Pedestrian crosswalk buttons in Palo Alto and Mountain View have been reportedly hacked to play altered audio clips that sound like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. The voices, triggered by pressing the buttons, deliver phrases related to their respective companies, like promoting Tesla vehicles or discussing the metaverse. While the source of the prank is unknown, city officials have confirmed the incidents and are working to restore the standard crossing signals.
This tweet, likely a parody or fictional scenario given the date (October 28, 2023) and context surrounding past similar tweets, proclaims that Elon Musk's xAI has acquired the platform X (formerly Twitter) and that the acquisition has boosted xAI's valuation to $80 billion. No further details about the acquisition or the valuation are provided.
HN commenters are highly skeptical of the claimed $80B valuation of xAI, viewing it as a blatant attempt to pump the price and generate hype, especially given the lack of any real product or publicly demonstrated capabilities. Some suggest it's a tactic to attract talent or secure funding, while others see it as pure marketing fluff or even manipulation, potentially related to Tesla's stock price. The comparison to other AI companies with actual products and much lower valuations is frequently made. There's a general sense of disbelief and cynicism towards Musk's claims, with some commenters expressing amusement or annoyance at the audacity of the valuation.
The Washington Post reports that the FAA is potentially favoring SpaceX's Starlink over a Verizon contract for a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) program to modernize its communication systems. The FAA appears poised to award SpaceX a significant portion, if not all, of the contract, despite Verizon seemingly being the frontrunner initially. This shift raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest due to Elon Musk's involvement with both SpaceX and Twitter, a platform frequently used by the FAA for disseminating critical information. The decision also sparks questions about the FAA's procurement process and whether SpaceX's technology truly surpasses Verizon's established infrastructure for the agency's needs.
HN commenters are largely skeptical of the premise that the FAA is intentionally favoring SpaceX. Several point out that Verizon's proposed use of the C-band spectrum interferes with existing FAA equipment, requiring mitigation efforts which Verizon seemingly hasn't fully addressed. Others suggest the FAA's concerns are legitimate and not related to any SpaceX lobbying, citing safety as the primary driver. Some also note the different nature of Starlink's operations (satellite-based) compared to Verizon's ground-based systems, suggesting a direct comparison and accusation of favoritism isn't warranted. A few comments mention the revolving door between government agencies and private companies as a potential factor, but this isn't a dominant theme.
xAI announced the launch of Grok 3, their new AI model. This version boasts significant improvements in reasoning and coding abilities, along with a more humorous and engaging personality. Grok 3 is currently being tested internally and will be progressively rolled out to X Premium+ subscribers. The accompanying video demonstrates Grok answering questions with witty responses, showcasing its access to real-time information through the X platform.
HN commenters are generally skeptical of Grok's capabilities, questioning the demo's veracity and expressing concerns about potential biases and hallucinations. Some suggest the showcased interactions are cherry-picked or pre-programmed, highlighting the lack of access to the underlying data and methodology. Others point to the inherent difficulty of humor and sarcasm detection, speculating that Grok might be relying on simple pattern matching rather than true understanding. Several users draw parallels to previous overhyped AI demos, while a few express cautious optimism, acknowledging the potential while remaining critical of the current presentation. The limited scope of the demo and the lack of transparency are recurring themes in the criticisms.
X (formerly Twitter) is currently blocking links to the encrypted messaging app Signal. Users attempting to post links containing "signal.me" are encountering errors or finding their posts failing to send. This block appears targeted, as links to other messaging platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram remain functional. While the reason for the block is unconfirmed, speculation points to Elon Musk's past disagreements with Signal or a potential attempt to bolster X's own encrypted messaging feature.
Hacker News users discussed potential reasons for X (formerly Twitter) blocking links to Signal, speculating that it's part of a broader trend of Musk suppressing competitors. Some suggested it's an intentional move to stifle alternative platforms, pointing to similar blocking of Substack, Bluesky, and Threads links. Others considered technical explanations like an overzealous spam filter or misconfigured regular expression, though this was deemed less likely given the targeted nature of the block. A few commenters mentioned that Mastodon links still worked, further fueling the theory of targeted suppression. The perceived pettiness of the move and the potential for abuse of power were also highlighted.
A KrebsOnSecurity post reveals that a teenager claiming to be part of Elon Musk's Dogecoin development team likely fabricated his credentials. The individual, who uses the online handle "DogeDesigner," boasted of contributing to Dogecoin Core and attending prestigious institutions. However, investigation showed his claimed university attendance was falsified and his "graduation" from "The Com" refers to a controversial online forum known for promoting illicit activities, including hacking and carding. This raises serious questions about the veracity of his Dogecoin involvement and highlights the potential for misrepresentation in the cryptocurrency space.
Hacker News commenters reacted with skepticism and humor to the KrebsOnSecurity article about a teenager involved with Dogecoin development claiming to have "graduated" from a hacking forum called "The Com." Many questioned the credibility of both the teenager and "The Com" itself, with some suggesting it's a relatively unknown or even fabricated entity. Several pointed out the irony of someone associated with Dogecoin, often treated as a joke currency, having such a dubious background. The overall sentiment leaned towards dismissing the story as insignificant, highlighting the often chaotic and unserious nature of the cryptocurrency world. Some users speculated that the individual might be embellishing their credentials.
The article discusses how Elon Musk's ambitious, fast-paced ventures like SpaceX and Tesla, particularly his integration of Dogecoin into these projects, are attracting a wave of young, often inexperienced engineers. While these engineers bring fresh perspectives and a willingness to tackle challenging projects, their lack of experience and the rapid development cycles raise concerns about potential oversight and the long-term stability of these endeavors, particularly regarding Dogecoin's viability as a legitimate currency. The article highlights the potential risks associated with relying on a less experienced workforce driven by a strong belief in Musk's vision, contrasting it with the more traditional, regulated approaches of established institutions.
Hacker News commenters discuss the Wired article about young engineers working on Dogecoin. Several express skepticism that inexperienced engineers are truly "aiding" Dogecoin, pointing out that its core code is largely based on Bitcoin and hasn't seen significant development. Some argue that Musk's focus on youth and inexperience reflects a broader Silicon Valley trend of undervaluing experience and institutional knowledge. Others suggest that the young engineers are likely working on peripheral projects, not core protocol development, and some defend Musk's approach as promoting innovation and fresh perspectives. A few comments also highlight the speculative and meme-driven nature of Dogecoin, questioning its long-term viability regardless of the engineers' experience levels.
An object initially classified as asteroid 2018 HL1 has been removed from asteroid catalogs. Further observation confirmed it wasn't a space rock, but Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster launched in 2018. The car's reflective paint and unusual orbit led to its misidentification. The Minor Planet Center, responsible for tracking small celestial bodies, officially deleted the object from its list. This highlights the challenges of identifying and classifying objects in space, particularly those with unusual trajectories and reflective properties.
Hacker News users reacted with amusement and skepticism to the news of the "deleted asteroid." Several pointed out the sensationalized title, clarifying that the object was removed from a list of potential asteroids after being correctly identified as the Tesla Roadster. Some questioned the efficiency of initially classifying it as an asteroid, highlighting the limitations of automated systems and the need for human verification. Others joked about the absurdity of the situation and the implied bureaucratic process of "deleting" an asteroid. A few users discussed the Roadster's actual trajectory and the challenges of tracking space debris. Overall, the comments reflected a general understanding of the misclassification and a lighthearted approach to the story.
Summary of Comments ( 127 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43669151
Hacker News commenters were largely skeptical of the veracity of the article, pointing to the lack of any evidence besides hearsay and the implausibility of hacking so many crosswalk buttons undetected. Some suggested it was an April Fool's joke, despite being published on April 12th. Others speculated on how such a hack might be technically possible, focusing on the possibility of exploiting vulnerable wireless communication protocols if the buttons were indeed networked, though this was considered unlikely. Several users criticized the article's writing quality and lack of journalistic rigor, particularly its reliance on anonymous sources. The overall sentiment was one of amusement tinged with disbelief, with many expressing disappointment at the lack of concrete proof.
The Hacker News post discussing the article about hacked crosswalk buttons in Palo Alto has generated a moderate number of comments, primarily focusing on the humorous and prankster-esque nature of the incident. No one seems particularly upset or concerned about the hacking.
Several commenters express amusement at the absurdity of the situation. One commenter jokingly speculates about whether this is an early sign of an AI uprising, playing on the stereotypical tech industry anxieties around artificial intelligence. This theme of lighthearted exaggeration of the potential consequences appears in other comments as well.
A common thread among commenters is the recognition that these crosswalk buttons are often placebo buttons, meaning they don't actually affect the traffic signals. This leads to discussion about the prevalence of placebo buttons and people's experiences with them. Some share anecdotes of encountering such buttons in various locations. This reinforces the idea that the hacking is relatively harmless, as it's manipulating a system that already has a limited functional impact.
Several commenters question the veracity of the story, suggesting it might be an April Fool's joke, given the timing of the original article's publication (April 12th, close to April 1st). However, others note that the article itself mentions the timing and claims the incident is genuine.
The technical aspects of the hack are also discussed. Commenters speculate on how the buttons were likely compromised, with some suggesting access to the internal electronics, while others posit the possibility of wireless manipulation. The relative ease of such a hack is mentioned, highlighting the vulnerability of simple electronic systems.
Finally, there's a brief discussion about the legal and ethical implications. One commenter raises the question of whether this constitutes vandalism or a more serious offense, while others downplay the severity, characterizing it as harmless fun. No one expresses strong condemnation of the act.