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

tldr; they wanted to run a Tauri app in browser for dev purposes.

To do so, they shimmed the Tauri’s rust communication bridge to use web-socket to communicate with the main app’s rust implementation.

This is only used by dev, but if something like this is provided by Tauri/Electron it can probably enable a bunch of interesting use cases… (and probably a bunch of RCEs as well, though)


Having built some stuff with Tauri, being able to debug using Chrome instead of a Safari/Webkit console would be _so nice_.

I have no idea about timeline, progress, or suitability, but IIUC the Tauri folks are exploring integration with Chromium Embedded Framework:

https://github.com/tauri-apps/cef-rs

https://github.com/tauri-apps/tauri/issues/14963#issuecommen... and following comments

https://github.com/tauri-apps/tauri/issues?q=CEF


Absolutely not the same thing, but I’m going to shamelessly plug my Tauri MCP in case you find it helpful: https://github.com/hypothesi/mcp-server-tauri

With the debugging capabilities it gives agents, I find I don’t miss Chrome DevTools so much.


TBH I am sad that Anthropic is changing its stance, but in the current world, if you even care about LLM safety, I feel that this is the right choice — there’s too many model providers and they probably don’t consider safety as high priority as Anthropic. (Yes that might change, they can get pressurized by the govt, yada yada, but they literally created their own company because of AI safety, I do think they actually care for now)

If we need safety, we need Anthropic to be not too far behind (at least for now, before Anthropic possibly becomes evil), and that might mean releasing models that are safer and more steerable than others (even if, unfortunately, they are not 100% up to Anthropic’s goals)

Dogmatism, while great, has its time and place, and with a thousand bad actors in the LLM space, pragmatism wins better.


Do you work at Anthropic, or know people who do?

I genuinly curious why they are so holy to you, when to me I see just another tech company trying to make cash

Edit: Reading some of the linked articles, I can see how Anthropic CEO is refusing to allow their product for warfare (killing humans), which is probably a good thing that resonates with supporting them


Let us not pretend that they won't be used for war eventually. If they cave immediately under pressure, then this is an inevitably.

How is it a good thing to refuse to provide our warfighters with the tools that they need? I mean if we're going to have a military at all then we owe it to them to give them the best possible weapons systems that minimize friendly casualties. And let's not have any specious claims that LLMs are somehow special or uniquely dangerous: the US military has deployed operational fully autonomous weapons systems since the 1970s.

This is the US military we’re talking about so 95% of what they do is attacking people for oil. They don’t “need” more of anything, they’re funded to the tune of a trillion dollars a year, almost as much as every other military in the world combined. What holy mission do you think they’re going to carry out with the assistance of LLMs?

That's a total non sequitur. If you think the military is being tasked with the wrong missions, or too many missions, then take that up with the civilian political leadership. But it's not a valid reason to deny the warfighters the best possible weapons systems.

Personally I favor a less interventionist foreign policy. But that change can only come about through the political process, not by unaccountable corporate employees making arbitrary decisions about how certain products can be used.


> But it's not a valid reason to deny the warfighters the best possible weapons systems.

Of course it is.

Think about it this way: if you could guarantee that the military suffers no human losses when attacking a foreign country, do you think that's going to more or less foreign interventions?

The tools available to the military influence policy, these things are linked.

US military is already overwhelmingly powerful, there's 0 reason to make it even more powerful.


That's so delusional. The US military is currently preparing for a potential conflict with China to stop an invasion with Taiwan. They don't have anything near "overwhelming force" for that mission: recent simulations put it about even at best. People who believe they don't need any improved autonomous weapons are simply uninformed.

Why would the US enter into direct conflict with a nuclear power over a country they aren't even formally allied with?

If the US actually cared they'd formally place Taiwan under nuclear protection.


You are claiming all americans must happily create weapons. Thats a silly statement to most americans and humans

Don't presume to put words in my mouth. I flagged your comment for lying about my claims.

Individual Americans aren't slaves. They can do as they please and are under no obligation to help build weapons for warfighters. But I think it's ridiculous and offensive for a US corporation to presume to take on a role as moral arbiters by placing arbitrary limits on US government use of certain products. There are larger issues here that need to be addressed through the political process, not through commercial software license agreements.


Sure, it wasnt fair for me to claim you said that, so I apologize. It was rude of me to frame my position in that manner, and wasnt intended maliciously.

I meant to suggest that corps being unable to take those positions results in such a world for Americans at those corps


> I think it's ridiculous and offensive for a US corporation to presume to take on a role as moral arbiters

A corporation is just a group of people. Anthropic isn't even public, and therefore it's directors aren't subject to any sort of fiduciary duty enshrined in law. They can collectively act as they wish.


> If you think the military is being tasked with the wrong missions, or too many missions, then take that up with the civilian political leadership. But it's not a valid reason to deny the warfighters the best possible weapons systems.

It is an ethical dilemma: believing an armed force will act unethically is in fact a valid reason to refuse to arm them. You are taking a nationalistic view regarding the worth of life.

And if you believe it is unethical to arm them, it is rational to use whatever leverage you have available to you - such as refusing to sell your company's product.

Furthermore, one of the two points at issue was regarding surveiling civilians.


> that change can only come about through the political process

What, to you, is the political process? Why is wielding your economic leverage to incite change illegitimate to you?


"How is it a good thing to refuse to provide our warfighters with the tools that they need?"

Perhaps you should consider that this is a loaded question. I don't think HN needs this sort of Argumentum ad Passiones.


Why are you asking this question? You know what the answer is, you've just arbitrarily decided that it's specious in an attempt to frame rebuttals as unreasonable.

I'm open to reasonable rebuttals but all the rebuttals that I've seen so far are simply uninformed.

1. You don't believe in the mission or direction of US warfighters 2. Supporting warfighters is developmentally distinct from what you want your corporate competences and direction are. 3. you don't want military to be more safe an capable.

> If we need safety, we need Anthropic to be not too far behind (at least for now, before Anthropic possibly becomes evil)

I don't think it's going to be as easy to tell as you think that they might be becoming evil before it's too late if this doesn't seem to raise any alarm bells to you that this is already their plan


The world would be so much nicer if there were just fewer pragmatists shitting up the place for everyone. We might actually handle half our externalities.

I feel like declarative container-like dev environments (e.g. nix shell or guix shell, and so on) will become much more popular in the following years with the rise of LLM agentic tools. It seems that the aformentioned tools provide much more value when they can get full access to the dev environment.

Sprites[0], exe.dev[1], and more services seem to be focusing on providing instant VMs for these use cases, but for me it seems like it's a waste for users to have to ssh into a separate cloud server (and feel the latency) just to get a clean dev environment. I feel that a similar tool where you can get a clean slate dev environment from a declarative description locally, without all of the overhead and the weight of Docker or VMs would be very welcomed.

(Note: I am not trying to inject AI-hype on a Guix-related post, I do realize that the audience of LLM tools and Guix would be quite different, this is just an observation)

[0]: https://sprites.dev

[1]: https://exe.dev


As a Guix lover and LLM tooling enthusiast, I complete agree. Administrating my system via Claude Code is so much easier. LLMs work better on a system that's hackable via text.


random note: there's `guix shell --container --emulate-fhs`.


This is very interesting, I haven’t touched macOS development for quite a while but it’s good to know that libraries are still being written for both AppKit and SwiftUI on macOS.

I do feel that this library would benefit from an explanation on why this was needed. AFAIR AppKit already provides a native tabbing API where you can “just” (that “just” is doing a lot of heavy lifting) implement a few delegate methods and you get tabbing behavior for free, especially on document-based apps. (Sorry, I do not remember the specifics, it might have been a tad more difficult)

I’m not updated on the SwiftUI equivalent, but I would imagine that a similar API would exist much alike API for multiple windows or multiple documents.

I think everyone would benefit from a “why” explanation (which I definitely think would exist, since I’ve used too many AppKit APIs in pain), and also some screenshots for a demo app (so that we can expect how it would look and how much the look and feel would deviate from the native counterparts).


I've tried the native tab support several times, and my impression is that it's good for very little.

It may be OK for certain types of document-oriented apps, but there's a reason most apps (Chrome, iTerm, even Safari uses its own native tabs, I believe) don't use it. It's underbaked and awkward to fit into a model where your "tab data model" doesn't neatly fit the document data model that the framework wants.

I recently made an app where I wanted tabs, and I just ended up abandoning tab support for this reason, and adding a todo item to use an off-the-shelf tab UI library in the future.


The website already has a demonstration of what this does that native tabs don’t do and how they look.


Yeah I realized that only now, for some reason when I was on mobile and I was looking into this the demo video was not loading at all. I would love to retract my comment :(


I totally missed the video on mobile too.


Yes, just blank space instead of video on mobile. Edit: opening in Safari worked


Native tabs work at the window level.


I haven't even realized that while I was reading the article, but it is amusing!

Though one explanation is that I think for the other stuff that the writer doesn't explain, one can just guess and be half right, and even if the reader guesses wrong, isn't critical to the bug ­— but sockets and capabilities are the concepts that are required to understand the post.

It still is amusing and I wouldn't have even realized that until you pointed that out.


I'm genuinely curious on how well this is working, is there an independent Java test suite that covers major Java 5/6 features that can verify that the JOPA compiler works per the spec? I.e. I see that Claude has wrote a few tests in it's commits, but it would be wonderful if there's a non-Clauded independent test suite (probably from other Java implementations?) that tracks progress.

I do feel that that is pretty much needed to claim that Claude is adding features to match the Java spec.


Well, it's complicated. The original jdk compliance tests are notoriously hard to deal with. Currently I parse nearly 100% of positive testcases from JDK 7 test suite (in one of Java 7 branches) but I only have several dozens of true end to end tests (build .java with jopa, validate classfile with javap, run classfile with javac).

So, I can't tell how good it actually is but it definitely handles reasonably complex source files with generics (something the original compiler was unable to do).

The actual goal of the project is to be able to build at least ANT to simplify clean bootstrap of OpenJDK.


That is perilously close to the usual:

"AI DID EVERYTHING IN A DAY"

"How do you know it works?"

"... it just looks like it does"

Like when I ask AIs to port sed to java, and it writes test cases ... running sed on a CLI and doesn't implement the full lang spec no matter how much prompting I give it.


Well, at least the emitted bytecode validates with javap and a lot of stuff definitely runs on real jvm.


I think the criticisms are too often dismissed as moving the goalposts or ignorant of potential, but short of recreating the active open bugs in Java, you've created a different thing whose differences have to be managed and it is unclear how helpful that may be despite the working implementations of subsets.


If I (or someone else) can use it as a start point in bootstrap process - that's fine with me. This is not supposed to be a top-tier compiler. Essentially, it needs to be able to build ANT.


It is beyond annoying that the article is totally generated by AI. I appreciate the author (hopefully) spending effort in trying to figure out the AI systems, but the obviously-LLM non-edited content makes me not trust the article.


What makes you believe that anything in the article is real?

The author seems to not exist and it's unclear where the data underlying the claims is even coming from since you can't just go and capture network traffic wherever you like.

A little due diligence please.


I knew for a fact that a Linux desktop was a viable option when you have a separate macOS/Windows laptop (which is my main computer). Recently (frustrated with macOS updates), I decided to be Linux-only for a week[0], replacing my MBP with an MBA that runs Asahi Linux.

Unfortunately it turns out that I depend on too many desktop apps that runs on the major desktop OSes but not on Linux (or on Wine, for that matter).

* KakaoTalk, the major South Korean IM app ran on Wine for a week, but the updater doesn't work and freshly reinstalling the app broke Wine for some reason. (I tried removing the whole ~/.wine prefix, but it doesn't work.) Now I'm stuck without KakaoTalk.

* Discord is only provided as a x86_64 Deb file and a .tar.gz file. I tried using it from Firefox, and it works fine but audio sharing during screen sharing doesn't work.

* Disconnecting from my Bluetooth AirPods somehow does not stop my music. I'm not sure if this is an AirPods limitation or a Linux limitation (since I've never used AirPods with Windows), but it annoyed me endlessly.

* USB-C DP mode and the fingerprint sensor doesn't work. This is an Asahi Linux limitation, but I've seen various parts of the hardware not working when using other Linux distributions on laptops as well. I feel this is a common occurrence.

Not to mention that the lack of text editing shortcuts that macOS has, which is a big deal to me (but I tried as that is a macOS-ism).

I carried my MBA for 4 days before I gave up today. I brought my MBP today with me.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45940274


> * Disconnecting from my Bluetooth AirPods somehow does not stop my music. I'm not sure if this is an AirPods limitation or a Linux limitation (since I've never used AirPods with Windows), but it annoyed me endlessly.

I think this is by design, not limitation. On android, changing sound device stops music playback. On windows and linux, changing sound device doesn't stop sound. I tried it with wired headphones, maybe expectations for BT are different, but I think that comes from smartphones.


>* USB-C DP mode and the fingerprint sensor doesn't work. This is an Asahi Linux limitation, but I've seen various parts of the hardware not working when using other Linux distributions on laptops as well. I feel this is a common occurrence.

This really is a special case, they've had to write new drivers for everything in the Apple Silicon Macs and they haven't gotten that working yet. I have in fact been waiting on this feature for a few years now as I want to use a MBP with the lid closed and two monitors plugged in, but currently only the HDMI works and not most USB-C functionality. This is not at all the norm in x86_64 land where more normal hardware is used. I'm still using a ThinkPad T440p and thinking about getting a T14 gen 5 due to the MBP I got a few years ago not being satisfying/fun to use, comparatively.

As for Discord and AirPods and such, the more proprietary stuff you need, the worse time you'll have. Though I just saw something in the news that might help with the AirPods. Check out LibrePods.

https://github.com/kavishdevar/librepods


For discord I just use Discord Canary. its a wrapper and works perfectly. But I'm also on Fedora.

I would suggest trying something other then Asahi linux! I know that their support with Mac systems is near unbeatable. But it does still tend to have some hiccups. Especially with M3+ systems.

I know that "try a different distro" is a often (user biased) and imo bad answer. But in the case of Asahi as awesome as their work is they are climbing a different mountain compared to the rest of linux development.


>Discord is only provided as a x86_64 Deb file and a .tar.gz file. I tried using it from Firefox, and it works fine but audio sharing during screen sharing doesn't work. I got it working with the unofficial client Vesktop. Functioning screensharing on wayland is actually advertised as one of their main features.


So why not use the .tar.gz for Discord?


I can't see how this is being blamed to the phone device maker (or the users who have not updated yet), why is Australia phasing out their 3G network if a large swath of their people's phones are dependent on them for dialing their emergency number?

In my view, they (the govt) either should have not gave permission on selling the devices who relies on having a 3G network for emergency calls for at least 10 years ago, or they should just have their 3G network operable for another 5 years.

For example, our country (South Korea) had 2G networks operable until ~2021, and are planning to have all of the 3G networks operable for the foreseeable future. It can be done.


Exactly. I am fairly certain 2G still works in India. Australia is not as populous and has a larger geographical area with low density. I can understand the business wanting to cut costs, but this seems aggressive.


This morning on U.K. breakfast radio they got a Nokia 7110 out from 25 years ago and sent sms and made a phone call, I was amazed it still worked.

(Ok the battery was shagged and it shut down once when it started to make a call, but it eventually worked)


I have recently used my old Nokia 3410 in Poland and the only issue was that it couldn't connect to the Internet via dial-up CSD anymore.


> According to the prevalent narrative in North Korea, the war was won by the communists.

According to the North Korean govt, the Korean war was started by the South who wanted to invade North (it was not, based on extensive studies). Therefore in their view (or at least from their propaganda), the communists "won" by successfully defending their part of the peninsula.


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

Search: