Jamie B

“There is no easy way from Earth to the stars” – Seneca 40 AD

Trying to get codex to install codex on a linode on a plane so that codex can talk to a more perpetual codex but codex is stuck reading the docs how to install codex.

Binance's initial investigation suggests that the security incident may involve a compromised DevOps engineer’s laptop, which allowed an attacker to gain access to a service container and submit unauthorized withdrawal transactions. We have found no evidence of any wallet private key leak. We will share a detailed technical post-mortem once the investigation is complete and the facts are fully verified. The estimated total impact sits at around $6.3B. We have worked with blockchain partners to freeze affected assets, with ~$3 billion frozen on-chain so far. Binance will cover all losses from the SAFU fund and the company’s funds. User funds are safe. We will also publish an updated Proof of Reserves once the remediation is complete. As an immediate precaution, Binance has: - temporarily suspended deposits and withdrawals while security checks are completed; - revoked the affected address authorisation; - engaged law enforcement and blockchain intelligence partners to trace and recover funds. Our teams are working around the clock to resolve this issue safely and thoroughly. We are working closely with our law enforcement partners to confirm the identity of these criminals and bring them to justice. Please rely only on official Binance channels for updates. Please feel free to contact Binance Customer Support if you have any further questions. binance.com/en/support/annou…

BREAKING: Binance has been hacked with wallets across the Ethereum, Bitcoin, and TRON networks seeing outflows of -$5.7 billion. The hack includes $1.45 billion worth of Bitcoin and $875 million worth of ETH. If confirmed, this would mark the biggest hack in crypto history. We expect more information shortly.

What the eff is this? Iran cannot reach these countries. Alien invasion?

Has the political order been given to target Trident. Or are we still running with Geoff Hoon-era “reduced readiness to fire, measured in days, not hours” nonsense. All while poking a bear with a stick. Literally a stick. Since we have run out of ships, shells and bullets.

Many of you don't understand how serious this is, so let me break it down. In computer science there is a famous kind of puzzle called 3-SAT. You are given a long list of yes-or-no switches and a set of rules about how they must be arranged, and you have to find a combination that satisfies every rule. The obvious way to solve it is to try every combination, but each new switch doubles the number of possibilities, so a puzzle with a few hundred switches would take longer than the age of the universe to brute force. For decades, the smartest people in the field found clever tricks that made this a little faster, but every trick still hit the same wall: the time required kept exploding as the puzzle grew. About 25 years ago, two computer scientists, Russell Impagliazzo and Ramamohan Paturi, working with Francis Zane, turned that wall into a formal idea. They proposed the Exponential Time Hypothesis, which says this explosion is not a failure of human cleverness but a law of nature. No algorithm, however brilliant, will ever solve 3-SAT without the time blowing up exponentially. Nobody could prove it, but almost everyone believed it, and it became one of the foundations of modern computer science. Researchers used it as a measuring stick. If you could show that solving some other problem quickly would also crack 3-SAT quickly, you had shown that problem was hopelessly hard too. Hundreds of papers, across scheduling, graphs, logic and much more, rest on this one assumption. Now an internal AI model at OpenAI claims to have broken it. It says it found an algorithm that solves these puzzles meaningfully faster than the hypothesis allows, and it has checked the proof in a computer verification system called Lean. And here is the remarkable part: the very people who proposed the hypothesis, Impagliazzo and Paturi, along with MIT's Ryan Williams, are now leading the public review of whether a machine has disproved their own idea. So what happens next? If the disproof holds, a large part of theoretical computer science has to be revisited. Every result that said "this problem cannot be solved faster, assuming ETH" loses its foundation, and researchers will have to work out which of those walls were real and which were simply where we stopped looking. It does not mean everything becomes easy. The new algorithm is still slow in absolute terms and this is not the famous P versus NP problem being solved. But it means our map of what is possible was wrong in a place we were very confident about, and it was an AI that redrew it. If the disproof fails, the hypothesis survives and the field breathes out, but we will still have watched an AI produce serious, checkable work on one of the deepest questions in the discipline, closely enough that the founders of the idea had to take it seriously. Either way, something has shifted.

The most dangerous people are those who are rich, powerful, smart, and intellectually lazy, unwilling to critically evaluate whether or not what they think is true actually is.

Building windmills is probably less wasteful endeavor than building nuclear physics machines. Our fundamental capacity to extract energy from wind isn’t likely to change but it is more likely than ever that we could make particle physics breakthroughs or just chance on something that changes our fundamental understanding. Wind is wind and it’s cheap enough.

time’s up for vibe coders? if the code and infrastructure we build on are vulnerable how do we secure our apps