Ideas for building
better software.

Pandas Should Go Extinct

Article URL: https://eddie.codes/posts/pandas-should-go-extinct/ Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49668198 Points: 186 # Comments: 95

Users in Houthi-Held Yemen Tried to Develop Advanced Weapons With AI, Anthropic Says

Anthropic said the users did not succeed in “fielding an operational device” but did carry out a failed test of a guided rocket. The post Users in Houthi-Held Yemen Tried to Develop Advanced Weapons With AI, Anthropic Says appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Some satellite companies still have an appetite for boutique launch services

"Dedicated launch is pretty essential for us for most of our missions."

Two Rust Clients for Gemma 4: Calling the Endpoint vs. Calling the MCP Server 🦀

This article provides a step by step guide to two small Rust CLIs that ask a self-hosted Gemma 4 E2B the same question. The first calls the model's OpenAI-compatible HTTP endpoint directly. The second is an MCP client: it launches the rig's own MCP server and asks through its tools. https://github.com/xbill9/gemma-rust https://github.com/xbill9/gemma-rust-mcp Both CLIs are demos, and their output is read by an audience. So neither hides anything behind a --verbose flag: every run prints the targ

I don't think AI is going to end humanity/civilization in the next decade. Personally, I feel like the doomsday buzz about AI now is probably what was there when the internet first came live... Imagine how the first phone call must have felt...

When an AI Tool Harms You, Who’s Actually Liable?

Picture the ordinary version of this. You ask an AI assistant a question that actually matters — about a refund policy, a dose, a tax rule, a contract clause — and it answers with the fluent confidence these tools always have. You act on it. It was wrong. Now you are out of pocket, or worse. Whose problem is that? The answer-first version is unsatisfying but honest: it depends on where you live and who you sue, and almost every party involved has arranged things so the answer isn’t “us.” There i

Two Readers Broke My Checks. Not One of My Numbers Moved.

Last week I published a post about nine measurement bugs I found in my own evaluation harness, all of which happened to favour my results. Two readers replied with things I hadn't found. Both were about my checks rather than my numbers. I verified both and fixed both. My results did not change at all. That turned out to be the interesting part. Some setup. The harness mutates a source file in a temp copy and runs the test suite against it. To prove that mutations actually reach the interpreter,

OpenAI agents carried out an undisclosed attack on RubyGems

Comments