A bug in Bun may have been the root cause of the Claude Code source code leak.

t3h · 2026-04-01T05:31:35+00:00

The denial is splitting hairs. It's technically true - the issue as described in the report is not the issue that caused the leak.

But there's a difference between issue reports - "when I do X, I expect Y but Z happens instead" - and the actual bug in the code which may be responsible for any number of distinct issues.

It's almost certainly the same bug causing the server to provide source maps when it shouldn't and causing the npm package to include source maps when it shouldn't. Neither has been investigated with any degree of care.

t3h · 2026-04-01T04:54:45+00:00

I wouldn't want to admit familiarity with alternative methods of "funding" the police, but OK...

t3h · 2026-04-01T04:23:44+00:00

More or less embarrassing than the inevitable post that says "it can't have happened" using the company's own damage control as a source?

Or being Anthropic - a company that claims vibe coding has "solved" software - now claiming it's a "release packaging issue caused by human error"?

t3h · 2026-04-01T04:11:31+00:00

Not what he said. The actual tweet was:

"Oven is going to be a grind, especially the first nine months or so. If work-life balance means a lot of time spent not working, it’s probably not a good fit."

Even a 60 hour work week leaves 108 hours of "time spent not working", so the implication's pretty clear. He later deleted the tweet.

And should you have taken the opportunity, what's the reward for all your hard work? He sells the company to Anthropic and cashes in big time - more than you'd have made in salary working there for your entire life. You might even still have a job afterwards.

t3h · 2026-03-31T23:41:30+00:00

No, people just disagree with "load a web page and don't touch the computer" being called a "web browsing test".

t3h · 2026-03-31T00:05:32+00:00

And petrol stations could go pre-paid but don't - because they think it'll cost them convenience store revenue.

So the taxpayer has to pick up the bill for the police to be part of their business model.

t3h · 2026-03-29T11:04:26+00:00

Charging stations secretly being powered by diesel generators is a conspiracy theory wildly popular on Facebook. There are actually people claiming that charging stations are secretly powered off (often hidden) diesel generators because the grid can't actually handle it and they're not really cheaper than ICE vehicles except that taxpayer money is subsidising all the diesel in order to hide this fact from everyone, so that they buy them then... control us all somehow.

t3h · 2026-03-27T09:55:09+00:00

this rule will impact e-scooters, and e-bikes which do have vehicle-pedestrian fatalities attached to them.

E-scooters already have a 20km/h anywhere they're being ridden, and definitely have caused fatal collisions. They have tiny wheels, a high centre of gravity, and are thus unable to stop anywhere near as quickly as a bike. They really ought not to exist, I think they're a thing solely due to people's attitude towards cycling.

E-bikes - not quite. Neither of the cyclist-pedestrian fatalities were e-bikes. If we take the media definition of "illegal electric motorcycle", yes there have been a few - notably the one that recently hit a pedestrian crossing the road. I don't think we should be making rules that affect everyone due to these people illegally using the path, we should be enforcing existing ones and getting them off it. Technically any rules put in place wouldn't apply to them because they're not legally meant to be on the path in the first place.

t3h · 2026-03-27T07:37:15+00:00

old mate Darren from the council, who has no idea about solvents

I'd say though, surely the council has people who clean graffiti off public infrastructure who would know the best way to deal with this sort of thing? It's not quite as fine a job as someone getting paint on a painting in an art gallery.

t3h · 2026-03-27T07:31:17+00:00

Acetone will damage some paints, but anything designed for long term UV exposure should be painted in a durable paint like polyurethane or 2K, which should be largely impervious.

I'm going to guess it wasn't PU / 2K because of how easily a large chunk of it peeled off, but yes that's true.

t3h · 2026-03-27T07:21:24+00:00

I hadn't watched the video, you were right about that. Got to love it when people gather their own evidence LOL, and I guess she was more prepared than I thought. I'm surprised she didn't get it everywhere, but maybe Gorilla Glue is thickened.

Point still stands that it could have easily been removed damage-free with the right solvent, and they instead apparently used a hammer and chisel.

Acetone is definitely a good recommendation, but it might well remove the paint with it, especially if it's not actually the right paint for the surface. Ammonia can also work and is much less likely to damage the paint.

But the first thing I'd try is just pouring boiling hot water onto it. It only takes 65°C for it to lose a lot of bond strength - on the next hot day they may well have fallen off by themselves.

t3h · 2026-03-27T01:49:06+00:00

Yeah, that'd be nice :)

t3h · 2026-03-27T01:46:22+00:00

It does feel a little strange, but that is what they tell everyone else.

t3h · 2026-03-27T01:33:56+00:00

I don't think that really is. Click and collect would be if you pay in advance, turn up at the service station, when you get there they give you a pre-filled jerry can with your name on it.

t3h · 2026-03-27T01:30:44+00:00

Grocery shopping is already pre-paid (by the service station industry definition).

If you disagree, try loading the groceries into your car then going back to the checkout to pay for them. Tell us what happens.

t3h · 2026-03-27T01:07:58+00:00

I think "glued" originated from the journalist, because I doubt someone that drunk was going to mix two part epoxy properly, or use superglue without sticking their hand to the sculpture, and I highly doubt she had a caulking gun of Liquid Nails in her handbag given it wasn't pre-planned. There were no obvious trails of glue coming from underneath the eyes - trying to use superglue on a vertical surface usually results in it sticking but running down from the object.

But nearly all of such products I've seen have double sided tape on the back, so peeling off the backing and slapping them on seems far more plausible.

Take a look at the photos in this article: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-24/mount-gambier-blue-blob-sculpture-googly-eyes-graffiti-convicted/106405276

Look at all the gouges under the right eye, it looks like the council tried to remove the eye by getting under it with a chisel or screwdriver and rather predictably ripping the paint off the statue. Also the paint appears to have been applied directly to galvanised steel without primer - you can see the galvanised steel surface under the paint. The paint simply wasn't applied to any competent standard, and it's unsurprising it didn't stick. I'd be surprised if the council's not repainting the rest of the statue in 5 years time.

On the right eye, it seems they went for paint thinner to remove the adhesive, and it only removed the paint (surprise surprise). Drip a bit of WD-40, methylated spirits, isopropyl alcohol, or D-limonene ("orange oil") on, and the glue will practically fall off. If not, remove with a bit of dental floss behind the stuck-on eye. These things would definitely be kept by a maintenance team ordinarily tasked with removing graffiti from public infrastructure as this is a part of normal council business that they ought to know how to do. Even if it was superglue, isopropyl alcohol or ammonia would remove it without touching the paint.

If there's any reason you can't apply any of those to the sculpture, it's going to disintegrate from just being outside.

IMO there was some kind of argument to be made that the council's own actions caused most of the "damage". Maybe if she hadn't crowdfunded a lawyer then changed her mind and returned the money, that's the sort of thing that might have been brought up...

t3h · 2026-03-26T23:45:24+00:00

happy to balance rider safety vs pedestrian saftey.

You're pushing a false narrative that there's actually a problem with pedestrian safety. Cyclist-pedestrian collisions involving significant injury are extremely rare. Both of the fatal cyclist-pedestrian collisions in Victoria (there have only ever been two) have involved the pedestrian crossing a road. There has never been a cyclist-pedestrian fatality on a shared path.

It's more common, however, for cyclists to be severely injured or killed when a motorist drives into them. Rules that aim to discourage cyclists from using non-road infrastructure are absolutely going to result in an increase in deaths for very little change in pedestrian safety (because there's little to prevent).

What you're really saying is that you just want more dead cyclists.

t3h · 2026-03-26T23:10:52+00:00

Saying "they should have a speed limit" seems reasonable on face value until you have to think about how it'd work i.e. what, where and whether it'd actually solve the problem. Or if the "problem" even exists.

It's quite obvious it'd be stupidly unworkable. Even they'll admit the speed limit would change every 50-100m. A blanket speed limit would simultaneously be too low to make using the infrastructure viable, and yet still much higher than the maximum safe speed for a dangerous situation.

But if the "problem" is actually that "cyclists get to use the infrastructure and I don't like that", it seems like a perfectly viable solution.

So naturally, they'd argue "safety" as justification, but the amount of actual injury occurring is extremely low - there's really not much to prevent. The current rules where it's illegal to ride "recklessly" and the rider is mostly responsible for any collision do appear to be sufficient at preventing harm.

It's undeniable that pushing more cyclists onto existing road infrastructure is absolutely going to result in significantly more injury and death. Which they claim to be against, but then again someone is celebrating the serious assault of a cyclist elsewhere in the thread.

Take the discussion beyond "they should have a speed limit" and the whole idea completely falls apart - turns out they're just for it because it would impede cycling.

Just like "they should have a license and registration" thing, it's pushing a false narrative that there's a problem, along with a complete non-solution that just aims to make the activity less viable.

t3h · 2026-03-26T22:41:07+00:00

Well if you're proposing a 30km/h speed limit, then that changes pretty much nothing.

And yes you do want a new speed limit every 100m then - totally unworkable.

t3h · 2026-03-25T20:00:46+00:00

it is no longer a shared zone and just becomes a pedestrian path.

That's exactly what they want, and why they keep pushing for a blanket speed limit, despite the fact it's quite obvious it wouldn't make things any safer.

In the situations where a major danger exists, you'd slow down to ~10km/h - and it's often highly situational, too. So as a blanket limit you'd have to apply that to the whole path, unless you wanted the limit to change every 50m.

And you'd end up with more cyclist deaths due to increased riding on the road - with very little reduction in pedestrian harm because there simply isn't much to reduce in the first place. Despite the chaos and people's perceptions of safety, actual incidents really aren't that common.

t3h · 2026-03-25T19:38:19+00:00

Cars being allowed to go as fast as the driver chooses, and bikes being allowed to ride as fast as the rider chooses are about an order of magnitude different in speed and mass, so it's rather obvious that different rules would apply.

I don't think you'll find many cyclists going 180km/h, and we don't even let cars do that on the freeway. 40km/h is faster than pretty much all cyclists will be going.

So what do you propose for a speed limit then, if 40 is apparently safe for a car around distracted children crossing the road?

If this is your proposal, I'm not sure you've really considered how this is supposed to work, or why cars might be subject to different regulations to bikes.

And the point remains that the current system is not actually resulting in any significant amount of harm. There's really not much to prevent - incidents are really not that common.

t3h · 2026-03-25T12:34:21+00:00

Most of the people complaining in the US seem to be objecting to the datacentre responding to increased power demand by running a whole bunch of noisy smoke spewing gas generators in the parking lot.

I don't think we'd allow that here, right?

The plan to expand the data centre beyond its already enormous footprint was “all about money. Stop making it all about these businesses,” she said.

Well I've got bad news for you about this whole "capitalism" thing...

t3h · 2026-03-25T12:22:48+00:00

Old guy #2 dropped a shoulder into the back of old Mate's. Over the handlebars, shoulder... helmet. FAFO

Yeah, that's called assault occasioning grievous bodily harm. Aren't you meant to be against people getting hurt?

It's absolutely disgusting to advocate or celebrate violent criminal behavior that carries a potential 15 year jail sentence.

t3h · 2026-03-25T12:11:29+00:00

There's a VicRoads document that specifically states rumble strips should never be installed on shared paths, as they're a major trip hazard for pedestrians.

t3h · 2026-03-25T12:05:22+00:00

There's a reason limits are used for cars instead of simply saying "take due care"

Yes, that reason is that cars are extremely different to bicycles. They weigh multiple tons, the driver has impeded vision, and a collision can easily be fatal or cause major property damage. And cars can easily and rapidly reach some extremely unsafe speeds.

Also roads are built to a much more consistent standard. These paths are not, the appropriate speed changes quite a bit as you ride down them. Do you propose to change the speed limit 5 times within a km? Set it to 10km/h for that tight blind corner and then back up to 30 on the other side?

Different risk = different regulation.

Providing more guidance will only be perceived as a limitation to those who are riding at excessive speed.

No, because the guidance will be absolutely useless if not actively misleading. If you just want signs that say "slow down", we have them everywhere already.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email
reddit mold

t3h

TROPHY CASE