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

Maybe because the headline is misleading? (because there's no connection to the Hugging Face attack)

That said, it's the second day and it's still on the front page.


The headline is not misleading, the article actually links to the incident with OpenAI and Irregular which is here: https://openai.com/index/third-party-cyber-evaluations-invol...

It is misleading, even if it's true. The headline states "A single firm is behind OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta hacking scandals". Given that Hugging Face was the most prominent hacking scandal, it would be reasonable to think that that's one of the scandals they're talking about.

But more to the point, the article is trying to paint this as some sort of coordinated plan just because there was a sandbox misconfiguration by Irregular. The fact that the most well known hacking scandal was due to a completely unrelated escape (zero day in Artifactory) makes the entire thesis of the article invalid.


Maybe the title was changed, but the current title does not reference a Hugging Face attack.

After reading the article, the title doesn't seem all that off and definitely nothing to be a pedant about.

Which part of the headline is misleading? It is factually correct that Irregular was involved in incidents with all three AI labs.

It must have been reinstated because it was off the front page for a full day and suddenly back up in the last hour.


It is strongly misleading because it says "behind hacking scandals" (which suggests behind all of them in general) not "behind some of the hacking scandals". Considering that by far the most important one, the Hugging Face hack, has no Irregular involvement, the headline is deceptive.

The most blatant recent case is Trump selling early access to his Truth Social posts

https://abcnews.com/Politics/profoundly-corrupt-trump-sued-f...


California is also over regulated.


California is also adding a lot of battery storage… but why are electricity prices falling in Australia and not in CA? Are they outpacing us?


"Energy Minister Chris Bowen said that Australia now has more home batteries than the United States, which has a population 12 times larger."

Yes.


I wouldn't say they are falling. The pricing is just being distributed differently to make it look like you can beat the system.

For my specific plan, the daily rate (supply charge) has gone up from $1.13 to $1.80. That is a price regardless of any usage. This varies depending on what you select for your usage rates. So if you happen to get a lower per kWh rate, then your supply rate goes up.

Time of use also is manipulative. If you have a variable rate (time of use) then your peak time is much higher than your off peak which is higher still if you were on a fixed rate plan. If you select a plan that has 3 "free" hours then the peak time is rediculous priced.

So to sum up.. You have to have a very good understanding of how you use your power.

Home battery systems, and solar to some extent, are essentially 'pre-pay' schemes. A shift of where your money goes. At least for the next 7 to 10 years which is a rough payback period for solar/battery.

I would also like to mention, when Australia introduced the solar panel schemes, the retailers were paying 60c/kWh for infeed, now they are paying 1 to 2c. The high infeed allowed a home owner to offset their bills by infeeding while at work, sometimes even generate a credit just from solar. Certainly not these days. So what would be the next shift after they get everyone on home battery systems.


California has the lowest wholesale cost in the US and were predicted to fall by 30% this summer against an 8% drop for the whole country.

Lots of other stuff affects end-user prices though.


Personally I went to https://console.cloud.google.com since I already had some GCP projects. Then I searched for Gemini API Key. It brought me to https://console.cloud.google.com/agent-platform/studio/setti.... Then, there was a banner saying "Enable APIs to access full platform capabilities." Then, I did that, which took quite a while (minutes). Finally, I was able to see the way to create an API key.

The fact that there's two ways to get keys is also very confusing.


+1 GCP can be confusing - I totally get that.

Even if you have GCP projects, I'd still recommend the AI studio UI - easier to figure out. Also, you can easily see the free tier in AI studio and just use your API key from there.


Yes I will look into it now but there’s no cross reference from GCP, and why are there two ways? And why did the GCP way require all these APIs enabled while AI studio didn’t?


> And why did the GCP way require all these APIs enabled while AI studio didn’t?

Because whatever internal team owns AI Studio fought for approvals to do so and GCP didn't?


Luckily, an AI solves this.

But ironically my experience is that Codex/Claude navigate GCP better than Gemini.


> Enable APIs to access full platform capabilities

Isn’t this the insecure thing that gives all your Google API keys access to Gemini, even those that were intended to be semi public (eg maps API keys embedded in websites or apps)


How much does OpenAI actually control the way the data centers are built and deployed?

I don’t know much about the impact of their data centers compared to others, but there weren’t many (if any) concrete commitments in this letter. The promises all seem like areas that even an evil corporation could pay lip service to.


Major tenants like OAI have near total control. These GW-class datacenters are built to spec for the tenant. Construction doesn't start until all the details are signed off.


It is setting up the classic liability shift.

If you are just paying the bills and leasing the space, is it really your fault a datacenter some other entity built is sucking the water table of Levelland dry?

If I just use and don't own the data center, then how can I be held accountable for it's impact others?


> How much does OpenAI actually control the way the data centers are built and deployed?

Assuming OAI is the sole tenant in these facilities, I'd say we are approaching 100% control.


OpenAI et al can establish a Data Center PAC or contribute to one then lobby our political leaders like citizens (see Citzens United)


With the amount of cash OpenAI is splashing around they could easily write it into the contracts, but the current incentive structure prioritizes time between ground breaking and powered GPUs in racks. OpenAI has shown complete disinterest in the impact of AI writ large and will only reduce their community/infra impact to optimize that time to racked GPU along the Pareto frontier.



OpenCode is my main driver (enables me to switch models at will) and I like it very much.


Sorting and folding laundry is one of the most tedious chores in our household. Do you have kids?


FYI I do have 3 kids, no, it doesn't take that long (we share this with the wife), in a few years the kids will be able to help us with this task so it's gonna be even less time. Doing household chores is good for the kids. I wouldn't wan't this robot driving around my household when I have small children anyway...


If I did have kids, I probably wouldn’t want them to run around a big heavy robot with very little spatial awareness.


Did you use AI to rewrite it?


Hopefully, as the alternative would be leaving money on the table.



Also AB 2503:

> expand that exemption from CEQA to include a public project for the institution or increase of other passenger rail service, which will be exclusively used by zero-emission trains, located entirely within existing rail rights-of-way or existing highway rights-of-way.


Exemptions for favored things. Should do a full reform.


Directionally correct, but doesn't go far enough.


Is there any serious argument against repealing CEQA? NEPA exists. As do public lands.


Unfortunately it does not works as intended all the times. From what I have personally observed, everything falls down to the city planners on the interpretation of the code changes.


I'm confused; AB2503 does specify some building standard changes ... to be studied and then adopted by 2032.

We're talking about how it exempts many things from CEQA litigation. Since it's been less than a year, I'm not sure how well we can gauge its effectiveness.


This is from my own personal experience for normal housing project. The city officials works as conservatively to safeguard themselves.


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

Search: