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

I have had a developer with anger issues expect 100% success with FTP file transfers, and anything that failed was 100% my fault as a Linux/Oracle administrator.

These FTP sessions were running over WANs connecting Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Tennessee.

I ended up writing him an "until curl ftp://...; do echo it failed again; done" loop which calmed that particular issue down.

I don't miss that guy, not even 1%. Good riddance.


(reposted)

As I understand it, ITAR regulations for export controls have just been applied to any form of Mythos. These are overseen by U.S. Departments of State and Commerce, and forbid foreign nationals from access to any form of Mythos, either within or outside the U.S.

Only U.S. citizens and immigrants that are holders of a "green card" may now access Mythos.

It appears that Anthropic does not have internal controls to implement these restrictions in any form, so the only option was to shut Mythos down.

Penalties for ITAR violation can reach ten years in prison and a million dollars per violation. (I can post a link to those details if there is any interest.)

As long as Anthropic is a U.S. company, there is no escaping this.

https://fortune.com/2026/06/14/how-a-warning-from-amazon-led...


This is how the US gov does business now, capricious and vengeful.

Textbook retaliation for not letting them use an abliterated version of Claude in weapons systems.

This effectively renders any US closed model useless for any foreign company. Could happen to OpenAI, Google, etc. Too much of a risk to implement something that can be yanked out because the company didn’t behave the way they want.

Looks like it’s time for Kimi, Z, Deepseek to take the front row. They’ll catch up in a few months anyway. Kimi code 2.6 is crazy good


This is a suicide shot for the American economy. The numbers only lined up for AI to rescue the USA from its debt if it captured a significant portion of the world's AI spend, and while it was a longshot before, there's basically zero percent chance the world trusts American AI when the government is pulling strings.

It was a zero percent chance anyway. Look at Europe working to leave American software behind in recent years. And it was greatly accelerated by leveraging American AI to build the exit.

You can read it all over HN. It's about weakening American influence and building Eurocentric economies and influence. And exercising the same level of choice that Americans prefer as well. Americans also want to escape Google, Microsoft and Apple and more. They've all been caught investing too heavily in government influence and thought control (aka marketing).

And on the other side of that, an American company that deprives the US of AI for defense, is defacto weakening American defense because competition militaries will gain a technological edge by simply taking control of AI companies in their country which the US hasn't done (yet).

There are very valid arguments on both sides, I think.


> The numbers only lined up for AI to rescue the USA from its debt if it captured a significant portion of the world's AI spend

The numbers lined up if those companies created something resembling AGI, the USA companies captured a large share of the world, and there was lack of competition so those companies could capture a large share of the value.

None of those items were ever going go happen.


Consider this quote from the main article...

"When you further combine this realization with the company’s pronouncements about AI’s ability to conduct all economic activity, you realize that Anthropic’s leadership effectively wants to have power over everything and everyone."

This is fearful stuff on all sides, and none of the people involved might realistically be able to navigate the danger.


the whole thing playing out as expected. if you think about it, the only question is the timeline.

the next model with a gap to mythos as mythos is to opus will be controlled technology from the get-go. the one after it may be top secret.


Open models will catch up eventually, TOTL models will get distilled into smaller, more efficient versions, it’s not something you can moat indefinitely

who is going to continue to publish these open models and why would they keep doing it?

China will, but they'll only be useable by hackers torrenting it and running it on small GPU clusters you learn about on IRC. Everything old is new again.

I have no idea why people keep thinking this

Or OpenAI will pay Trump's regime's bribe and they'll suddenly realise that it does not need controlling and they're free to sell it?

that's... an optimistic take I think

That part just sounds like hyperbole at best, conspiracy at worst.

By that logic, anybody who values safety has a god complex? It’s absurd…


I am just quoting the parent article.

"What this degradation represented was both the capability and willingness of Anthropic to silently alter its models to achieve its policy preferences. In other words, Anthropic willfully validated some of its critics’ worst fears in terms of being a supply chain risk."


Again, hyperbole and assumption of evil intent because… they take precautions? Nice prose doesn’t dispense you from forming a sound hypothesis

The article makes a coherent argument:

a) Anthropic believe that AI is an extinction level risk and that they are the only leading AI lab which takes safety seriously. In combination this puts them in the position of believing that they are the only ones who can save the world, which is reasonable to call a god complex.

b) Anthropic are engaging in actions which aquire and consolidate power in the form of control over powerful AI.

c) "The history of brilliant people convinced they know what humanity needs is a sordid one, precisely because they have convinced themselves that their intentions are good, justifying actions that very much are not."

I'm describing claims from the article and would not word them so strongly myself. But this explicitly does not assume evil intent.


I never really understood this "US person" restriction. There are 350M people in US, mostly citizens and green cards holders, surely some of them could be working for a foreign power.

They don't even need to know they are. You can assume that if the model becomes available again, a lot of people will find themselves working for companies distilling these models that just happens to ultimately do work for foreign entities, whether or not the people accessing the models knows or not.

> As long as Anthropic is a U.S. company, there is no escaping this.

Reminds me of the RISC-V Foundation → RISC-V International move to Switzerland. Around the time some dumbass Republicans tried to impose export restrictions on a set of open, world-wide used specifications.

Pandora's box has been opened, and there's no closing it. Capable AI models will be everywhere.


Could Anthropic relocate to a different country?

They cannot do it. Apart from all the practical, technical and talent reasons, it would still be exporting forbidden stuff.

The signal is clear enough though for the next Anthropic..


Individuals can leave, but the company cannot transfer restricted intellectual property.

Europe has extradition treaties, so the U.S. can force anyone in Europe back to the U.S. for criminal indictment who demonstrates inappropriate possession of this technology.


Would be very hard to demonstrate that they did that. If all employees move to some country with a slow legal justice system and strong labor laws, they also recreate the training data because that can be transferred, they can train another version in said country which is perfectly legal.

Can you demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the model weights have been transferred? No. Will the EU judges move to extradite said individuals (and many are EU citizens)? Also no, especially in the face of spurious accusations. And even if they were open to, you can stonewall everything and you will probably outlast any US administration pursuing that.


Well, force is a strong word… it’s still just accords, that the US doesn’t seem to be valuing lately… so if they say no, what’s the US going to do? Start a war over a company?

As I understand it, ITAR regulations for export controls have just been applied to any form of Mythos.

These are overseen by U.S. Departments of State and Commerce, and forbid foreign nationals from access to any form of Mythos, either within or outside the U.S.

Only U.S. citizens and immigrants that are holders of a "green card" may now access Mythos.

It appears that Anthropic does not have internal controls to implement these restrictions in any form, so the only option was to shut Mythos down.

Penalties for ITAR violation can reach ten years in prison and a million dollars per violation. (I can post a link to those details if there is any interest.)

As long as Anthropic is a U.S. company, there is no escaping this.

https://fortune.com/2026/06/14/how-a-warning-from-amazon-led...


> Only U.S. citizens and immigrants that are holders of a "green card" may now access Mythos.

It was my understanding that not even green card holders may access Mythos. Normally when restrictions like this are put in place, you need a exemption as a green card holder. A geen card is just a permit to live and work in the US. Its not the same as citizenship.

> Security Clearance: Green Card holders are generally prohibited from jobs that require high-level security clearances or sensitive government/military roles reserved exclusively for U.S. citizens.


That's not true. ITAR and security clearance are entirely separate regulatory regimes. For ITAR purposes, being a permanent resident is good enough. I used to work for a defense contractor, and we hired plenty of green card holders. They were not in general assigned to work that required a clearance, but plenty of defense-sensitive, ITAR-controlled work is done by green card holders.

Were those ITAR export controls chosen because they really are the most appropriate tool for this particular case, or because they could be deployed at a very short notice?

Mythos was advertised as being able to do massive damage to IT systems over government and the private sector.

How could restriction not be appropriate.


So Anthropic can't even move to Europe now since that would be considered a crime against national security?

Like trying to move a missile industry from USA to EU.


Individuals can leave, but the company cannot transfer restricted intellectual property.

Europe has extradition treaties, so the U.S. can force anyone in Europe back to the U.S. for criminal indictment who demonstrates inappropriate possession of this technology.


Simply move the training datasets and recreate it in the EU.

However, I think the US would treat this as treason (like they wouldn't want nuclear scientist to work for other nations).


I believe that Dario Amodei (Anthropic CEO) was born in Italy, and is already an EU citizen.

He is probably reviewing many exit options today.


no, he's american born. He would be entitled to (or already have) Italian citizenship by ius sanguinis ("blood right") tho.

You're lying.

It erases immune memory, taking away antibodies to recently exposed diseases. It's best not to get it.

What is the evolutionary advantage of this? I mean, if the host dies subsequently that's pretty bad for both parties, or?

Sometimes, even usually, evolution finds a “local maximum” of effectiveness. Where the solution an organism finds is not optimal but it’s good enough for the organism to survive, even win.

So yeah I’m sure evolution didn’t create something perfect in the disease here but it survives long enough, and kills few-enough people slowly enough in the wild to survive


Evolution is just a race to "good enough to consistently reproduce" and everything after the sufficient reproduction is irrelevant. Like the goats whose horns have to be cut or they'll eventually pierce their own brain.

Generally it's more advantageous for your own anatomy not to kill you without intervention, but they reproduce and that checks off the "good enough" box.


If it can spread before killing the host, it has done its job (evolutionarily speaking).

Viruses don't care if the host dies. Evolution doesn't explain all things in nature.

Evolution theory by itself doesn’t give us the ability to explain everything in a certain moment, but that’s only due to lack of knowledge on our part.

Consider that measles in itself comes originally from a animal but a mutation found itself be able to spread to humans. That, in and of itself, is the process of evolution.

So while it is not necessarily a useful lens to try to interpret a moment in time as many unknown factors are at play (for example the same gene that is important for mortality might also impact survival in certain environments, and therefore how contagious it could be), if we were to understand it’s history of every mutation that came and went, the environments it lived in, evolution theory would explain why the path looked like it did. And subsequently why it is like it is today.


I think that question is too simple.

1. We might not be the only hosts or place where it can survive. Measles seems to have mutated from a cattle virus.

2. Killing the host might be the virus' end-game, in which case it evolved to extinction. Mutations nor evolution don't have a goal. There's not always an advantage. I bet most changes aren't advantageous.

3. If you really want to see everything in terms of evolutionary change, the virus could even been seen as a tool in human evolution.

Evolution is a way to look at changes in and forces operating on living things. It is a property that emerges for human observers. Nature doesn't care about it.


It’s a side effect in a small portion of the infected. It spreads well enough regardless, so it doesn’t particularly hurt it.

The virus "cares" if it reproduces. There is often tension between the various levels of spreading mechanisms: for example airbourne spread diseases making you cough vs. the cough making the host feel poorly and not interacting with people or the cough killing the host really preventing further spread. There are plenty of optimum points between fast intense disease and asymptomatic disease.

Short term intense disease courses tend to only work for a short period of evolution for new infection mechanisms, the intensity makes them sensitive to any increased immunity which ends up halting the spread for more mild versions. Infectious diseases tend to lower in intensity over the long term.


And there’s a non-zero chance that it lives dormant in your brain and you die several years later. Absolutely bonkers.

And by "it" you mean measles? Or do you mean the vaccine? Completely reverses the message of your post!

> And by "it" you mean measles?

Yes. They mean that measles "erases immune memory, taking away antibodies to recently exposed diseases.".

The grandparent was discussing their measles experience and the parent was responding to that.


Wait, measles erases antibody memory?

First of all, this is scary. Secondly, I wonder if it hase the same effect on autoimmune disease?


It destroys memory B-cells.

"Once the measles virus contacts the mucosa lining the respiratory tract, it binds to SLAM (signaling lymphocyte activation molecule, also known as CD150) on the surface of macrophages and dendritic cells. These cells then take up the virus... These immune cells pass the virus on to other groups of immune cells, including B cells, T cells, thymocytes, and hematopoietic stem cells, which disseminate the virus to other organs during the incubation period.

"Immune amnesia

"The measles virus can deplete previously acquired immune memory by killing cells that make antibodies, and thus weakens the immune system, which can cause deaths from other diseases. Suppression of the immune system by measles lasts about two years and has been epidemiologically implicated in an increase in childhood mortality from other infectious diseases during this period. The measles vaccine contains an attenuated strain of the virus which does not deplete immune memory."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles


Measles infections can trigger the following autoimmune diseases:

* Type 1 diabetes

* Multiple sclerosis

* Rheumatoid arthritis


It can. It’s not common, from what I understand, but there are cases where it has put various autoimmune disorders into remission, either temporary, or permanent.

That said, you become far more likely to end up sick with a whole bunch of other stuff, which can then eliminate any benefits for the autoimmune disorders.

Oh, and there’s also a chance it will give you an autoimmune disorder.

Absolute bastard, if you ask me.


Such a serious effect I would expect tons of research on it. And being commonly known

But it is a seemingly new symptom being attributed to measles

Between that and doctors refusing to diagnose long covid or lyme disease. Which have a much bigger link to immune disorders

One would think someone is trying to muddy the waters. Or accidentally misattributing


It’s crazy that in the past year, I’ve been hearing MAGA hold measles parties yikes!

My favorite Iranian poet, via an Irishman…

  XCIX
  Ah, Love! could you and I with Him conspire
  To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
  Would not we shatter it to bits--and then
  Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!
https://classics.mit.edu/Khayyam/rubaiyat.html

Closer to the Heart by Rush

I'm no expert, but p53 is known as "the guardian of the genome."

If p53 is reactivated, the cancer cell dies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P53

Perhaps a different mutation that disables p53 could evade the pattern match.

This article is all about p53.

Edit: This section of the wiki best explains this critical cellular component...

p53 regulates cell cycle progression, apoptosis, and genomic stability through multiple mechanisms:

-Activates DNA repair proteins in response to DNA damage, suggesting a potential role in aging.

-Arrests the cell cycle at the G1/S checkpoint upon DNA damage, allowing time for repair before progression.

-Initiates apoptosis if the damage is beyond repair.

-Essential for the senescence response triggered by short telomeres.


I think that we should have a Schengen Area of the Americas, but observing the problems that this has caused the E.U. (Brexit), a proper implementation would require a much more controlled and gradual approach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area

Edit: It would be most pleasant to delete this comment. Drat.


But Britain was never in the Schengen area. One of their many "we are an island, we are different" privileges


What's the connection between Schengen and Brexit?

To give more context:

The UK is not and has never been in Schengen.

I guess GP is taking about free movement of EU citizens, but that has nothing to do with Schengen.


Schengen Area has open borders with a common visa policy.

>free movement of EU citizens, [...] has nothing to do with Schengen.

Did you mis-speak?

One of the things leading up to Brexit was politicians claiming we couldn't police our borders without getting out of the EU. That was of course false. Almost the opposite in practical terms.

Presumably, if UK were to return to the EU we would do so without our past veto, and as part of Schengen. That makes it less desirable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area


Not all EU countries are in Schengen so why would the UK have to be part of it if it rejoined the EU?

The EU really wants all members to be in Schengen. The UK was allowed to opt out because its membership was so desirable. After the Brexit fiasco it's unlikely that the EU would want them back in so badly that they'd accept another opt-out.

It's part of the package now. The same thing with the euro for example. New member states are supposed to adopt the euro at one point.

I thought it was a requirement now. The UK got special treatment because it was a founding or very early member of the EU, but now if it wants to rejoin it'll have to join on the same terms a country like Ukraine would.

Schengen is not the vehicle for freedom of establishment in the EU. Europe is complicated.

Pair-instability can only happen in low-metalicity surroundings.

The big bang created hydrogen, helium, and small amounts of lithium. Any higher elements are created by stars, and a significant presence of those "metals" will take a star down a different path than pair-instability.

Low-metalicity environments are not likely to be friendly to life.


There is a wiki on pair-instability supernovas. Antimatter (in the form of positrons) is a key factor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair-instability_supernova


It's my understanding the general mechanism of core collapse involves the adiabatic constant of the material, gamma. This is the exponent in the relation P V^(gamma) = constant.

For a normal, non-relativistic gas in which the particles have no internal degrees of freedom, gamma is 5/3. As a gas becomes more relativistic, and as photon pressure becomes more important, gamma declines toward 4/3.

For gamma = 4/3, a self-gravitating gas will be marginally stable: the energy needed to compress a sphere of the gas will be equal to the gravitational potential energy liberated by the compression. So, any effect that pushes gamma below 4/3 makes it unstable against collapse.

In a conventional core collapse SN this is photodissociation of nuclei, where energy gets soaked up in breaking apart nuclei into alpha particles and then free nucleons. In a pair-instability SN, this is increasing conversion of photons to electron-positron pairs.


My favourite kind of supernova, due to their absurdity.

A hypernova is an even larger star that is theorized to end its life due to photodisintegration rather than pair instability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodisintegration#Hypernovae


The temperature involved for this is well above that needed for production of electron-positron pairs, so one may ask why that doesn't happen. I think it's because the cores of such stars are dense enough the electrons are degenerate, and there simply isn't "room" for new electrons to be added at an energy that would make pair production possible.

BTW, I don't think largeness is needed for photodisintegration to occur; this should happen even in garden variety type-II SN.



> Cell sizes are not fixed, however, even within a single species. Cells often swell as they increase their production of proteins and metabolites in preparation for division. This is in line with biology’s only rule: namely, there are exceptions to every rule!

> Case in point: a giant bacterium called Thiomargarita magnifica can extend about one centimeter in length, so large that it can be seen by the naked eye. It does so by breaking the surface area-to-volume rule, filling between 65–80 percent of its internal volume with an empty vacuole. In other words, it pushes most of its molecules to the cell periphery, thus shortening diffusion distances.

There is also a captioned image of bubble algae in the post.


> This is in line with biology’s only rule: namely, there are exceptions to every rule!

Nice paradox


Interesting topology. How empty is the vacuole?

empty in terms of normal cell components, apparently it stores relatively huge amounts of nitrates that are a necessary energy source for it

Rather large gas tank:

Collected and stored sediment samples were found to have surviving T. namibiensis cells after over two years. The cells had no access to any added sulfide or nitrate during this time. In the surviving cells, there was a notable size decrease. To survive without growing the cells depended on the nutrient stores of the central vacuoles.


Indeed. It says they rely on two different substances which normally don't mix (nitrates and sulfites), presumably because if they were both present at the same time they'd react with each other directly without the bacterium extracting any energy from that. So they live in places that sometimes have one and sometimes the other, and have to store one of them until the other comes along, which can be years. Or that's how I read it.

    > The entire cell contains several cytoplasmic domains, with each domain having a nucleus and a few chloroplasts.
it reinvented being multi-cellular

It uses container based virtualization under a single host kernel instead of VM based virtualization.

Agreed. Humans draw rather arbitrary distinctions. It was quite funny in regards to viruses, aka parasite. Mimivirus are still a parasite, of course, but they even encode genes for metabolic pathways and are larger than some bacteria.

See:

"The Mimivirus is a giant virus that infects amoebae and was long considered to be a bacterium due to its size."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9133948/

Although for me, I always used the definitions through the genetic information available (genome). So as long as a virus still is a parasite, I'd hold up that definition. It will be interesting when viruses are found that are even closer to a cell, e. g. some life cycle where they could switch between parasitism and stand-alone metabolism (or some hybrid in between; I mean if they can encode whole metabolic pathways, at the least some or some parts of it, the threshold here should not be impossible to overcome, and then the whole definition of a virus also has to be adapted since it would no longer make sense).


Perhaps what you are seeking "retrotransposons," an endogenous retrovirus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrotransposon#Endogenous_ret...


relatedly, foraminifera are single cellular organisms that can grow up to 20 cm! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophyophorea

Isn't the ovum supposed to be a single cell? Eggs of various species can be substantially larger than this.

Yes. I remember reading that Ostrich eggs are the largest single cells (in terms of mass/volume; Blue Whale nerve cells are longer).

> largest prokaryote:

Actually the wikipedia article states:

"It is the second largest bacterium ever discovered"

> The largest T. magnifica cell Volland found was 2 centimeters tall

https://www.science.org/content/article/largest-bacterium-ev...

Granted, they are grouped both in Thiomargarita. 2cm is pretty gigantic. What I always found more interesting was that they don't merely have just one genome.



These both feature large central vacuoles, lending support the thesis of the article that the cubic growth in volume outstrips the quadratic increase in surface area for transferring nutrients and waste across the cell membrane.

Those still seem kind of small? Why not the size of an mature olive tree for example? I'm guessing the article may answer this, haven't gotten that far yet.

When they invade your saltwater aquarium, you won't think they're small. They can get up just slightly larger than a marble

There’s also the one that almost ate the Enterprise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Immunity_Syndrome_(Star_Tr...

Exactly

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

Search: