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

I'm not familiar with Metafont -- is this what you're referencing? https://ctan.org/pkg/metafont?lang=en

Yes, that is METAFONT.

You'll find it more accessible via METAPOST, and there have been font designs made using it. Better starting link is:

https://davidcarlisle.github.io/uk-tex-faq/FAQ-mfptutorials....



Not the OP, but probably (please correct me if I'm wrong...) Knuth's claim was that a font's metrics could be described as geometric transformations and equations. I believe most of the TeX typefaces were described with Metafont.

Let them eat crow.


This is filthy undercrow talk!


> It was such a simple concept but it worked so well. Wouldn't be able to do something like that anymore due to all manner of sandboxing in action. Lost a tool, gained security.

This class of programs absolutely still exists (see: every debugger, scanmem, GameConqueror, etc.).

Sandboxing doesn't prevent processes from inspecting the memory of other processes, it just prevents the sandboxed process from doing things it shouldn't.


My understanding is that it's not that the _models_ are banned, but rather the _platform_ is banned. It is acceptable to host, say, `deepseek-r1-distill-qwen-7b` and run it yourself, for example. It is not acceptable (to the authors of these bans) to download the DeepSeek app and run it on your work device.


I just left a job for a German B2B software company which sold primarily to large automotive, defense, and aerospace companies. Several of our customers specifically banned anything with the word "DeepSeek" -- hosted or self-hosted.

There's still a lot of naivety on what the difference is between models and platforms, and its easier for a lot of these big companies to just make a blanket statement like "nothing DeepSeek" than for their procurement teams to try to understand and negotiate with each vendor. They don't see the potential benefit over the potential risk of somebody misinterpreting or getting it wrong, so they outright ban it.

Most people that approve or buy software simply also just don't understand how models are being trained or if it's possible/how far a model could go to "introduce backdoors." A backdoor could be, from a business perspective, a model which has been trained to give answers that could hurt western business in a "strict text mode" or produces payloads in a programmatic mode that are intentionally trained to introduce software vulnerabilities.

Anyone can make arguments against these for a variety of reasons (looking at the transparency of both sides and comparing, etc) but for many reasons today and for better or worse, many Chinese models are being banned on big software contracts, which gets back to the title of the article


Thing is these models can also be a propaganda machine whether you run it locally or not. This is true no matter the origins. Chinese LLMs will never shit-talk CCP, and it will always give a rosy depiction of the Chinese government. It's perfectly understandable if companies don't want things like that. US/EU models have these problems too, but at least there are some ways to fight that: with a lawsuit or a megaphone on social networks. With Chinese models there is nothing you can do.


You are sending all your prompts code and files there. So ofcourse its an issue


Where's "there" on a self-hosted setup?


We aren't allowed to use any unauthorized models even locally.


> What are some other things that you think "pollutes your brain"?

Moderating posts on a public (or worse, private) forum. You will see some truly heinous, vile things.


I did that a long time ago, moderating forum categories like pedophilia, drug usage, suicide ideation and a bunch of others. Even ended up moderating a thread where a forum user committed suicide while live streaming it to forum members and the public, made big news at the time.

Still don't think my mind is polluted from it, although I've certainly seen, read and heard a lot of "sick" stuff through my years on the internet.


It's not always amenable to grepping. But this is a great use case for AST searches, and is part of the reason that LSP tools should really be better integrated with agents.


Works fine in algol-like languages (C, C++ for a start) by just changing the function prototype and finding all instances from the compiler errors, using your compiler as the AST explorer ...


Ah yes, don't fix the agents, fix the tools.

What a ridiculously backwards approach.

We were supposed to get agents who could use human tooling. Instead we are apparently told to write interfaces for this stumbling expensive mess to use.

Maybe, just maybe, if the human can know to, and use, the AST tool fine, the problem is not the tool but the agent.


It's much harder to search using an AST tool for a human. It's certainly harder than grepping, for example. I use AST tools myself, but it takes a while to represent a complex structure in a big codebase when I need to look for that.


Programming language are formal, so unless you’re doing magic stuff (eval and reflection), you can probably grep into a file, eliminate false positive cases, then do a bit of awk or shell scripting with sed. Or use Vim or Emacs tooling.


Agents do use LSPs.


Governments have a long, long history of using "poison to kill a third party", to use your analogy.


I think Cloud Run has many nice features that Heroku's apps don't. However, Heroku's services ecosystem and the easy bindings don't have a direct Cloud Run equivalent, imo, and are inferior in the GCP world.


We've been writing with our hands for thousands of years. I suspect that on balance a Butlerian Jihad against AI slop would be perfectly fine for our hands.


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

Search: