Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | dwedge's commentslogin

I might be wrong but I was under the impression that these were one time pads and only cracked because of bad key hygiene when it came to generating them. If that's true, it's entirely possible

Enigma wasn't one time pad based (although these were used a lot during the war), enigma does have known weaknesses such as letters never being decrypted to itself. Enigma was based off daily settings (rotor positions, plugboard settings etc), which could be mostly recovered by the end of the war, unlike actual one time pads which are only crackable by bad key hygiene/brute force.

You cannot crack OTP, even by brute force.

As much as I agree with this article, I feel that there's a logical flaw here. The author admits that it's difficult to measure bad code - but continues with the assertion that it exists. If the only negative to "bad code" is that it's difficult to maintain once the author has left or difficult to refactor, then the question really is whether or not LLMs will continue to be able to maintain their spaghetti code.

Just because it's bad for a human doesn't necessarily mean everything will fall apart - unless a human has to maintain it unaided.


I think the key distinction is that it's difficult to determine whether a single commit or pull request is bad code at a glance, but it's easy to determine when the codebase as a whole has gone bad due to many low quality commits.

The latter often doesn't even require looking at the code, you can usually feel it just by using the software. From my experience, all software primarily written by AI is full of little bugs and inconsistencies that reflect bad code architecture (such as two very similar pieces of functionality in two different places behaving in wildly different ways, due to the AI being unaware of the first when asked to implement the second and writing the code twice)


I totally agree, and I agree with the article in general. I just don't think it follows that code that's bad because humans had to maintain it is necessarily bad by definition.

I've vibecoded loads of AI apps for myself and almost none of them are still in use. Not because I didn't really want them or they didn't work, but because the more I used them the dirtier I felt, as though I could feel the bad decisions and the bugs underneath just by interacting with it.


I think this kind of blog post reflects a fear of infantilization by AI. By asserting that only humans know what good code looks like, the author is attempting to mend his own ego.

Build the systems around the code and let the agents do their work.


Not sure if there's push back or something behind this but a lot of premiership teams this season in the UK have a second kit where the sponsor is either missing or the same colour as the shirt so barely visible. Examples: https://www.safcstore.com/en/c-18416 https://www.brightonandhovealbion.com/media-article/125th-an...

Watched Brighton beat Arsenal on the TV over the weekend and had no idea they had the sponsor’s name on their Jersey at all!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/live/c65ym9ml19d0t


The same goes for international matches, no ads on jerseys.

Teams get paid to wear Nike or Adidas.

It led to the hilarious situation were they have to wear pink shoes so that the audience looks at them.


The best example is Jordan's 1992 Olympic cover-up

https://boardroom.tv/michael-jordan-olympic-jacket-nike-reeb...


Pink boots is because of the strong contrast against the green grass, no?

A PDP-11 serving adverts for an AI-written site in 2026 was not on my bingo card. Imagine being brought back from the dead for that.

Unfortunately, this is just Dave "I wrote Task Manager" Plummer's handwriting.

Dave "fake antivirus software scammer" Plummer

https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/attorney-general-s...


Wow. I can't imagine the thought process of going from accumulating a decade of Microsoft shares and experience during a pivotal era and deciding to plow it into a consumer scam op.

for some reason, the tech industry attracts these types like flies to...well, you know the saying. They aren't the majority of folks drawn to tech but outside of maybe finance, it seems to be their preferred habitat.

it's their raison d'être to Always Be Conning


> Happy to be correct, though.

Not normally one to point out a typo but this one made me smile


> No, RPis are very inexpensive computers.

This hasn't been true for 5 or 6 years and there is very little reason to buy one over a second hand 1L PC these days. They are expensive and notorious for screwing SD cards.

To put it into perspective, an 8GB raspberry pi with a 32GB SD card and cable but no monitor, no keyboard, no mouse is 251GBP. 35% the price of a macbook neo.


A MacBook Neo is 699 GBP. An 8GB Raspberry Pi w/ 32GB SD card, cable, housing, fan and power supply from Kiwi Electronics is 188 EUR (160 GBP). A monitor, kb/mouse, and SD card from Newegg is 70 USD (45 GBP). Total 205 GBP, which is 70.7% cheaper than a MacBook Neo. Quite a discount!

I gave you prices from UK sellers for all of them. You gave me three different currencies which suggests you're picking and choosing, and ignoring taxes. Probably because newegg in the UK doesn't sell them anymore.

You're also implying that Kiwi Electronics sell an 8GB raspberry pi 5 with SD card, housing, cable, power supply and fan for 5 euros less than they sell an 8GB raspberry pi 5 without any of those things: https://www.kiwi-electronics.com/en/raspberry-pi-5-computers...

> Total 205 GBP, which is 70.7% cheaper than a MacBook Neo. Quite a discount!

With 85% less storage, and nowhere near as powerful. The idea that a raspberry pi is worth a third a macbook, do you really believe that?

The raspberry pi's day as cheap hobbyist computing has long gone.


> You gave me three different currencies which suggests you're picking and choosing, and ignoring taxes.

Even if I'm off by 100%, 410GBP is 41% less than 699. Quite a discount!

> The idea that a raspberry pi is worth a third a macbook, do you really believe that?

I think a lot more kids, etc. have 200 GBP than 700.


This. You're paying for various forms of documentation and support. If you don't need that, there are cheaper (e.g. Orange Pi) or better (1L, thin client) options.

Use BBC from abroad and you see scam ads and the "which bar would you move to save the king" crap. They're not morally above this, only legally within the UK

It's interesting that I've seen this argument 4 times on hacker news, all in the past 2 weeks and never before. Really is quite a small bubble

I've made this argument here on Hacker News dozens of times over many years now.

It could be my bias

to what do you attribute the increase you've noticed?

I'll be clear that no I didn't - I read the announcement when Disney+ emailed it to me with no further context, plus adding this disclaimer was the reason for the email. So I disagree that this is our fault.

They mailed me too, and I did read it in full. There's a link right there in the e-mail. I read it, and understood it's not at all what everyone here is claiming.

The email contains the full subscriber agreement (which is also the link in the email).

The full text for that section:

All Service Plans may include: (i) promotional content, (ii) sponsorships, and (iii) advertisements before/after playback of Content and in channels, live/as-live, special events, and any third-party services content.

Perhaps you could share, from the email, what you read that everyone else is missing.


> Now, finally, I have an idea. It's gonna take 5000 words to get there, though, so if you don't have that kind of time, skip to the part about registries.

This article is full of LLMisms, which is to be expected but maybe it wouldn't be 5000 words and wouldn't need this disclaimer if they wrote it themselves


While I’m usually one to also get annoyed at uncurated slop, this doesn’t strike me in any way as LLM text, and likely something the author meant in earnest. I reads lot of LLM text. What part about it appeared generated to you?

From my perspective the piece was well structured, paced and thought through (and yes, a bit long)


The whole paragraph titled "Isn't this just Tidelift again?" is exactly how Claude describes something it is excited about.

I’d recommend looking through the 20+ years of Laurie’s writing in the archives. The LLMs may very well be mimicking him. I wouldn’t put LLM assisted writing past him, but I feel like this is being judged on topical similarity, and is not the standard kind of egregious incoherent slop that has little substance or lacks coherence. See for example:

https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/introducing-cuda-rust-two-...


Stop whining about it, the constant whining is worse than the LLM prose

I don't know about you, but I personally really appreciate when people warn me in advance that something is going to be a waste of time.

"and I don't think that's right, and the distinction matters" Yeah right. lol


It's really not, actually. Often I read the comments before the article and getting a head's up that the article is slop is invaluable.

It's not only not 'worse than the LLM prose', it's a community service!


I for one always appreciate it. The comments help me judge whether I'm right or wrong in my own opinion.

How is this a LLM output? A LLM can easily write out those 5000 words.

> Now, the popular way to tell this story is "the system is breaking," and I don't think that's right, and the distinction matters. The system isn't breaking. It's stable, at a level of human cost we've collectively decided to put up with.

Reads like an LLM to me. "Load bearing" also used a few paragraphs down.


The only llmism I sensed is the use of "load bearing". Im usually queasy after reading llm slop, and stop before the end. This didn't have that effect.

Maybe the llms are getting better, but either way, this article reads like a real hunan write the whole thing.


It felt like unedited, unstyled Claude output. e.g. "No, and the difference is the important bit."

This article feels like it was written by a human who has just read to much llm writing

Humans don't write things like: "Now, the popular way to tell this story is "the system is breaking," and I don't think that's right, and the distinction matters."

This statement just makes me think of a line from The Diamond Age in which two kids in a post-nanotech future first see a scrap of hand-woven cloth and after thinking decide that it must have been made by nanomachines because no human could make something so regular.

Before LLMs no load was ever borne

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

Search: