> Just because you disagree with a power of the government does not mean the government does not have that power.
Sure, but we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. The government doesn't just get to do whatever it wants. People and corporations have certain freedoms. One of those freedoms is not being compelled to work with the government. The government can't force a company to work for them except under extreme circumstances. Which currently no extreme circumstances have been claimed and no one is talking about nationalizing (the act of forcing the company to work for the government) anthropic
The law being used was passed by Congress who is elected democratically and then reinforced by the judiciary who is either also voted in democratically or appointed by the democratically elected Congress. Lots of people want the US to be a dictatorship but it's a far cry from an actual one.
And then another company got the contract, claiming they got all the conditions (and more!) that the original contractor was sour about.
I don't know how anyone can look at the situation and see anything but an abuse of power. The government could have just as easily contacted with another provider. This whole thing is vindictive
> A forest is much less efficient than a mall and yet, the forest might still be more important.
This is a good example of a very common problem: data isn't objective, it needs to be interpreted. Metrics will give you information, but they aren't the full story. That's why Goodhart's Law is so prolific. You can't just look at data and act on it without context. It depends what your actual goals are. And a huge part of that is that we have to consider how much we value things, especially things that haven't already been assigned monetary value. Sure, we can assign monetary value to things like a forest (economists do this), but it would also be wildly inappropriate to just accept those estimates as cold hard facts void of interpretation too. What's the saying? Reality has a surprising amount of resolution.
In a weird twist of irony our efforts to be lazy end up costing us a lot of work. But that's also because there's two types of lazy: short term and overall work. We used to say we want to hire programmers that are lazy because they'll find the most efficient way to do something. But now we don't revere that kind of lazy, we like the kind of lazy that procrastinates. Do the quick cheap thing now, telling ourselves that we'll make it better in the future, knowing that's a lie. That pattern isn't unique to programming, it's just marshmallows.
Let's not forget that there's tons of people who are in, or have gone to, jail because they created some computer worm that ended up doing way more damage than intended.
Not to mention while causing *FAAAAR* less damage[0]
> you are already assuming that OpenAI is intentionally using unaligned agents in these evals or training runs
Uhh... yes. By definition. They are training. That is part of the alignment process.
But also none of that really matters. They clearly weren't monitoring what should obviously be monitored. I mean one of the hacks was performed by the agents editing /etc/hosts. That makes nearly every linux user a "hacker" by that metric. I don't think anyone technical can look at the postmortems and not come away thinking that their sandboxes were woefully inadequate. I wouldn't even consider myself a security person but simply as a long time linux user I can say that it is insane to just let agents have superuser access in their containers. That's asking for trouble.
Look at the rogue wiki stuff too. This was supposedly done during the agent's "down time". And you're not monitoring and there's no flags being raised when agents keep making requests to some random site? If you were training these things responsibly you'd be watching them like a hawk.
I'm not saying "mistakes don't happen" but for a company whose CEO is constantly telling everyone that their product has a high likelihood of killing everyone in the world you think they'd have better security than your average high school.
As a Linux user I've hated VSCode's ssh. There's lot of annoying things that make it harder to admin for. Like it doesn't pick up the MotD, preventing me from showing users important messages. I've found that it also doesn't reuse sessions (at least by default. TBF, neither does ssh) and I'll find that there's just dozens of open sessions over months from users. I literally had to write a script to boot people...
It would be one thing if the plugin was just a wrapper and people were still expected to know ssh but the plugin abstracts away all that and is intended to make it a "use VSCode on remote machine" tool. So it needs to do more than just handle creds, otherwise it creates a divergent experience while making people think it's just ssh
> There's lot of annoying things that make it harder to admin for.
It also (AIUI) tries to walk the entire file tree, so have fun with NFS (auto)mounts.
It also amounts to letting off fork bombs: we set up limits for a maximum of 256 process per UID, and regularly get folks asking "what does this 'cannot fork' message mean?": it mean you're trying to DoS the system.
> we set up limits for a maximum of 256 process per UID, and regularly get folks asking "what does this 'cannot fork' message mean?"
The max limit on 64 bit systems is what, 4,194,303? So if you have over 16,000 users per VM this limit makes sense, otherwise it just seems user-hostile.
Every process takes some memory and other resource, yes a stale process will pretty much all end up all paged out and not massively in the way of active processes, but they still aren't entirely free so it is more than a bean-counting number.
Yes, under Linux (and most unix-a-like systems) small processes are cheap to bring up and tear down which is why we create them so much, and it is not uncommon for complex interactive commands and bits of shell scripts to create several¹, but these are all likely to be short-lived so a limit of 256 certainly doesn't seem to be obscenely low to me.
What could it be doing that requires 256+ processes to be kept around for a prolonged time?
--------
[1] made up example: comparing filtered content of two gzipped files and sending the result through a script to send alerts by mail if certain things are found would be 7+ (2x gzip, 2x or more grep, diff, bash, mail or curl depending on what service you are sending alerts through)
> The max limit on 64 bit systems is what, 4,194,303? So if you have over 16,000 users per VM this limit makes sense, otherwise it just seems user-hostile.
And yet we still regularly loads of >100 on our 64 core HPC login codes, and swap is regularly used even with 96G of system memory (we have per UID memory limits too).
What's hostile is the VSCode (and Codex and Claude) makers developing tools that basically DoS a system because they assume it will operate only on single-user machines.
(And WTF are you doing that you're forking 256 processes? We have quite a few expensive HPC nodes: use those to build, not the damn login nodes.)
> The max limit on 64 bit systems is what, 4,194,303?
What a weird framing... I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue. I mean a single process can overload the machine. Just because you can label 4m processes doesn't mean you can actually run that many programs. Just think about that for a minute. 256 processes is pretty generous
What would truly be user hostile would be to allow so many processes per UID that a small handful (maybe using VSCode) make the system slow or unresponsive to everyone else.
Honestly every developer needs to increase those default limits, they are too low for modern development... So you are just crippling them and a proof of that is they keep getting this error while in their regular workflow
I don't even hit 256 on my desktop with a shitton of things open and 75 firefox sandbox processes, much less on a remote server. What in heaven's name are you doing to cross 256?
Honestly I think this thread has just devolved to HPC admins vs people who don't understand how shared multiuser sytems work cause they've been stuck on a laptop for too long to remember.
> Honestly every developer needs to increase those default limits, they are too low for modern development...
The users can develop on >100 compute nodes, but choose not to bother doing any kind of forwarding/proxying/jumping to them and just do stuff on the login nodes.
If they can't be bothered to do a "ssh -J …" then it's on them. The resources are there.
Ah, I see. Our admins typically understood that users were being given disk quotas precisely so that they could use that disk space, but that's probably not a universal stance.
Quotas mean "more than this is clearly too much" not "please use this space".
In good times nobody minds, but in bad times when you just can't extend the drive you have to tell people off. Part of the job of making sure the system can continue to work for what you need it, under _real_ constraints.
You may have to delete stuff, you may have to shut the server down to save power. You may have to limit clock speeds. It depends on the environment and "it really should work because it should be covered by next day on site warranty and you could download more ram" often doesn't apply.
> Quotas mean "more than this is clearly too much" not "please use this space".
Ah, memories of Uni, back when storage was fairly expensive, where we had both hard and soft quotas. The soft quota would allow for temporary growth of build artefacts and things¹ but you would get stern emails if you were over your soft quota for 24 hours, and if you persisted without good reason³ your hard quota would be reduced so you effectively have no soft quota any more.
--------
[1] some machines had no local storage that the user could touch so putting them there was not always possible, some people on Windows machines had local storage but didn't have the relevant tools locally so were actually running things on the shared server(s)² instead of that just being a storage resource
[2] via telnet/rsh/rlogin: yes, I am that old… SSH was a thing by that point, though OpenSSH wasn't, and I was using it where available, but the use of older plain-text protocols was still far far more common
[3] it wasn't actually difficult to justify a quota extension for project work, in fact people enrolled on certain modules got higher quotas automatically
Yes, let's hope it doesn't get even more expensive. Around here we are purposely not upgrading hardware unless we have to, hoping to ride through the price increases. I'm sure lots of people are doing the same thing, which probably won't help much once prices start to come back down... assuming they do.
Back in the day, because the architecture was shared memory and cooperative multitasking, this is how MacOS applications declared their memory constraints.
Apps had a (recommended and then user-configurable) "Minimum memory" and "Preferred memory." The app would not launch if the OS couldn't give it the minimum. It would then give the app up to the preferred amount, if available, exclusively... This was in the era before virtual memory and paging, so there was no easy way to share memory across an application boundary.
This mean that savvy users with high-resource tasks knew you had to launch your apps in a certain order to get the architecture into the configuration to do their work.
This is a fascinatingly "pets" approach to admin; it's been ages since I've been somewhere that used this approach. I've been in the "cattle fields" for decades now.
In my ecosystem, developers don't have time to glad-hand like this; if there are issues with DEV_NODE_CFG_1_29875, we might talk about it over Slack (because I'm the first one to know there's a problem as the end-user), and if we can't sort it out they'll give me some time to backup, blank the whole machine, and I get a brand-new image of DEV_NODE_CFG_1_29875.
I can't even tell you off the top of my head what territory the physical machine is running in or whether it's the only dev-node on that hardware.
(Broadly speaking, I think Microsoft is assuming cattle ecosystems; they're not openly-hostile to pets per se, but they have a strict ranking of the priorities because the "cattle ranches," as it were, bring in more money).
I had it seen on servers that were typically reserved for the team but there was no official booking system for those machines. When you start using the machine you would typically put some note to make sure somebody else does not overrun your long-running tests or performance measurements.
Sometimes you aren't really "the owner". For one example I was admining my group's server in grad school. I wanted to add quotas (we already had zfs) because people were abusing home directories but my advisor and a few members were very against it because I was "over complicating things". Their worry about me wasting time (20 minutes for all machines...) resulted in hours of yelling at people over the years. All because, surprise, a small number of people can't follow instructions and abuse systems, ruining it for everyone.
Another frequent problem we had was people using the systems while others were. They wouldn't check the machine's status. And of course you can guess that I wasn't allowed to add a scheduler.
A lot of groups do things in janky ways. Often not because they don't know any better but because leadership doesn't and is assertive
"The announcement was visible in a MOTD on every server in the fra3 location for the last two days."
"I have not touched any machines in fra3 for a week, how the hell would I know of it? Why do we even have #fra3-maintenance and #maintenance channels then, if that's your stance?"
> "I have not touched any machines in fra3 for a week, how the hell would I know of it? Why do we even have #fra3-maintenance and #maintenance channels then, if that's your stance?"
We put the MOTD up ≥7 days in advance and put it in relevant Slack channels.
We have the servers role, you can derive that from the name obviously, but we do have hosts which as the same naming scheme, but slightly different roles. There's when the last Puppet run happened and what it applied (and who authored it). Depending on the host type there's also active/standby, warnings for production hosts or information about increased log level on things like sudo.
It sounds like a lot, but it's fairly compact and really helps when you need to absolutely sure where you are and you have eight terminal windows open.
Things that should probably be an email. I think one time I’ve seen it work is to tell you stuff specifically about the host you’re on to avoid mistakes.
I miss fingering, it was such an easy way to get a log dump or status update from various daemons, I still think it has immense utility .. some of my fondest operator days were sat under the umbrella with a terminal while sleep 30 ; finger someone@all-the-things ; done .. watching the machines from afar.
Can still do it these days of course, but one with a seriously copious helping of ssh in the mix too ..
Trouble is, nobody else can do it. The only reason I have to use {social-media-blob} is because my friends don't know how to finger.
I don't find it that opaque. Even without trying to deobfuscate the obfuscated source code which Microsoft ships (I haven't tried but it wouldn't be hard) a lot of details about how it works become obvious just by reading its logs.
They will never open source it. For the same reason Pylance etc. aren't open source and MS tries hard to prevent them to be used in VSCodium. Every one of their open sourced projects contains a closed source plug that MS can pull at any time that is one of the features that gives the project its unique selling points.
Exactly! Like if I'm admining a server what am I supposed to do? Message on a big slack channel and have everyone ignore me? It's easy when people are just logging in through normal ssh as I can put a big bright warning message on their screen that they can't ignore.
I have looked for mosh support for a while and not found anything. It would drastically improve the connection experience in VSCode. My terminals never disconnect anymore, but the Code popups about your sessions needing to be restarted has drastically reduced my usage.
But so is the question. MOSH interprets all the escape sequences and uses them to decide what to send to the client. That way if you tail a log file and then get disconnected, you don’t have to download every line of text that was output to your terminal while you were away; it can just send you what is currently visible.
MOSH is strictly for interactive use; never ever for automated uses like TRAMP or VSCode or sshfs.
The one this that is better than just SSH+Tmux+Vim, is that if your latency is higher than 30-50ms, since VSCode's SSH agent streams the files to your computer, the typing experience feels snappier. When you work half a continent away from where the servers are, it makes life nicer.
Use a local vim, and use its ssh support. It will download the file to the local buffer then upload it when you save. This way your vim config remains on your local machine, too.
Related, netrw (vim) can do quite a lot of things that I think people don't realize. I mean not just that it supports file trees, but well... just open :h netrw
> I'll find that there's just dozens of open sessions over months from users
We've had the same issue with our local HPC; a few login nodes serving hundreds of users at a time, and each login node used to get swamped by these dangling SSH sessions/servers. They also wrote a script that shuts down all sessions once a day to save the login nodes.
It's just another messaging. I used them to automate messages about current disk usage and warn if the machine was actively being used.
But then again, I had people who would run jobs without checking if the machine is already in use. Obviously these people didn't check email or slack either...
I don't think it's that no one can do it but rather we always use the cheapest option and then get surprised that we get what we pay for.
I'm not just talking about bids. The idea presets itself prolifically. We all work in tech, I'm sure you see it on a daily basis. Rush Rush, no time to think, just do it. 6mo later, "there's so much shit! How could we have ever prevented this?" Rinse, lather, repeat
> What are you going to do? Switch to android which has even more ads?
We're on HN. If you're on Android and seeing ads then you're doing something wrong.
I don't disagree with your main point, but the H is important context here
BTW, in iPhone I tend to get lots of ads because Safari doesn't have ad block, I can't repackage APKs, can't edit DNS, not to mention all the spam calls/texts (especially from icloud emails...). Thank God the ublock folks got an iPhone app. I mean it isn't a fair comparison, a rooted Android vs stock iPhone, but it's trivial to root a pixel and on an iPhone I can't even access my photos from a terminal emulator... so there's no fair comparison that can be made
Well, and dozens of other innovations every other company copied, conveniently ignored.
From shipping a fully certified UNIX with a modern UI, to getting all the music player market and influencing how any music player would be from then on, to seamlessly moving between Motorola and Intel and Apple Silicon with the ability to run the older software from a different architecture with Rosetta, to the first modern touch smartphone, 1 full year before Android came out (and which made Android change its beta design to copy the way iOS worked), to getting wireless earpods (and pairing) right, to designing their own fucking integrated CPU, and even their own broadband chip. Even simple things, like making the best touchpad in the market.
Modern "services+ads" Apple sucks to the point that I'm moving away, but to say they didn't innovate is laughable.
I don't want to really downplay Apple but there's much better innovation examples that what you listed. One of Apple's great advantages is that it owns the hardware, unlike Linux or Windows. Those have to work in highly heterogeneous environments. I mean Linux runs on everything from a literal potato to a super computer and everything in between.
To highlight Apple's innovation maybe mention things like the iPhone or iPod. They weren't the first devices of their kind but Apple's magic was always the mixture of the two Steves. Technical but stylish. But modern Apple isn't the same. The magic is gone
A lot of the things you mention aren't things that have been "conveniently forgotten", they're simply things that mean nothing to most people to begin with...
> From shipping a fully certified UNIX with a modern UI
Ignored because nobody cares or wanted it.
> to getting all the music player market and influencing how any music player would be from then on
Anybody born after millennials have only ever known Spotify, they don't know about iTunes and 99c songs. That's like saying Napster has been conveniently forgotten.
> to seamlessly moving between Motorola and Intel and Apple Silicon with the ability to run the older software from a different architecture with Rosetta
That's a remarkable engineering achievement but that's an implementation detail. Backwards compatibility on the desktop was and still is tablesakes.
> to the first modern touch smartphone
Nobody forgot, there's always one of you to remind the class that Apple was first (by your own definition of modern touch smartphone)
> to getting wireless earpods (and pairing) right
They were clearly the first to demonstrate that people did indeed want fully wireless despite HN's objections at the time.
> to designing their own fucking integrated CPU, and even their own broadband chip
That would be impressive if they were a startup. Every trillion dollar tech companies design their own CPUs.
> Even simple things, like making the best touchpad in the market.
I don't know anyone who claims otherwise, and for the longest time they didn't make their own touchpads. So much for being conveniently forgotten.
>A lot of the things you mention aren't things that have been "conveniently forgotten", they're simply things that mean nothing to most people to begin with... / Anybody born after millennials have only ever known Spotify, they don't know about iTunes and 99c songs. That's like saying Napster has been conveniently forgotten.
That explains why someone younger might not see the innovation. But that's on them, the innovation doesn't get erased as an innovation because people take it for granted. If the question is "did Apple innovate", then it includes all those cases, whether some moody Gen A cares for them or not.
Besides, that's not an argument. Apple still has many recent innovations. And we're talking as techies, devs, and products people here, and of various ages. Not just as "people who only ever known Spotify" and never bothered to learn the history of their field. Those wont know what Rosetta or a 5G chip is either anyway.
>That would be impressive if they were a startup. Every trillion dollar tech companies design their own CPUs.
A, yes, all those classic Google, Facebook, and MS designed CPUs, that put a fire under Intel/AMD and set the benchmark for future laptop CPUs. You're being disingenuous.
reply