Live data from Hacker News

Incident CVE-2026-LGTM

nesbitt.io

81–90 of 108 posts

Re: Incident CVE-2026-LGTM

#81
post #31

Well the part about brand-image-incompatible depictions of firefox logo apparently wasn't a satire

This tells you all you need to know about the "fox": "This report was reviewed by Legal, who have asked us to clarify that the fox was depicted as over eighteen and that the sunglasses remained on throughout."

[deleted]

Re: Incident CVE-2026-LGTM

#82
post #61
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it and saw LGTM and URL and was like "probably satire" but could not rule out it being real until like 30% in. It's like a modern version of Poe's law.

Just below the title are the tags "package-managers security satire ai"

Yah well, I don't read all front-matter like that. Most of the time it's noise. Count it in the stuff that becomes cognitively invisible, like banner ads.

Re: Incident CVE-2026-LGTM

#83

I actually know a goat rancher who is working to require ag impact studies for data centers in Texas. Sounds like I should give him a call while I can. (Also CVE-2026-LGTM would be an awesome name for a Culture ship)

Torturer Class ROU CVE-2026-LGTM would absolutely be a member of the Interesting Times Gang.

Re: Incident CVE-2026-LGTM

#84
post #83

I actually know a goat rancher who is working to require ag impact studies for data centers in Texas. Sounds like I should give him a call while I can. (Also CVE-2026-LGTM would be an awesome name for a Culture ship)

Torturer Class ROU CVE-2026-LGTM would absolutely be a member of the Interesting Times Gang.

[flagged]

Re: Incident CVE-2026-LGTM

#87

Great write-up. Side note: interesting to see how many folks commenting did not get it being satire (even the title has LGTM). I guess it's time to rethink how sharp the HN folks truly are compared to the average non-tech person (not that I had any big assumptions myself). I'm curious about this recipe for chevre :D

HN has a big blind spot, in my opinion, around writing that isn't "purely technical". I've seen several cases of commenter complaining about "clickbait" for a blog post that I'd describe as "having a narrative hook and structure"

I also find it frustrating that articles expressing personality spicier than “safe for work milquetoast” are treated like out of pocket ranting.

Re: Incident CVE-2026-LGTM

#88

The entire post is great, but the acknowledgements section is particularly excellent: > Kubernetes (the dog), who was not involved in this incident but whose photo in the #incident-response channel was auto-tagged by the Slack image classifier as “container orchestration diagram (confidence: 0.31)”

> Some customers may have experienced unscheduled collaborative compute with external parties.

Reminds me of the hilarious "rapid unscheduled disassembly"

Re: Incident CVE-2026-LGTM

#90
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By this point I’m not sure why everyone isn’t in “default satire” mode.

This is usually my default position, but apparently that “gas town” article was Real and Serious and Distinctly Not Satire, and I started to feel reality fragmenting underneath me.

Oh wow you’re totally right now that I think about it that one burned me too
Post reply on HN