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

This already exists. I got a Thinkpad T14s 2-in-1 last year from Lenovo, and it shipped with Ubuntu, which made the price around $50 cheaper if I recall. I replaced it with Debian, of course, but the battery life is fine and it is a quiet machine.

I also purchased the T14s Snapdragon two years ago, and it gets longer battery life (if you just use a terminal only, the battery life remaining will sometimes say 20 hours, but it's more like 14-15 realistically). However, it can get uncomfortably hot on the left edge at the speaker. The T14s 2-in-1 (Intel) does not have any hot spots, though.


I also had the X1 Snapdragon T14s and it felt like going back to 2008 linux.

No wifi, no bluetooth, no fingerprint reader, no hardware accelerated 3D..

There is a special version of Ubuntu that largely works (it's a bit old) and if you dist-upgrade to a new version it will break.

I spent about a week trying to get it working and just gave up, awful experience.


The Thinkpad T14s 2-in-1 with Intel Core Ultra 5 has great battery life: 10+ hours with moderate usage. I also have the Snapdragon T14s which gets about 14 hours, but I'm still waiting to get full Linux support for this two year old laptop.

Note however, since I've been using my Thinkpad 2-in-1 on battery almost everyday for a year, it is somewhat degraded. upower shows

    energy-full:         50.61 Wh
    energy-full-design:  58 Wh
But I still get more than 10 hours on a charge.

I would have been totally interested in the snapdragon if Linux support was good and the hardware wasn't old at this point. I'd like a 24h laptop!

Does the report say any of this? I only see "FAIL" on a few tests with ext4 and one with xfs.

It's hard to show with any accuracy how likely a filesystem is to not break when the SHTF or something weird happens, or if they've handled all the weird corner cases, with any kind of automated test.

For that you have to dig into the methodology, look at the code, look at user reports, etc.

But you can get a pretty good approximation just from the philosophies and attitudes of the engineers and what they're talking about.

The talk I just gave at the Rust for Linux conference was all about that - how do we make the system debugable, the community aspect of how we respond to bug reports and talk to users, the prep work for the Rust conversion and formal verification and how we're approaching all that.

Reliability doesn't come out of nowhere, "all bugs are shallow with enough eyeballs" really doesn't apply to filesystems. You just have to plan for it, come up with a methodology, and do the work.


It's not just me and it's had serious problems for years:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linu...

<- 5Y ago.

It's not materially better now. The devs are in denial about the problems because lots of big users are saying "works fine on my machine."

Sure, if you have lots of backups, if you have huge volumes on huge disks and they never fill up...

But it's the default in Fedora, Spiral Linux, Garuda Linux, siduction and others. Personal distros for people's own PCs and those are not well-supported enterprise kit.


SUSE also famously uses btrfs on the root file system.

Don't ever let it fill up!


Exactly.

SUSE takes snapshots before packages are installed. The package manager cannot tell if the disk will fill up as a result because on Btrfs the `df` command lies.

If its Btrfs root fills up and the OS writes to it, it 100% will self-destruct, and the `btrfs-repair` tool (`fsck` replacement) cannot fix drives and usually makes the corruption worse and renders the drive unreadable.

This is why in the earlier thread about swapfiles...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49618087

... I advised 2 commenters not to recommend keeping the OS and data in a single big volume. I got downvoted for it. I was rude. Well, I was, but I stand by my comments even though I'm sorry for my tone when I made them.


You were absolutely correct to be rude.

A pragmatic fix would trigger read-only failure mode at 90% usage of the mount as a whole, with all subvolumes.


Thanks!

And you know what, that's a great idea.


The more practical advice is to resize hard partitions down by 5-10%.

I have a loopback mount on an fallocate file with a btrfs filesystem inside of it at work. I'm using send/receive to make sure there is hope of recovery.

I wrote this several years ago.

https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/btrfs-centos-living-loo...


That is excellent stuff -- thank you!

> The frontier LLM model makers have to push the edge to make new discoveries. You don't know what guardrails are needed until it hits you in the face (reusing walking in the dark analogy).

Guardrails? Restricting access to certain networks is supposed to be hard in 2026?


> Restricting access to certain networks is supposed to be hard in 2026?

Part of the power of LLM agents is that they can discover information on the internet as part of responding to a prompt. What kind of Allowlist or realistic denylist would permit that while also preventing them from accessing an obscure public wiki or Huggingface?


Let them access a cached copy of the internet, they are crawling the internet for training data anyways.

When testing, you restrict to a LAN which simulates the real internet. This would not be hard for a company which already copied the entire space-time of the internet. The LAN should be physically disconnected from the real internet. This is the first thing off the top of my head, and I have zero credentials in this space. C'mon.

If I recall (too lazy to check) folks made slight improvements to Perelman's work and published it in mainstream journals, satisfying the "qualifying outlet" requirement.


I checked, you're right, but I think it's important to note that the prize did go to Perelman and he declined to accept.

A much easier hack by their agents would be on their own systems, but I doubt we'll ever see an external message board full of openAI agents discussing their hacking of their own system. OpenAI not protecting itself from its agents would be irrational, but OpenAI not giving a shit about others is well known. You're giving them way too much credit.


but like, they did

The HF incident had them pwn their own cluster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_OpenAI_agent_cyberattacks...


Now that the revolution has apparently started, does anyone know of a version control system which uses encrypted storage? (I'm not concerned about performance, for I will use it for small projects only.)


Git on an encrypted volume?


Sorry, I did not specify the threat model. If I git push to an encrypted volume on a virtual server, like on Linode or Digital Ocean, anyone with access to the hardware can inspect unencrypted data on a live volume.


Concerning [5], the article says he was rejected at UC Santa Barbara. Haven't checked in a while, but I believe UCSB historically accepts 40-50% of first time applicants. The schools were not using SAT scores at the time, and UC has banned race considerations in admissions for nearly 30 years. Surely there's more to this story.


Most schools that say they don't consider race in admissions mean they don't use a racial quota where e.g. they require x% of the student body to be some minority or whatever. That's because such quotas have been ruled illegal. But the way admissions generally work is that your application is graded on a points system, and they get around the law by using a points modifier based on race. And that modifier can be adjusted as necessary to ensure they get exactly x% of the student body to be that minority. So it's racial quotas by proxy.

Another modifier is going to be parental income, which I think makes much more sense than race. But those two modifiers can compound to make it where something like an Asian from a high household income family needs to essentially be the next Einstein in order to be admitted over an average student who happens to be from a historically poor performing minority.


They “banned” them. This lawsuit contends they don’t actually stop using them. That's the basis of the claims. Read it


Attorneys commonly do this.


I bought a motherboard from Newegg in late 2024. It came with 16GB of RAM as a free "gift". The same RAM goes for $534 on Newegg today. It was $437 in January. Prices are still creeping up for this "throwaway" memory.

I still have it, but never installed it because I only use ECC memory in my desktops. I'm saving it for a future Desktop in case memory prices never fall again.


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

Search: