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

Any project with Claude’s signature misaligned ASCII diagram just screams DON’T USE to me. If you can’t even bother to read your damn generated README, how do I know you have QC’ed anything else? At the very least supported features claimed in README / on website could be totally fake, which is extremely common among all the vibed Show HNs.

https://github.com/Nahuel990/ministack/blob/a1b1d20a27d2238d...



But brother, he is shipping at inference speed!

I love how a comment pointing out glaring lack of human review of this project (with clear evidence) is flagged to death. With zero counter-argument no less. Can’t wait for the bright future of vibed crap with zero human quality control getting hacked every day.

ASCII with rounded corners is already a red flag, let alone not being able to check if it's aligned. Claude LOVES these.

Something more realistic would be:

+-----+

| foo |

+-----+


> ASCII with rounded corners

To be that guy for a moment: those are not ASCII as those characters are not in the standard 7-bit ASCII set. The closest you get to rounded corners with just ASCII is something like:

    /-----\       .-----. 
    | bah |  or   | bah |   (the latter usually looks best IMO, but that can depend on font)
    \-----/       `-----' 
You'd get away with calling the linked diagram ANSI. While that is technically incorrect most people accept the term for something that uses one of the common 8-bit character sets that include those box-drawing characters (CP437, CP850, ISO-8859, Win1252, …), because that is what MS has for a long time called Win1252 in its tools.

> is already a red flag

I wouldn't call using box-drawing characters a red flag, I've known people use them this way for years and do so myself. The LLM generates them because they were in its training data because people use them. It might be something to consider amongst other flags but I don't consider it a strong signal on its own. The red flag for me is the alignment - if you are going to have your documentation ghostwritten at least make the effort to do a cursory editing pass afterwards.


Yeah. Could at least run a formatter on it afterwards... You can even configure a hook for Claude to do that.

We live in the golden age of slop. It seems a surprisingly small number of people have the visceral AI disgust response.

Maybe that visceral response being against the rules (assume good faith) and actively being punished explains the small number of people doing it?

My visceral AI disgust response here is just a subset of my more general lazyly-slapped-together-without-sufficient-testing-or-other-review disgust response. If it doesn't look bad in that way, whether hand-made or ghostwritten, then I'll not react to it that way. But if someone can't be bothered to do a simple clean-up pass on that documentation, what mess could they have left in the code too?

As far as I'm concerned the social contract (“the rules”) has already been broken by people taking insufficient care, and my reaction to that is a healthy one from the PoV of self-preservation. Acting in good faith works both ways, or it doesn't.


>Acting in good faith works both ways, or it doesn't.

Well said, polluting hacker news with low effort slop for self promotion cannot be good faith. The rules are enforced on commenters but good faith is not expected for submissions somehow


That “balanced take” severely mischaracterizes dissenting expert Camarda’s attitude, so it’s not balanced at all. Its answer to “Could the NASA engineers convince Olivas and Camarda?” is a “maybe” for Camarda, which couldn’t be further from what Camarda had to say himself, which is he was more concerned after the meeting than before.

From Camarda’s own account after the meeting:

> Hold a “transparent” meeting with invited press to “vet” the Artemis II decision with one of the most public technical dissenters, me, in attendance (Jan 8th, 2026).

> Control the one-sided narrative and bombard the attendees with the Artemis Program view

> Do not allow dissenting voices to present at the meeting

> Do not even allow the IRT or the NESC to present their findings

> Rely on the attending journalists to regurgitate the party line and witness the overwhelming consensus of knowledgeable people

The whole thing is a good read https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ddi792xdfNXcBwF8qpDUxmZz...

Characterizing someone being (slightly?) more diplomatic as “maybe convinced” is shameful.


> Risk Index

> Mercor — 3x on 30u30

Interesting, I only know this company because they’re the leading spammer hitting my inbox in the AI job board category.


Hey, everyone benefits from the rise in GDP per capita due to oil companies and MIC making a killing. /s

> There are 1.5m of these things in GitHub.

You’re pointing to something entirely different: those are Copilot-created PRs. They can include anything Copilot wants to include. People using the Copilot PR feature know what they’re buying into.

OP is about Copilot doing post-hoc editing of a human-created PR to include an ad, allegedly without knowledge or approval of the creator (well I assume they did give their team member permission to update the PR body, but apparently not for this kind of crap).


I wanted to say that they are same because they are "copilot-written self promotions", but I get your point.

Also I found this: https://github.com/Laravel-Backpack/medialibrary-uploaders/p... it seems like copilot added an ad on behalf of the user at Nov 2025(see last edit).


If they show the ad on github.com, agents accessing the PR using (an outdated, ad-free version of) gh CLI won’t see it. /s

(That said I’m rather skeptical of this and would like to see more details of the process that produced this, and proof.)

Edit: Just noticed this official GitHub blog post from last month advertising Raycast, making this story a lot more believable: https://github.blog/changelog/2026-02-17-assign-issues-to-co...


It could simply be something in the Raycast integraton?

I said it’s more believable than GitHub randomly advertising a non-GitHub product (my initial read of the situation, which seemed highly unlikely).

...a non-GitHub and non-Microsoft product.

An originally macOS-only product, too.

Also, the documentation on Github, linked to by the ad, shows only Mac keyboard shortcuts for operating Raycast.


From the last few paragraphs:

> There is an official way for travelers to bypass long TSA waits if they’re willing to spend: hiring concierge services to escort them through security.

> Perq Soleil is an airport arrival and departure assistance service that can help travelers through TSA in about a minute flat by accessing alternative lines usually reserved for airport staff and airline personnel. The company — which operates in more than 300 airports and 150 countries — charges a base rate that varies by location.

Talk about burying the lede. Apparently the airports “highly discourage” line-sitters, but if you use services that pre-bribed airports you can skip the lines entirely.


The people arriving on private jets have always bypassed these bureaucratic procedures. Brotherhood and equality.

It's true equality: The rich and poor alike are allowed to fly on private jets or hire a departure assistance service!

well jokes on you: if it was 17th century, we peasants wouldn't even be allowed to use that service

As somebody who doesn't travel on private jets, I'm very, very happy that I'm not anywhere close to those people.

Imagine the pandemonium that would ensue if Taylor Swift were to enter an airport terminal through the normal entrance.


Why should private plane passengers be subject to TSA? TSA (paid for by you and me by the way, not for free) exists to protect the public from harm, on public flights by common carriers. It used to be contracted by airlines themselves. Unless you are the most extreme of pro-seatbelt law people, it would make little sense for TSA to screen anyone on a private plane manifest unless the client asked them to.

No, the TSA exists because 19 people hijacked 4 flights and succeeded in crashing 3 of them into various important buildings in the US on 9/11/2001.

Private planes are just as capable of crashing into buildings as commercial jets. The TSA has picked up some ancillary public safety functions over the years, but their raison d'etre is to prevent hijackings.


No, the TSA exists because politicians felt they needed to be seen doing something after 9/11. If there were actually much political will for it to fulfill actual security purposes, it surely would’ve been reformed after it’s continually abysmal performance on security audits.

No; the TSA exists because we needed a government jobs program that was easy to promote under the guise of terrorism.

It's not nearly enough jobs to be a jobs program

By what standard?

Federal civilian workforce (ex Postal Service and Military) is only 3 million.

TSA has 60k employees.

That's a lot of permanent jobs.


By your own numbers - 60k employees just doesn't touch a jobs program in a country of 350M people. The point of a jobs program is to provide jobs.

TSA was created to accomplish a goal - security theater (mostly), preventing another 9/11 (maybe more in theory than in practice), etc.

The New Deal WPA, according to wikipedia, supplied about 3M jobs at its peak in 1938, when the population was ~130M.

2.3% of the population vs 0.017%.

Also empirically - if it was a jobs program, it would be way better staffed..


>if it was a jobs program, it would be way better staffed..

You're saying it's not comparable to the size of the New Deal, the biggest jobs program ever in the US.

That doesn't disqualify it from consideration as a jobs program as there are many jobs programs much smaller.

Adding 60k to ~3 million is significant because it's permanent. These are low skilled workers (and security theater as you astutely say) mostly concentrated in large cities.

Whereas the New Deal was temp jobs that disappeared once grants and funding disappeared.


And they get Federal pensions and healthcare funded by tax dollars.

In terms of menace potential, any private plane will lose to a van full of fertilizer and a baddie intent on causing destruction. It's a matter of scale.

Little planes, like this one [1] just don't do damage on the same scale as airliners.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack


Most private planes taking off from commercial airports (the ones where TSA generally operates) are much larger than a Piper Dakota.

(But regardless, it’s not clear that the TSA is even performing that kind of calculus.)


A G650 still loses to a motivated U-haul. :)

No argument though, just saying it's a hard problem, and the scaling issue makes it somewhat awkward to deploy security resources in proportion to the threat.

I don't have a solution. I'm not exactly thrilled with the current setup, but I try to stay quiet since I can't think of anything better.


Government building codes already anticipate the "van full of fertilizer" attack, as a result of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Federal building security is a separate matter though, with its own agency called FPS that predates DHS and TSA by decades.

What about a private plane full of anfo

The TSA was created because a plane crashed into a building. Private planes can crash into buildings. Why should they be exempt from TSA checks?

Lots of things can crash into buildings. Should they all be screened by TSA? Drones and their operators prior to every launch? 30 minute helicopter tours and high-rise HVAC drop offs? Private satellites?

Or is licensing and registration (of pilots and aircraft and manifest and flight plan) enough?


Governments are reactive. So if any of these other things ever successfully destroy a building then you can absolutely count on new rules and laws that, at a minimum, will include screening.

Commercial drones can't bring down buildings. And they're still subject to an awful lot of regulations.

So it’s complete building destruction that is the protective mission here? Not loss of life or general terrorism or something else? I’m glad we are clarifying

I wasn’t aware that DJI drone with 60lb payload was subject to more regulations than a Citation leaving TEB but I guess I’m open to learning what those are.


Why are you spending so much effort helping the most privileged people on the planet? Makes no sense to be their white knight

Why are you wasting time here? Even a letter to the editor would be more effective than an HN comment.

Were you born after 2001? Did you remember those planes that flew into the buildings?

Private planes can do the same thing.


And the TSA wouldn’t do anything to stop that

Hell the TSA doesn’t do much to prevent that on commercial flights, but requiring private flights to start going through commercial security would be completely pointless


Inconveniencing wealthy people might create motivation to fix the problem.

Doesn't work.

If TSA were added, there still wouldn't be any lines at private terminals.


Even if you're flying commercial, wealthy people can just pay Perq Soleil $250 a pop to waltz them through the employee line with no wait.

This reminds me of when Steve Job's had his ninja throwing stars confiscated by (airport security) getting on his private jet.

Edited to clarify NOT TSA


The danger of Steve Jobs hijacking his own private plane was obviously quite high! We can only thank the dutiful TSA officers for their brave service. I’m sure they risked their lives averting this danger. Have they been awarded any medals yet?


"Update: Apple called Techland saying that the story is “pure fiction.” According to the New York Post, Steve Jobs himself has told them the same."

Apparently I forgot the “/s” on my parent comment.

It seems to me that the people flying private jets are the biggest threats to humanity.

HN can always be counted on to have a good contingent of temporarily embarrassed billionaires ready to stick up for them at the slightest provocation.

Yeah let’s screen every kid and his 172 because rich people bad!

You don’t have to be a billionaire to fly out of an FBO and you don’t have to fly out of an FBO to be interested in freedom of movement. No Kings.

> An official United States government app is injecting CSS and JavaScript into third-party websites to strip away their cookie consent dialogs, GDPR banners, login gates, and paywalls.

Giving people a taste of web with Ublock Origin annoyance filters applied, refreshing. Can’t believe orange man regime is doing one thing right.


You can define your own rm shell alias/function and it will use that. I also have cp/mv aliases that forces -i to avoid accidental clobbering and it confuses Claude to no end (it uses cp/mv rare enough—rarer than it should, really—that I don’t bother wasting memory tokens on it).

I did this, Claude detected it and decided to run /bin/rm directly.

This is terrifying. I have not used agents because I do not have a sandbox machine I do not care about. Am I crazy to worry about a sandboxed agent running on my home network? Anyone experienced anything weird by doing that?

Don’t dangerously skip permissions and actually read commands when you get prompted and you’re fine.

Yeah, I actually have both an alias for `rm` and a custom seatbelt sandbox which means the agent can only delete stuff within the directory it’s working in, so wasn’t an issue, was just fun to watch it say “hm, that doesn’t seem to work. Looks like the user has aliased rm. I’ll just go ahead and work around it”

Hah… I’ve seen Claude happily and very cleverly find ways to escape its sandbox. It’s like some kind of arms race between the model and its designers.

Well grep is just better sometimes. Like you want to copy some lines and grep at the end of a pipeline is just easier than rg -N to suppress line numbers. Whatever works, no need to facepalm.

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

Search: