 months ago

The distinction will be whether those online posts were obtained legally, analogous to whether the books in this case were pirated.

It’s not as simple as it sounds, since I’m sure scraping is against Reddit’s terms and conditions, but if those posts are made publicly available without the scraper actually agreeing to anything, is that a valid breach of contract?

Will be interesting to see how that plays out.

cyanmagenta commented on AI Saved My Company from a 2-Year Litigation Nightmare tylertringas.com/ai-legal... · Posted by u/anitil

reitzensteinm · 3 months ago

I'm curious where the line is if you represent yourself in a criminal case. At what point (if any) would opening up Google Docs and typing notes about the case that inadvertantly incriminates yourself become inadmissible?

cyanmagenta · 3 months ago

Let me preface this by saying that civil procedure and criminal procedure are separate bodies of law with their own rules on these issues. I’m not a criminal attorney and thus not comfortable speaking out of field. That said, I know there is an analogous work product doctrine that applies to pro se criminal defendants, but I don’t know the contours of it.

It’s super interesting to think about though! Imagine if your Google Doc said something like “The stolen cash is hidden in these six places, but the prosecutors don’t seem to have anything linking me to some of those areas, so I should point that out at trial.” If the government didn’t already know where the cash was hidden, it seems implausible to me that any judge wouldn’t let them have that information. It likewise seems implausible that the judge would let the prosecutors know what the defendant thinks would be good or bad to emphasize at trial. So I’m guessing it’d be an in-camera review resulting in a redacted document just disclosing the places where the cash was hidden, but not the subsequent mental impressions. But the real question, as you asked, is whether you can actually put that in front of a jury to show guilt. And I’m afraid I’m going to have to plead ignorance here (but hope there are some criminal attorneys lurking on HN that could speak to this).

cyanmagenta commented on AI Saved My Company from a 2-Year Litigation Nightmare tylertringas.com/ai-legal... · Posted by u/anitil

eadmund · 3 months ago

If there is no attorney-client privilege with AI (I believe there is not), then could the opposing party demand discovery of all of one’s communications with the AI pertaining to the case?

cyanmagenta · 3 months ago

Lawyer here. There isn’t attorney-client privilege with AI itself because AI is neither your attorney nor your client. However, there is something called the work product doctrine that shields things like your activities with legal research tools, document review tools, etc. so long as they are used in anticipation of litigation. So, despite what the other commenters are saying here, there is pretty much no chance that any of this would be discoverable, barring very strange circumstances.

cyanmagenta commented on HTTP/3 is everywhere but nowhere httptoolkit.com/blog/http... · Posted by u/doener

eptcyka · 5 months ago

Yea, but does the kernel then also do certificate validation for you? Will you pin certs via setsockopt? I think QUIC and TLS are wide enough attack surfaces to warrant isolation from the kernel.

cyanmagenta · 5 months ago

> but does the kernel then also do certificate validation for you

No, the asymmetric cryptography is all done in userspace. Then, post-handshake, symmetric cryptography (e.g., AES) is done in-kernel. This is the same way it works with TCP if you’re using kTLS.