May I suggest directly hosting the images and text instead of embedding the x and linked in posts.
Readit Newspolitelemon commented on AI-First Company Memos the-ai-native.company/... · Posted by u/bobismyuncle
I do not hold out much hope, but hope nonetheless, that the companies that chose to embed themselves in this unmitigated theft and destabilisation, including OpenAi, Apple, Google, Nvidia, Fannie, among others, will see consequences from the public. But for this to happen will require the public to not worship at their feet.
politelemon commented on Something Big Is Happening shumer.dev/something-big-... · Posted by u/eternalreturn
> They focused on making AI great at writing code first... because building AI requires a lot of code.
I'm not convinced this person knows what they're talking about.
politelemon commented on Credentials for Linux: Bringing Passkeys to the Linux Desktop alfioemanuele.io/talks/20... · Posted by u/alfie42
Passkey/webauthn is a cool tech, and I'd really like to use it everywhere, but I find the anti-user attitudes of the spec authors concerning. The spec contains provisions about "user verification" (the software must force user interaction) and not allowing the user to access the plaintext keys. It appears that the spec authors do not consider the keys to be owned by the user at all.
KeepassXC implements passkey support, but they do not implement these anti-user features. As a result, they are being threatened with being banned via attestation:
https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/issues/10406
https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/issues/10407
Screw these "You'll own nothing and be happy" people. I'll own all my keys no matter what. The software I run on my device should never betray me to signal things like "this passkey is allowed to be backed up!".
> It appears that the spec authors do not consider the keys to be owned by the user at all.
This was my impression, and it explains why the original announcement involved companies that would benefit the most from keeping their users on a leash.
politelemon commented on Credentials for Linux: Bringing Passkeys to the Linux Desktop alfioemanuele.io/talks/20... · Posted by u/alfie42
How do you even ban something like KeypassXC given that it is open source and any end user could basically edit KeypassXC and bypass a ban?
Edit: Reading one of those issues it sounds like they want the keys stored in an encrypted way, is that too much to ask for? I dont care about viewing it but it shouldnt be stored in a plain easy to open JSON.
> ask for
That's the key difference. If it mattered, they would make it part of the spec, not threaten a ban. That's even more concerning, there is a central group of people who get to decide who can and cannot use Passkeys.
politelemon commented on Intel Recently Shelved Numerous Open-Source Projects phoronix.com/news/Intel-O... · Posted by u/pjmlp
It comes as no surprise that polite guard turned out to be a lemon.
politelemon commented on OpenClaw is changing my life reorx.com/blog/openclaw-i... · Posted by u/novoreorx
> Thank you, AGI—for me, it’s already here.
Poe's law strikes... I can't tell if this is satire.
politelemon commented on Software factories and the agentic moment factory.strongdm.ai/... · Posted by u/mellosouls
> we transitioned from boolean definitions of success ("the test suite is green") to a probabilistic and empirical one. We use the term satisfaction to quantify this validation: of all the observed trajectories through all the scenarios, what fraction of them likely satisfy the user?
Oh, to have the luxury of redefining success and handwaving away hard learned lessons in the software industry.
politelemon commented on Software factories and the agentic moment factory.strongdm.ai/... · Posted by u/mellosouls
Then I disagree with you
> You still have to have a human who knows the system to validate that the thing that was built matches the intent of the spec.
You don't need a human who knows the system to validate it if you trust the LLM to do the scenario testing correctly. And from my experience, it is very trustable in these aspects.
Can you detail a scenario by which an LLM can get the scenario wrong?
I do not trust the LLM to do it correctly. We do not have the same experience with them, and should not assume everyone does. To me, your question makes no sense to ask.
politelemon commented on Reputation Scores for GitHub Accounts shkspr.mobi/blog/2026/02/... · Posted by u/edent
sigh
To me, this article with this title is as much of a low effort spam as the PRs it is critiquing.
So this post got the the front page of HN with no comments, with a title "Reputation Scores for GitHub Accounts." The article does not show reputation scores, it barely even sketches out ideas for a reputation score.
It should be titled "We Need Reputation Scores for GitHub Accounts" to let people know that this is just a low effort feature request.
It doesn't read that way to me at all.
I didn't see the GitHub domain so I assumed it's going to be some blogger sharing their thoughts on a situation.
Not every title will be able to cater to everyone's ability to understand or misunderstand the intention, so it's worth taking the time to read it. I found it to be short and well written fwiw.