Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more throwup238's commentslogin

That’s what a source map is. It’s included in debug builds so that browser debuggers (and others) can step through the original code, comments and all, instead of the compiled javascript (which back in the day could become an undecipherable mess of callbacks if you were transpiling async/await to the legacy Promise API).

Unfortunately in many bundlers making a mistake like this is as easy as an agent deleting “process.env[‘ENV’] === ‘debug’” which they’ll gladly do if you point them at a production or staging environment and ask them to debug the stripped/compiled/minified code.


I see. I had read that it was a source map that was leaked here specifically, but my vague understanding of the term was mostly that it might be a way to trace back JavaScript lines to the TypeScript it compiled from, since I don't have much of an understanding of all of the other various steps that are part of a JavaScript build nowadays.

I think I still disagree with the parent comment premise that "they probably thought minifying was enough", since it sounds likely they were doing all of those other steps. The issue seems like insufficient auditing of the build process (especially if agents were involved, which seems likely for Anthropic) rather than not doing all of the usual JS build stuff.


It learned by reading HackerNews, after all.


Called it!

> To be honest, after reading some of these microplastics papers I'm starting to suspect most of them are bullshit. Plastics are everywhere in a modern lab and rarely do these papers have proper controls, which I suspect would show that there is a baseline level of microplastic contamination in labs that is unavoidable. Petri dishes, pipettes, microplates, EVERYTHING is plastic, packaged in plastic, and cleaned using plastic tools, all by people wearing tons of synthetic fibers.

> We went through this same nonsense when genetic sequencers first became available until people got it into their heads that DNA contamination was everywhere and that we had to be really careful with sample collection and statistical methods. [1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40681390


I haven't really read the studies but shouldn't they have negative controls to negate these effects? Wouldn't that let the author's correct for a baseline contamination level in the lab?


That was the difficulty with DNA: how do you make that control if everything is contaminated and minor variations in protocol (like wafting your hands over the samples one too many times) changes the baseline?

It took years to figure out proper methods and many subfields have their own adjusted procedures and sometimes even statistical models. At least with DNA you could denature it very effectively, I’m not sure how they’re going to figure out the contamination issue with microplastics.


I have worked at a sequencing center before. DNA contamination is easier to mitigate because the lab disposables aren't made out of what you are testing. Disposables are almost always plastic and tend to have minimal DNA contamination. Environmental DNA contamination is largely mitigated with PCR hoods and careful protocols/practices. However, these procedures don't mitigate DNA contamination at the collection level, which is likely where the statistical models you mentioned help.

I can't imagine wafting your hands over the tubes would change the plastic amounts substantially compared to whatever negative controls the papers used. But again, I am not an expert on this kind of analytical chemistry. I always worry more about batch effects. But it does seem like microplastics are becoming the new microbiome.


On the one hand, hundreds or perhaps thousands of studies might be wrong. On the other hand, this one might be wrong. Who's to say?


Not even that! This study doesn't even say contamination is causing overestimation. It says that it's possible.

But as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, everyone knows that it's possible and take measure to mitigate it.

A paper that said those mitigations were insufficient or empirically found not to work would be interesting. A paper saying "you should mitigate this" is... not very interesting.


> Not even that! This study doesn't even say contamination is causing overestimation. It says that it's possible.

From the article:

> They found that on average, the gloves imparted about 2,000 false positives per millimeter squared area.

I dunno, that seems like a lot of false positives. Doesn’t that strongly imply that overestimation would be a pretty likely outcome here? Sounds like a completely sterile 1mm^2 area would raise a ton of false positives because of just the gloves.


The way you mitigate this is by using negative samples. Basically blank swabs/tubes/whatever that don't have the substance you're testing in it, but that is handled the same way.

Then the tested result is Actual Sample Result - Negative Sample Result.

So you'd expect a microplastic sample to have 2,000 plus N per mm^2, and N is the result of your test.


That has happened many times in scientific research. The aforementioned fad in DNA sequencing was one such case where tons of papers before proper methods were developed are entirely useless, essentially just garbage data. Another case is fMRI studies before the dead salmon experiment.


> Plastics are everywhere in a modern lab and rarely do these papers have proper controls, which I suspect would show that there is a baseline level of microplastic contamination in labs that is unavoidable. Petri dishes, pipettes, microplates, EVERYTHING is plastic, packaged in plastic, and cleaned using plastic tools, all by people wearing tons of synthetic fibers.

Maybe so, but plastics are also everywhere in our daily lives, including on the food we eat and in the clothes we wear. As we speak I just took some eggs out of a plastic carton, unwrapped some cheese from plastic wrap, and got oatmeal out of a plastic bag. The socks and pants I'm wearing are made of polyester.

If plastics cause contamination in a lab, would you not also expect similar contamination outside of the lab?


You would, but if you do studies that claim that microplastics accumulate in our bodies or even in out brains it makes a difference.


I think you underestimate how much plastic is consumed in a lab doing experiments or analysis. I suspect it's an order of magnitude or two more than people are regularly exposed to at home or other non-industrial settings.

When I was an automation engineer at a lab, each liquid handler alone could go through several pounds of plastic pipette tips in a single day. All of that is made out of plastic and coated in a different thin layer of plastic to change the wettability of the tip. Even the glassware often comes coated in plastic and all these coatings are the thin layers most likely to create microplastics from abrasion (like the force of the pipette picking up the tip!). Throw all the packaging on top of that and there is just an insane amount of plastic.

The only place I've seen more plastic consumed is industrial and food manufacturing where everything is sprayed and resprayed with plastic coatings to reduce fouling.


> That’s not to say that there is no microplastics pollution, the U-M researchers are quick to say. > > “We may be overestimating microplastics, but there should be none. There’s still a lot out there, and that’s the problem,”


shouldn't you be particularly attentive to your bias then? an article came out that _seems_ to confirm your previous belief that you arrive at without really testing? like everyone itt that is looking like the comments of an steven crowder comment section in a post about climate change


Oh great. Another Hari Seldon.


A book along similar lines: https://www.amazon.com/Not-Nickel-Spare-Sally-Cohen/dp/04399...

(haven’t read it yet so I can’t vouch for it)


> a slightly faster kit is negligible in most use cases

Does that “most use cases” caveat really apply to someone buying 128G of RAM? If I’m buying that much, it means I’m actually going to put it through its paces, unless it’s just there for huge reserved guest VM overhead.


The 208MB of total cache on the CPU we’re discussing does a good job of reducing sensitivity to RAM speed differences on this platform.

If you’re trying to run LLMs off of the CPU instead of the GPU then the RAM speed dictates a lot. It’s going to be slow mo matter what, though. Dual channel DDR5 just isn’t enough to run large LLMs that start to fill 128GB of RAM and the difference between 5600 and 6400 isn’t going to make it usable.

If you’re just running a lot of VMs or doing a lot of mixed tasks that keep a lot of RAM occupied then you’d probably have a hard time measuring a difference between 5600 and 6400 if you tried with one of these X3D CPUs with a lot of cache.

This is a frequent topic of discussion for gamers because some people obsess over optimizing their RAM speed and timings and pay large premiums for RAM with CAS latency of 28 instead of 36. Then they see benchmarks showing 1-2% differences in games or even most productivity apps and realize they would have been better spending that extra money on the next faster GPU or CPU or other part.


You start an unstoppable business cleaning up dams and freeways of brush.


I’m betting they sprung for the cheaper Cardassian ones without the redundancies. O’Brien is not going to be happy.


He does feel more comfortable having those Federation tertiary backups in case.

Considering all the weird encounters Star Fleet vessels encounter over the run of a TV series; who can blame him?


Their military is a paper tiger like Saddam’s was during the Iraq invasion. Modern gear but without the doctrine or officer corps to effectively use it.

My experience while working there years ago was that their armed forces were a weird mix of coup proofing and a nepotistic dumping ground for family members who couldn’t be trusted to help run the family business.


You’re not the first to make such observations. To quote Barry Goldwater (Republican party nominee for US President in 1964):

> Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.


Was he describing America or Iran? Hard to figure out as we seemed to be in War due to similar people in control of another (not)important country :)


It was about America. I think the only overlap between "conservative" Republicans and religious fundamentalists is the "social conservatism", e.g., "family values", "law and order", etc. The quotes are because there's debate about what those terms really mean.

The key difference is that religious fundamentalists pledge their allegiance to the Church, not the country; not "God" either (although they might claim it to be so). They are tribal to their core and anybody outside their church is an "other" and is not worthy of being considered a fellow citizen.


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

Search: