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

Both rustfs and seaweedfs are pretty pretty good based on my light testing.

I've been using rustfs for some very light local development and it looks.. fine: )

Ironically rustfs.com is currently failing to load on Firefox, with 'Uncaught TypeError: can't access property "enable", s is null'. They shoulda used a statically checked language for their website...

My Firefox access is working fine. The version is 147.0.3 (aarch64)

I'm running Firefox 145.0.2 on amd64.

It seems like the issue may be that I have WebGL disabled. The console includes messages like "Failed to create WebGL context: WebGL creation failed: * AllowWebgl2:false restricts context creation on this system."

Oh well, guess I can't use rustfs :}


I just disabled webgl on my firefox and it worked fine.

Your problems could be caused by a whiny fan. Here is the source https://github.com/rustfs/rustfs


Short and sweet to have coined the term? Or did it exist already?

> Obstacles

    GitHub CLI tool errors — Had to use full path /home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew/bin/gh when gh command wasn’t found
    Blog URL structure — Initial comment had wrong URL format, had to delete and repost with .html extension
    Quarto directory confusion — Created post in both _posts/ (Jekyll-style) and blog/posts/ (Quarto-style) for compatibility


Almost certainly a human did NOT write it though of course a human might have directed the LLM to do it.

Who's to say the human didn't write those specific messages while letting the ai run the normal course of operations? And or that this reaction wasn't just the roleplay personality the ai was given.

I think I said as much while demonstrating that AI wrote at least some of it. If a person wrote the bits I copied then we're dealing with a real psycho.

I think comedy/troll is an equal possibility to psychopath.

Quite possible. Sure.

I run telnetd on 2323 because I don't want hackers to find it.

I heated the water inside the hole of the letter 'd' and the steam escaped through the sand. <3

That's new.

True, though even before this we just made a chatting topic with the name "general", that worked just fine while still letting people make other threads for long discussions.

We've been using it successfully for a long time too. Real nice bunch of fellas. They did remove mobile notifications without a subscription recently and the price is quite high ONLY for notifications. I do not fault them for doing it but it made recommending them a tiny bit more difficult. The other major issues IMO are the super basic mobile client and lack of any kind of native voice/video chat. You get a button that provides a link to a chat service of your choice. For example you pick a Jitsi Meet instance and Zulip gives you button to create and share the url easily. That's it. I wish there were something a little better integrated.

It does have a weird source of friction. The need to find an invite to the "server". Sometimes you'll find one but it will be dead. There's no way to search to find a server then join it as far as I know.

Source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKeyscore

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(intelligence_o...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/uk/nsa-staff-used-spy-...

Millennials and older generations witnessed this happening bit by bit, some of us tried to fight it, but ultimately it’s everywhere now, and apparently it’s been so ubiquitous for so long that people aren’t even aware of it anymore.


I am the person who asked for the source.

1) I do not believe for a second that Meta would actually implement something that would remove their own ability to read those messages.

2) We do not have any proof that their claimed e2e chat service is actually compromised.

The matter of fact tone of the parent made me think there was some actual proof or at least something more than speculation. That's why I asked for a source.


I am not sure I understand what you’re saying.

If meta can read those messages, then they’re most definitely not e2e encrypted.

Given the historical record, you would be a fool to assume that any service run by a public company isn’t fully tapped by US intelligence agencies. They’ve been tapping anything and everything they can get their hands on, why stop at whatsapp?

Let me flip it around: what proof do you actually have that it is e2e encrypted? Zuckerberg pinky promised?


You didn't actually flip it around at all.

They're stating they doubt Meta would ever allow full e2ee, which is not evidence but simply speculation.

AND

They asked for a source/evidence to prove their hunch is more than speculative.


What standard of proof is required here? It’s not criminal court.

The original post I replied to simply asked for proof, without also stating they doubt meta would ever allow e2ee.

My post is more directed at other readers who might take the absence of a smoking gun as an assumption of safety.


Not a single link has anything on OPs claim.

You’re right, so that must mean whatsapp is totally safe, right?

Both can be untrue...

whatsapp is facebook; do you need any other "source"?

i'd be surprised if they didn't have straight out government logins...


Of course I need another source. I think you're right too but this is just speculation. I thought you had access to some actual information.

They're getting sued for it.

> They’re getting sued for it

If this is the case you’re referring to, then I don’t know that it is proof of your assertion, in fact maybe the opposite: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/31/us-author...


Anyone can sue anyone for anything. I have no doubt the US government has access to whatever data it wants from all businesses, but a lawsuit is not evidence of anything.

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

Search: