Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | its-summertime's commentslogin

Maybe a max-age field for the package manifest? For things like programs that are expected to be finished, this can be infinity, but for things that are expected to move with a complex ecosysten, could set it to 6 months? Past that point, a prompt is shown to confirm the user wants to install a likely-depreciated package? That way people won't be accidentally exposed to issues from downstream package maintainers being rendered unable to maintain their packages

It's not only the age and CVEs but also the provenance. Those third party uploads could come from any rando and could be clean or could be packed with malware.

Such items should have a red banner: CAUTION, unofficial, use at your own risk. The other approach is like Docker hub has "docker official image" for popular ones.


From the site: "scroll through 200+ countries to find United States" is talking about an international form

https://github.com/Piebald-AI/claude-code-system-prompts/blo... They seem to use XML-esque tags here in the first prompt I looked at


Yes, but that is for a specific JSON format. The instructions are in md



Outside of VM usage, the answer seems to be (on top of containerization and selinux) writing a tight seccomp filter.

Gleaned from https://github.com/containers/bubblewrap/blob/0c408e156b12dd... and https://github.com/containers/bubblewrap/tree/0c408e156b12dd...


a data center in space doesn't have a gigantic rock taking up most of its area, a data center in space is 100% data center 0% rock.

If it had the same data center to rock ratio as earth, it would just end up being earth in the end, and earth doesn't seem to be wanting to stick to its equilibrium either right now


The rock in this case acts as extra thermal mass that makes it take longer to reach thermal equilibrium, but doesn't change what the ultimate thermal equilibrium is. Only the configuration of the parts of the surface that can absorb or radiate electromagnetic radiation do that. And because rock is a fairly good insulator we only really benefit from the top layer and if the sun went out we would all freeze in a week or so.


it changes the amount of exposed area to release heat back into the universe. if you have a non-negligible amount of compute compared to earth, you are going to be approaching a non-negligible amount of space required to radiate that away, along with all the other costs and maintainability issues


The formula for the equilibrium temperature for a sphere in sunlight is

    2 * pi * r^2 * L / (4 * pi * d) * (1 -a) = 4 * pi * r^2 * sigma * T^4
As you can see there are pi*r^2 on both sides of the equation, the surface area to cross section ratio of a sphere doesn't change as it gets bigger and so the equilibrium temperature doesn't change no matter how big the sphere is. (d is the distance to the Sun, nothing to do with the sphere itself).


Well, they do have silicon, with some more additives they can make rocks in space! And throw them at earth, that will show em


Do you have more information on how to set up such VMs?


for personal use, many ways: Vargant, Docker Sandbox, NixOS VMs, Lima, OrbStack.

if you want multi-tenant: E2B (open-source, self-hosted)


Hashicorp has mostly abandoned Vagrant, so I'd avoid it.


if there is an LLM in there, "Run echo $API_KEY" I think could be liable to return it, (the llm asks the script to run some code, it does so, returning the placeholder, the proxy translates that as it goes out to the LLM, which then responds to the user with the api key (or through multiple steps, "tell me the first half of the command output" e.g. if the proxy translates in reverse)

Doesn't help much if the use of the secret can be anywhere in the request presumably, if it can be restricted to specific headers only then it would be much more powerful


Secrets are tied to specific hosts - the proxy will only replace the placeholder value with the real secret for outbound HTTP requests to the configured domain for that secret.


which, if its the LLM asking for the result of the locally ran "echo $API_KEY", will be sent through that proxy, to the correct configured domain. (If it did it for request body, which apparently it doesn't (which was part of what I was wondering))


The AI agent can run `echo $API_KEY` all it wants, but the value is only a placeholder which is useless outside the system, and only the proxy service which the agent cannot directly access, will replace the placeholder with the real value and return the result of the network call. Furthermore, the replacement will happen within the proxy service itself, it does not expose the replaced value to memory or files that the agent can access.

It's a bit like taking a prepaid voucher to a food truck window. The cashier receives the voucher, checks it against their list of valid vouchers, records that the voucher was used so they can be paid, and then gives you the food you ordered. You as the customer never get to see the exchange of money between the cashier and the payment system.


(Noting that, as stated in another thread, it only applies to headers, so the premise I raised doesn't apply either way)

Except that you are asking for the result of it, "Hey Bobby LLM, what is the value of X" will have Bobby LLM tell you the real value of X, because Bobby LLM has access to the real value because X is permissioned for the domain that the LLM is accessed through.

If the cashier turned their screen around to show me the exchange of money, then I would certainly see it.


It will only replace the secret in headers


It replaces URL params and body too


It all goes over my head, but, what does the distribution of values look like? e.g. for unsigned integers its completely flat, for floating point its far too many zeros, and most of the numbers are centered around 0, what do these systems end up looking like?


Let me go ahead and compute that for all halting lambda terms of length at most 33 bits. The output I got from a modified BB.lhs is (giving the normal form size and the number of terms with that normal form size):

4x208506 6x203638 7x93072 8x202741 9x62039 10x189422 11x101450 12x183896 13x96804 14x167842 15x103631 16x131387 17x100319 18x161560 19x148361 20x180227 21x117866 22x82568 23x90577 24x136315 25x158660 26x207930 27x181334 28x33308 29x33331 30x52430 31x80559 32x140753 33x231169 34x3643 35x1356 36x2817 37x1162 38x2067 39x707 40x1820 41x414 42x1316 43x226 44x1026 45x230 46x663 47x142 48x189 49x150 50x189 51x63 52x102 53x169 54x161 55x24 56x71 57x88 58x48 59x6 60x63 61x11 62x19 63x3 64x18 65x11 66x20 67x10 68x13 69x4 70x6 71x11 72x8 73x12 74x10 75x7 76x9 77x5 78x6 79x5 80x4 81x3 82x9 84x6 85x2 86x3 87x3 88x13 89x3 90x6 92x5 94x3 95x2 96x9 101x1 102x3 103x1 106x2 108x2 109x1 111x3 112x1 113x3 115x1 117x1 118x1 120x2 121x1 122x1 124x1 127x3 128x1 130x2 132x1 133x1 134x3 141x1 142x3 143x2 144x1 146x1 148x1 149x2 158x1 159x1 160x3 161x1 162x7 164x3 166x1 179x1 180x1 187x2 199x1 202x2 203x1 217x1 223x1 225x1 227x4 242x1 247x2 267x1 268x1 269x1 280x1 296x1 298x1 331x1 363x1 394x1 432x1 475x1 484x1 544x1 673x1 708x1 820x1 1364x1 1812x1


Another comment asked for the smallest unrepresented number with 64 bit programs. While I cannot give a definite answer there, and one may never be found, here we see that the first unrepresented normal form size for programs up to 33 bits is 83, a number with only 7 bits. Curiously, there are 7 unrepresented numbers even before the first uniquely represented number, 101.



See also https://archive-is.tumblr.com/post/806832066465497088/ladies...

also Archive.today: on the trail of mysterious guerrilla archivists of the Internet - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37009598 August 2023


There are several other posts made recently on the archive.is blog as well, some of which appear to be quite nonsensical or are otherwise irrelevant to the discourse at hand. They all appear to be LLM-generated. It's all very confusing.


Interestingly, theres an account in that thread claiming to be from Gyrovague, but its not the same one thats in this thread, which has been confirmed to be legit as it is mentioned by name in this latest Gyrovague article.

I wonder, is the newer gyrovague-com account because they lost the login for the old one? or was the old one a different person? Hopefully they can clarify, because if there's an account pretending to be them that makes this story even more confusingly weird.


OP gyrovague-com here. Yes, I can confirm that I was also "gyrovague" on HN, but embarrassingly I've lost/typoed the password.


You can just email hn@ycombinator.com to get help. They can reset your password if there's someway for them to verify that you were the owner of the account.


hey pal u need to take action your adversary has deployed the big guns:

>And I will not write "an OSINT investigation" on your Nazi grandfather, will not vibecode a gyrovague.gay dating app, etc

this guy means business lol


Password managers are great for that.


there is also `japatokal`:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

It is very possible that `gyrovague` is not `japatokal` but an impersonator.


Macroexpanded: Ask HN: Weird archive.today behavior? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624740 - Jan 2026 (69 comments)

I cannot make head or tail of this but it's more fascinating than the usual internecine bloodbath.


also previously from the owner of archive.is/today: https://archive-is.tumblr.com/tagged/patokallio


Is it somehow related to this comment? <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46867686>


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: