I think this is an example of above average but not great AI writing. I still read it to the end because the subject is interesting and there is enough focus (and, seemingly) expertise on the topic.
I think the telltale for me that makes me count as heavily AI-assisted is the lack of inclusion of real, inline examples of actual fares & their restrictions. I know I've seen them broken down before in other content. But not once here was there a full readout of an actual fare bucket & its rules. I think a human writer would have been tempted to include even one of those as an artifact, but an AI as a topic reviewer/summarizer/collator won't unless explicitly instructed.
It seems like this new PNG spec just cements what exists already, great! The best codecs are the ones that work on everything. PNG and JPEG work everywhere, reliably.
Try opening a HEIC or AV1 or something on a machine that doesn't natively support it down to the OS-level, and you're in for a bad time. This stuff needs to work everywhere—in every app, in the OS shell for quick-looking at files, in APIs, on Linux, etc. If a codec does not function at that level, it is not functional for wider use and should not be a default for any platform.
I work with a LOT of images in a lot of image formats, many including extremely niche formats used in specific fields. There is a massive challenge in really supporting all of these, especially when you get down to the fact that some specs are a little looser than others. Even libraries can be very rough, since sure it says on the tin it supports JPG and TIF and HEIC... but does it support a 30GB Jpeg? Does it support all possibly meta data in the file?
Prototype is not a charitable interpretation of the product. If you've been part of hardware, firmware, and software development processes, you'd really truly understand what prototypes are.
I think the point of BlastDoor, as covered in the post, is that Apple is indeed working to prevent injection at the cost of silently failing & poorly handling legitimate messages.
> By being pedantic about the formatting, BlastDoor is protecting the recipient from an exploit that would abuse that type of issue.
So, not impossible, but less likely than you think
Perhaps this is a reactionary question, but: shouldn't this be recall worthy? Or is it inherent to Lidar itself?
This has the potential to damage safety-critical sensors used in backup cameras or autonomous vehicles—and, obviously, inflicts damage on personal property like smartphones.
You risk a false equivalency (ex: look at what water did to cotton candy. Imagine the damage to a human. We'd dissolve) but your question is valid. Even on HN this has been discussed. According to past discussions, water, which is in the eye, blocks that wavelength. I'm sure enough of it is bad (because blocks really means turns into heat) but it seems animals, being water sacks, are well suited for this.
AS a Scientist with experience with lasers: everything that is strong enough to destroy a camera Sensor is strong enough to Hurt your eye. The Thing is: this wavelength may Not damage the Retina, but IT can "destroy" parts of your cornea or lens. Basically your cornea or lens can get hazy.
On the other hand, since cell cameras don't filter out infrared, you can use them to detect spy cameras in your airbnb, which are using IR to illuminate the room.
These counterfactual comparisons are a slippery slope and not as helpful as you think. I hardly think that you, I, or most others have an intuitive understanding for what happens when a 1 gram meteor hits earth. Have you ever witnessed that?
The average failure state of a battery is not similar to detonating a handful of TNT on an airplane, which is a more instantaneous explosion. Sure, some battery failure states are violent and would unquestionably be a cause for an airplane to call a mayday and land, but something like puncturing a soft-cell battery is still a slower release than TNT.
We should just expect people to get better at understanding useful units — I'd prefer someone learns Wh since it is indeed a useful metric—kWh is the usual major unit of energy at home, and Wh is just smaller than that.
I was trying to guesstimate a theoretical upper-bound on the damage. Looking at youtubes online, it seems a labtop battery explosion is still scary and more like a handful of firecrackers than TNT, but what actually seems worse is that the explosion is followed by the labtop being on fire and producing subsequent smaller explosions. So the worse case is that the fire ignites other stuff in the plane, which includes other lithium batteries.
I would like to see more DF on HN. The something rotten in Cupertino was a shattering post—people in my circle who do not read DF were discussing and sending it around, and I work at a place where so many dang people read HN. So I agree with Gruber’s concern.
To be clear though it is not some backend thing by dang etc. but rather users with enough reputation to get the flag button are flagging your posts just because they don’t like you. That is the likeliest explanation.
But the only post on the recent submissions list that is actually marked "[flagged] is this one. If it's because enough high-karma users are clicking "flag", wouldn't they all show up as "flagged"?
The only explanation I have heard that makes sense is: The [flagged] tag only appears after a certain threshold amount of user-flags, however each user-flag contributes to the down-weight of the story.
So if the [flagged] threshold is 10 user-flags, then 9 people can flag the article, burying it, and then only at the next user-flag, [flagged] shows up in the title.
Of course, nobody but HN staff truly knows if this is how it works.
That may be right. Unfortunately, while I have seen Wikipedia articles on HN, my memory is not sharp enough to recall for how long they stuck around on the front page.
Well, if John is correct, it's not too surprising that it is flagged...
I've noticed that being critical of Musk or Trump is a flag-magnet as well.. I guess either the owners of the site are cough "free-speech absolutists" or there's some concerted effort to prevent criticism of them - the former seems a lot more likely.
I think the telltale for me that makes me count as heavily AI-assisted is the lack of inclusion of real, inline examples of actual fares & their restrictions. I know I've seen them broken down before in other content. But not once here was there a full readout of an actual fare bucket & its rules. I think a human writer would have been tempted to include even one of those as an artifact, but an AI as a topic reviewer/summarizer/collator won't unless explicitly instructed.