Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | n0on3's commentslogin

“the most powerful AI agent file-editing tool in the world […] patent-pending”… tl;dr: turn tool calls into more structured loops, give it some fancy name and slop about it https://hic-ai.com/blog/tool-response-engineering

Good luck with that


Slop me up Scotty!


Seems cool from the docs page, I was about to give it a shot but https://github.com/vlm-run/mm goes 404 …


It’s unclear if that’s intentional since it’s listed also under open source on the main company site: https://www.vlm.run/open-source/mm


We were planning to open-source this soon, but jumped the gun and posted about the video encoders here since it seemed relevant.

In either case, here you go, it's public now: https://github.com/vlm-run/mm.


Apparently nobody cares. A few days ago I bumped-into and submitted this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48655747 . I thought given the general trust people seem to place in media files it would have raised a few eyebrows but it did not ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄


I second the sentiment, it’s unbelievably annoying. Even more so when the suggested solution from the “support” appears to be “You can downgrade to a version before we introduced this bug”. I’m not even gonna try switching to that new crapware, I’m just going to change client altogether.


Thanks for the tip, instead of enduring any longer, i decided to downgrade, which was easier than I expected, and this old version works, doesn't have this bug.

Just delete the Outlook app from the Applications folder, and run the Outlook installer from version 16.109.3 (June 02, 2026) [1]. All data is there, no need for any backups or anything.

Then, delete (or rename) the Microsoft AutoUpdate App, which lives in: /Library/Application Support/Microsoft/MAU2.0

[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/officeupdates/update-histo...


Sure, but #80 out of 190, still not great ain’t it?


Not great, not exactly what “completely insane and way higher than other countries” evokes either.


It's about average.


Oh boy, this did not age well. Most cases of “extremely successful” people I can think of exhibit the opposite of these core principles: have no “knack” whatsoever, except not giving a shit about whatever they pretend to be their focus while only focusing on personal return; they contract clusterfucks of debts, just usually never end up having to repay them personally; very few of them even know what “going all in” means, they usually live easy while exploiting others to actually do anything; they have no integrity whatsoever, and they do not have to, since apparently demonstrating lack of it is no longer cause for being told by everyone to fuck off into oblivion anymore.

And yes, yes, of course there are good people out there too that just want (/need) money to get by, but it’s funny to read this and think about those with _lots_ of money


Indeed. This book strikes me as yet another "guide to making money" which was created in order to make money for the author. It is all just his opinion, without any evidence. One might do the exact opposite, and make money as well.


Yes Jeff Bezos was famously passionate about retail and Marc Benioff would build customer relationship management solutions using paper and glue as a young lad


As a counterpoint, there are plenty of people who are passionate about their hobbies and make no money on them at all. I have some doubts that there's a correlation between passion and money-making. Except, perhaps, that it helps to be passionate about money-making in order to be successful at it.


Except most of the complexity has nothing to do with “understanding and exploring the universe”, it’s just byproduct of the ever changing fractal composition of attempts to gain or obtain something over someone else.


> humans would see that the quoted significance makes no sense

I wonder how long that will last


Would you be aware of it if that was the case? I don’t mean this to be hostile or anything but the senario in which one does not notice himself and it goes unnoticed or silently accepted externally does not seem too far fetched to me.


Probably, yes. If we don’t have a clear understanding of the fundamentals, it can make life difficult. Having that understanding, often helps us to verify new information. My personal experience has been “layers,” with the new layer building upon, and often subsuming, the substrate.

But it does mean that there’s limits. A lot of folks start at points higher than mine, and can go much further than me.

That’s fine; as long as I understand and accept my limitations, as well as my strengths.

It’s a long story, but I spent the majority of my career at some pretty demanding and high-functioning places. I had to learn to be self-critical, without being self-abusive.

Also, I have terrible memory. I suspect it comes from … experimentation … in my youth. Doesn’t make me stupid, but has given me a talent for leveraging reference materials.


Their results are simply not reliable. The matching approach often matches too many things (hey, this could be A or B or C or D or E or F ...or 42!), or picks up things that have nothing to do with the license of some target (hello randomly included file with some completely unrelated license header and is not even included in the build but is there for some reason, meet your new friend, the utility script copied from somewhere else also not included in the build with an header for another unrelated license. You two feel lonely? let me introduce you to this other wonderful script included in some particular form of packaging) and of course cannot compensate for poorly declared licenses, typos, weird non-standard (or simply archaic/deprecated) ways to specify the licenses and so on and so forth.

It's not a fault of the tools themselves, but in practice they don't help much in real world situations. Basically you end up in need to do so many checks and manual fixes that you might as well not use these tools in the first place.

In an enterprise context one of three things happens: (1) you end up relying on a commercial solution (which is also not that reliable but you delude yourself into thinking it's not your problem anymore... although to be fair commercial solutions have curated licenses attributions and facilitate handling this mess); (2) you build your own thing that uses these (and other) tools but automates a bunch of fixtures so you don't need to go insane every time you need to regenerate an accurate SBOM with related licenses; (3) you quit software engineering, move to a remote location and start an alternative career as an alpaca breeder while whomever takes on your role pretends to ignore the issue and keeps shipping inaccurate declarations of licenses for dependencies thinking that's fine because nobody really cares.


This is why several German automotive OSPOs are working together to build OSS Review Toolkit (ORT) - it kinda glues various open source tools like ScanCode but adds features like the ability to manually correct findings and a policy as code to do risk management at scale/speed. Full disclosure I one ORT maintainers.


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

Search: