Yes. An acknowledgement of the issue should be fine, even if they don’t know why it happened. If a random dev with one PR can see that no jobs are picked up, GitHub should see it as well and add an entry to their status “hey, actions aren’t getting picked up, we are looking into it”. I wasted 20 minutes looking into out actions config looking got an issue, thought maybe we messed something up, but in turned out it was GitHub.
The status page should detect the thing they are looking into. Kinda like a Check Engine light or gauge reading notifies you to investigate a problem with your engine.
At this point, let's just be happy they didn't interlace viral tiktoks and game walkthroughs of supermario in the post, to keep the audience on the site.
They could have just taped it to the inside bottom of a full tissue box, and as long as they got it before the tissues were mostly empty I bet it would go undetected. Put a hand sanitizer next to it for extra camo.
Which made me wonder: in the future a microphone/camera combo fits in a grain of sand and costs a cent so everybody can basically see everything ... curious what the world would be like, is there a black mirror episode on this yet?
Where fruit flies carry cameras around? That's scary.
Likely at some point regular people just aren't given access to such edge tech, though. Even with infinite knowledge from an LLM, you probably couldn't build it without access to a factory either.
Even my non tech elderly parents know that. The fact that they used LLMs to figure out how to best bug the executives really shows how poor their judgement is.
And how about people who have a job that they just don’t like that much, and would love to escape.
Having 9 rounds of interviews sounds crazy excessive. Why is the 9th interview needed that you couldn’t have figured out by the 8th interview? If regular companies do that, I opt out, it’s a don that they are delusional, inefficient, incapable of making decisions and don’t respect candidates time and potentially different life circumstances (candidates might have family, full time work, hobbies, other interviews).
On the other hand, their company is quite unique, I bet they have enough applicants, so in the end it’s supply and demand, and companies in extreme demand can make their interview process as tiring as they wish…
It's on top of mind for everyone in the software development industry (be it SWEs, product people, designers, managers...), as it's such a "cross-cutting" concern, I am not surprised it's always on the HN front page.
Sure, some Rust 1.98.7-beta release is interesting to some, but AI affects most of us, one way or another.
I (and many other people I personally know, so they are not botfarms) feel many different strong emotions regarding AI on a daily basis: anxious, frustrated, tired, bored, suprised, entertained, empowered, optimistic, pessimistic, usually all of it almost every single day.
"Is a lawsuit", not "was a lawsuit". Present tense, ongoing, not past tense.
Status: Complaint filed September 18, 2026 in the Northern District of California · responses due October 14–15, 2026 · initial case management conference December 23, 2026 · no class, no settlement.
- from the linked article.
> did they correct any of their behavior?
The behaviour being objected to is publicly agreeing with each other to slow down.
If a court orders them to correct this behaviour, it means they are forbidden from agreeing to slow down.
So no, it has not yet prevented anything. Which I think is the previous posters point: there is currently nothing stopping them from doing what they say they want to see happen. The problem from their PoV is that other players (those working on open source models, those in other countries who are never going to listen to any directive to slow down anyway, etc.) won't also collude with them so even if they do collude to do what they say they want everyone to do it'll be to their disadvantage, where what they actually want is for everyone else to be told to slow down while they somehow pay for a loophole to allow them to go a little faster for competitive advantage.
The speed of change is impressive, I don't think any tech ever before has gone from “brand new disruptor in public awareness” to “the incumbents feeling they have insufficient moat and so trying to arrange a regulatory capture situation” in such a short space of time.
> what they actually want is for everyone else to be told to slow down while they somehow pay for a loophole to allow them to go a little faster for competitive advantage.
It’s hilarious that you can write this and then act befuddled as to why they would therefore want laws as an external (and ideally impartial) coordination device.
Thinking this is a super unique scenario just reveals your ignorance of both 1) game theory and 2) actual industrial history. An industry asking for regulation to stop a race to the bottom is not atypical at all.
> An industry asking for regulation to stop a race to the bottom is not atypical
I didn't say, or even imply, that it is. Just that it is unusual, historically speaking, to see it being pushed for so strongly just a couple of years¹ into general public awareness. Either because previously things didn't move so quickly or, more likely, because the leading companies had more moat initially to keep other adopters moving slower.
--------
[1] talking about LLMs and related tech, image targetting models have been in the public awareness for a fair while longer but they are not the primary concern for most.
So a written threat only becomes a crime when someone reads it, even if you never intended for anyone to read it? Is it a crime if I make a threatening statement in a diary and someone breaks into my house and reads the diary?
