Infra.new is a DevOps platform designed to simplify infrastructure management. It offers a conversational interface (a "copilot") that allows users to describe their desired infrastructure in plain English, which the platform then translates into Terraform code. Crucially, Infra.new incorporates built-in guardrails and best practices to prevent common infrastructure misconfigurations and ensure security. This aims to make infrastructure provisioning and management more accessible and less error-prone, even for users with limited DevOps experience. The platform is currently in beta and focused on AWS.
Jasmine is a Y Combinator-backed startup aiming to automate Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) compliance and payouts for solar projects. They handle the complex process of registering, tracking, and monetizing RECs, simplifying revenue generation for solar developers and asset owners. This automation reduces administrative overhead and ensures projects capitalize on the full value of their renewable energy generation.
Hacker News users discuss Jasmine's potential, focusing on the complexity of Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) markets. Some express skepticism about automating such a nuanced process, citing variations in state regulations and the potential for fraud. Others see value in streamlining REC management, particularly for smaller solar installers. Several commenters inquire about Jasmine's pricing model and integration with existing solar software. The discussion also touches on the challenges of accurately tracking REC ownership and the importance of transparency in the market. A few users with experience in the solar industry offer insights into the specific pain points Jasmine aims to address, validating the need for such a solution.
Several key EU regulations are slated to impact startups in 2025. The Data Act will govern industrial data sharing, requiring companies to make data available to users and others upon request, potentially affecting data-driven business models. The revised Payment Services Directive (PSD3) aims to enhance payment security and foster open banking, impacting fintechs with stricter requirements. The Cyber Resilience Act mandates enhanced cybersecurity for connected devices, adding compliance burdens on hardware and software developers. Additionally, the EU's AI Act, though expected later, could still influence product development strategies throughout 2025 with its tiered risk-based approach to AI regulation. These regulations necessitate careful preparation and adaptation for startups operating within or targeting the EU market.
Hacker News users discussing the upcoming EU regulations generally express concerns about their complexity and potential negative impact on startups. Several commenters predict these regulations will disproportionately burden smaller companies due to the increased compliance costs, potentially stifling innovation and favoring larger, established players. Some highlight specific regulations, like the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), and discuss their potential consequences for platform interoperability and competition. The platform liability aspect of the DSA is also a point of contention, with some questioning its practicality and effectiveness. Others note the broad scope of these regulations, extending beyond just tech companies, and affecting sectors like manufacturing and AI. A few express skepticism about the EU's ability to effectively enforce these regulations.
This Presidential Memorandum directs federal agencies to enhance accountability and customer experience by requiring annual "Learn to Improve" plans. These plans will outline how agencies will collect customer feedback, identify areas for improvement, implement changes, and track progress on key performance indicators related to service delivery and equity. Agencies are expected to leverage data and evidence-based practices to drive these improvements, focusing on streamlining services, reducing burdens on the public, and ensuring equitable outcomes. Progress will be monitored by the Office of Management and Budget, which will publish an annual report summarizing agency efforts and highlighting best practices.
HN commenters are largely critical of the executive order, questioning its efficacy and expressing cynicism about government accountability in general. Several point out the irony of the order coming from an administration often accused of lacking transparency. Some question the practicality of measuring "customer experience" for government services, comparing it to businesses but acknowledging the inherent differences. Others see the order as primarily performative, designed to create a sense of action without meaningful impact. A few express cautious optimism, hoping for genuine improvement but remaining skeptical. The lack of concrete details in the order is a frequent point of concern, leading some to believe it's more about public relations than actual policy change.
Microsoft's blog post announces changes to their Go distribution starting with Go 1.24 to better align with Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS). While previous versions offered a partially FIPS-compliant mode, Go 1.24 introduces a fully compliant distribution built with the BoringCrypto module, ensuring all cryptographic operations adhere to FIPS 140-3. This change requires updating import paths for affected packages and may introduce minor breaking changes for some users. Microsoft provides guidance and tooling to help developers transition smoothly to the new FIPS-compliant distribution, encouraging adoption for enhanced security.
HN commenters discuss the implications of Microsoft's decision to ship a FIPS-compliant Go distribution. Some express concern about the potential for reduced performance and increased complexity due to the use of the BoringCrypto module. Others question the actual value of FIPS compliance, particularly in Go where the standard crypto library is already considered secure. There's discussion around the specific cryptographic primitives affected and whether the move is driven by government contract requirements. A few commenters appreciate Microsoft's contribution, seeing it as a positive step for Go's adoption in regulated environments. Some also speculate about the possibility of this change eventually becoming the default in Go's standard library.
Zach Holman's post "Nontraditional Red Teams" advocates for expanding the traditional security-focused red team concept to other areas of a company. He argues that dedicated teams, separate from existing product or engineering groups, can provide valuable insights by simulating real-world user behavior and identifying potential problems with products, marketing campaigns, and company policies. These "red teams" can act as devil's advocates, challenging assumptions and uncovering blind spots that internal teams might miss, ultimately leading to more robust and user-centric products and strategies. Holman emphasizes the importance of empowering these teams to operate independently and providing them the freedom to explore unconventional approaches.
HN commenters largely agree with the author's premise that "red teams" are often misused, focusing on compliance and shallow vulnerability discovery rather than true adversarial emulation. Several highlighted the importance of a strong security culture and open communication for red teaming to be effective. Some commenters shared anecdotes about ineffective red team exercises, emphasizing the need for clear objectives and buy-in from leadership. Others discussed the difficulty in finding skilled red teamers who can think like real attackers. A compelling point raised was the importance of "purple teaming" – combining red and blue teams for collaborative learning and improvement, rather than treating it as a purely adversarial exercise. Finally, some argued that the term "red team" has become diluted and overused, losing its original meaning.
Summary of Comments ( 16 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43763026
HN users generally expressed interest in Infra.new, praising its focus on safety and guardrails, especially for preventing accidental cloud cost overruns. Several commenters compared it favorably to existing infrastructure-as-code tools like Terraform, highlighting its potential for simplifying deployments and reducing complexity. Some questioned the depth of its current feature set and integrations, while others sought clarification on the pricing model. A few users with cloud management experience offered specific suggestions for improvement, including better handling of state management and drift detection. Overall, the reception seemed positive, with many expressing a desire to try the product.
The Hacker News post for "Launch HN: Infra.new (YC W23) – DevOps copilot with guardrails built in" has a moderate number of comments, sparking a discussion around the tool's functionality, target audience, and potential impact.
Several commenters express interest in the concept of "guardrails" for infrastructure automation, highlighting the potential for reducing errors and improving security. One commenter specifically asks about the implementation of these guardrails and how they differ from existing policy-as-code solutions like Open Policy Agent (OPA). This leads to a brief discussion about the complexities of integrating such guardrails seamlessly into existing workflows and the importance of clear visibility and control.
Another thread of discussion revolves around the target audience for Infra.new. Some commenters question whether the tool is primarily aimed at simplifying infrastructure management for developers who lack deep DevOps expertise, while others see it as a potential productivity booster even for experienced DevOps engineers. This leads to speculation about the pricing model and whether it will be accessible to smaller teams or individual developers.
One commenter raises the concern of vendor lock-in, questioning the portability of configurations and the potential difficulties of migrating away from the platform in the future. This prompts a discussion about the importance of open standards and interoperability in the DevOps ecosystem.
A few commenters share their personal experiences with similar tools and offer suggestions for improvement, such as better integration with existing infrastructure-as-code tools like Terraform and enhanced support for different cloud providers.
Finally, there's some skepticism expressed about the marketing language used in the launch announcement, with some commenters finding the term "DevOps copilot" to be overly hyped and potentially misleading. They argue that true "copilot" functionality would require a much deeper understanding of the user's intent and context.
Overall, the comments reflect a mixture of curiosity, cautious optimism, and healthy skepticism about the potential of Infra.new. While many see the value in simplifying infrastructure management and enhancing security, there are also concerns about practical implementation, pricing, and potential vendor lock-in.