Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | singpolyma3's commentslogin

Did you read TFA? It is neither hate filled nor a rant.

How is this even an article? The advice is just "pay for max"

Because this person's entire blog is just copy-and-pasted AI responses.

It's not on anyone to set up your favourite "governance" system. If anyone honestly wants to keep maintaining or using it the code is still there.

[flagged]


No, there is no social contract here. Microsoft gives free hosting because it's cheap and also provides a path to their paid offerings. People share stuff they work on for fun, to help flesh out their resume, to get help, etc. There's no reason for a maintainer not to drop a project in a heartbeat if it becomes the slightest bit of a burden.

There are no maintainership obligations unless someone pays you for them.

No it's not.

Also read the link. This is apache 2 licensed. Even in whatever imaginary world where there is such a social contract, there is thankfully a legal contract that includes disclaimer of warranty.


Sorry but this is an outrageous perspective, at no point does git init / git push am I committing myself to a social contract, in fact there’s probably a license that states no warranty and no support is to be expected… maintainership obligations gtfo if you’re not here paying for support

There is no source because it's not software. You can of course modify and make your own.

We've never seen open source win before so I'd be dubious that it can win here without concerted effort.

Every machine nowadays runs Linux in some form and Postgres is the default database.

Indeed. And are most of those machines being used to run open source applications? No.

LLMs that you can run locally on hardware that is not out of range to acquire is already a thing for some time.

Recently I fired up Gemma4-26B-A4B on my 8-year-old PC... and it ran surprisingly well!

But I am going to need a much beefier machine to get it to the point where it can do any but very trivial dev tasks acceptably fast, and I'm going to need a much beefier model, perhaps one not so aggressively quantized, to keep it on task without the wheels completely falling off. Already we're talking serious money outlay, perhaps still within my programmer salary to accommodate, but just barely. And we're not even where near the performance characteristics a frontier model can support.


DGX Spark runs this sized model (I personally like qwen36moe better than gemma4moe) at speeds fast enough for interactive coding sessions. Algorithmic advances like DiffusionGemma ~4x token gen speeds (https://deepmind.google/models/gemma/diffusiongemma/)


Indeed. Given the KYC requirements for getting a credit card, it seems that paying with a credit card should confer traceability for LE.

Just because a call is a spam call doesn't mean it is spoofed. STIR/SHAKEN ends spoofing but anyone can ultimately buy a phone and make calls that are spammy.

Spoofing isn’t ended at all

Almost every spam call has that I get, is spoofed.

Someone here explained it, once.

I think the spoofed calls use a legacy transport tech that can’t be forced to validate.


Can't that legacy transport be blocked / not-be-peered with then? That's what usually happens with old insecure tech that is being phased out.

How do you verify it is spoofed? Have you asked your carrier to drop unverified calls from your service?

> How do you verify it is spoofed?

Not my job to "verify," in the technical sense.

When a call for an Indian crypto pump comes in as "SMITH, ROBERT", and a local exchange, I call that "spoofed."


Mine literally come from the verified coinbase phone number and say coinbase and everything. If I didn't know for sure they are not calling me I'd think it was real 100%.

Yeah that does sound spoofed. I'd call your carrier and ask them to make sure attestation below B is blocked.

That's almost certainly not spoofed. They just own a phone number on your local exchange.

No they don't. I've called back, a couple of times, and got some guy named Bob, getting all confused. "Whaddaya mean I just called you?".

Hmm...you seem very interested in redirecting this train of conversation. Why?


I'm very interested in knowing the actual current state of affairs WRT spoofing and a lot of people make claims without evidence which makes it hard to find out. I thank you for providing your evidence here because it does sound like some carriers are still not enforcing. Which is obviously a problem.

I think it’s a mix. If the CID has someone’s name, then it’s almost certainly spoofed, but sometimes, it just has a town name, and that might be what you mean.

There was this telco, in Upstate New York, that was infamous for being a firehose of scam/spam robocalls. I think they may have been shut down, though, because I haven’t seen their numbers in the CID for a couple of years.

I would suggest that carriers are limited in what they can do. Crooks be crooks, and many of them are very clever. They usually figure out how to weasel past the guard dogs.


Sure, but with phone numbers that can't be spoofed, telcos can terminate service, and filtering technologies can block calls. Spam gets expensive if you have to buy new service every five calls.

It does. But the spammers still do it. Because eventually they hit one person who gives them a thousand dollars or whatever and it pays off.

Preventing spoofing doesn't have to make spam cost-prohibitive for every spammer to greatly reduce the volume, and it does not interfere with ordinary people obtaining phone service anonymously.

Nobody is making spam calls with cell phones. Spammers use VOIP services and old TDM systems.

There’s SIM card banks for SMS spam… I’d be surprised if there wasn’t anything similar for calling. Not that I support this bill but it is a thing.

From what I’ve investigated as a recipient of spam calls, I’ve been called from legitimate mobile numbers from my own mobile telco. The only thing that explains that are SIM card banks.

Unfortunately there isn’t an easy way to report abuse to the telcos (and regulators).


I think most major US carriers have a short code for reporting abuse now.

This is already not allowed.

If your carrier accepts a spoofed call they're already violating FCC recommendations.


Recommendations aren't requirements; you're allowed to violate them.

Of course

And yet, I incessantly get spoofed numbers calling me from the same "central office code". Also resulting in people with the same code "returning my calls" and then getting angry that I say I didn't call them.

Preventing number spoofing would help significantly with spam calling. At least the ones from local numbers.


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

Search: