> We received digital confirmation of data destruction (shred logs).

This is shockingly naive

I imagine they are not naive, they're counting on their clients being naive.

What's to say they didn't copy the data then shred a copy, or hell even just fabricate some shred logs.

In the abstract, it’s hilarious to imagine the hackers keeping the data, then some time from now leaking it accidentally (or another hacker group hacks them) then them having to issue a public apology for not having kept the stolen data secure and having lied about shredding it.

However, they could use it as a last resort or as a final "gift" before getting arrested or switching identities.

They might be considered "trustworthy" right now to get companies to pay them money, but no one will know what will happen in a few years when this strategy won't work anymore.

Anyway, I hope this doesn't come at all, or as late as possible.

> but no one will know what will happen in a few years when this strategy won't work anymore.

Good point.

> Anyway, I hope this doesn't come at all, or as late as possible.

Same. As I said, I find the idea funny in the abstract, if it didn’t affect anyone or if it were a TV show, for example. But since it does affect real people…

Gotta hope that's just a PR attempt to try to save face. Though I wish companies would stop claiming it.

My friend, you have invented management.

Not throwing shade at anyone here but the thought has definitely crossed my mind that we are recreating SAFe but for agents when looking at some of the orchestration setups out there. I think that it is better to not force the same hierarchical processes that worked for humans in large organizations onto agents and instead look at what they need to give better results and what their failure modes look like.

Not surprised given development was clearly abandoned years ago.

I would prefer we have posts when github is not having issues to cut down on noise.

Yeah, right. I mean, I'm so happy that only one of my clients is using GitHub as their GitForge. Every single other one hosts their own GitForge. And I can't state how much better every single other GitForge is.

GitHub was the pinnacle of GitForge a couple of years back, and it seems like they wanted to hit a wall.

Otherwise, you cannot explain how you can enshittify a software that much.

There was GitHub, and then it was Microsoft.

Microsoft trying to run a Ruby on Rails + SSH + Git system.

Exactly. But given all the slop, not even just AI slop, I wonder how Microsoft can still be in business.

The density does not dictate cardinality which is what this article is about.

Stop giving money to the company that doesn't give you what you want.

It is important that the company knows why they are losing customers, though.

I canceled my Claude subscription (other reasons) and they had an "exit interview" question of why you canceled. They know why.

Internal sales data is probably a lot more effective and attended to than HN posts.

I thought the point of calling them clankers was to be unkind.

"Hey GPT thanks for the result. But is it actually true?"

It's a nontrivial calculation valid for a class of forces (e.g. QCD) and apparently a serious simplification to a specific calculation that hadn't been completed before. But for what it's worth, I spent a good part of my physics career working in nucleon structure and have not run across the term "single minus amplitudes" in my memory. That doesn't necessarily mean much as there's a very broad space work like this takes place in and some of it gets extremely arcane and technical.

One way I gauge the significance of a theory paper are the measured quantities and physical processes it would contribute to. I see none discussed here which should tell you how deep into math it is. I personally would not have stopped to read it on my arxiv catch-up

https://arxiv.org/list/hep-th/new

Maybe to characterize it better, physicists were not holding their breath waiting for this to get done.

Thank you!

That doesn't answer the question. That statement just admits "maybe" which isn't helpful or insightful to answering it.