Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our agent found a bug with WireGuard in Google Kubernetes Engine

lovable.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 40 posts

Re: Our agent found a bug with WireGuard in Google Kubernetes Engine

#31

Post by Groxx »

soupdiver wrote: post #2

hate how it all has the same tone now

I can't tell if my main source of hate there is the homogeneity itself, or that it's excessively marketing-flavored (fluffy and aggrandizing, mere inches from "our incredible journey..." at all times).

Re: Our agent found a bug with WireGuard in Google Kubernetes Engine

#33

Post by Enginerrrd »

therealpygon wrote: post #26
yellow_lead wrote: post #23

I think the credit belongs to Sascha still. Look at this: > The agent surfaced a suspicious issue: the anetd pods in our Google Kubernetes Engine cluster were restarting constantly, around 120 restarts per pod over six days, which is almost one crash per hour. Surely, this couldn't be right! > Sascha dug into the crash dumps. The stack trace pointed to a concurrent map-access panic, multiple goroutines trying to read…

100% but it doesn’t benefit an AI company to properly assign credit. Their AI identified a generic problem, not this problem, and then their AI was guided like a child into the correct spot to start searching for a a bug that it eventually traced.

> 100% but it doesn’t benefit an AI company to properly assign credit.

Does credibility really mean nothing anymore?

Re: Our agent found a bug with WireGuard in Google Kubernetes Engine

#36

Post by arm32 »

jbaiter wrote: post #17

Isn't this like the #1 problem people have with wireguard? I've had clients with the MTU issue every time I've set it up for more than a few clients. Also how on earth is "connection reset by peer" dreaded?

Yes, almost without fail—the term "MTU" is included whenever someone mentions an issue with WireGuard. Big ol' nothin'burger here.

Re: Our agent found a bug with WireGuard in Google Kubernetes Engine

#37

Post by i_think_so »

yomismoaqui wrote: post #11
i_think_so wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate that AI has stolen my emdashes and I can't use them without looking like slop. But I will die defending markdown as my preferred note taking format. They're not taking that away from me.

How about not caring about what people on the internet say about your writing using emdashes? They are a false positive signal for identifying AI texts anyway.

It's not what they say, it's what they click on.

Unfortunately, in a place like this, if a bunch of people falsely accuse you of being a slop spreader your karma drops like a rock.

Can you imagine how hard it is to start up a new Reddit account lately? Even in a small and isolated community of niche enthusiasts just getting to the point where your posts aren't auto-modded takes serious effort. One stray emdash and you can lose it.

Ask me how I know.

Oh yay, I'm in HN jail again. "You're posting too fast." Faster than once per 30 minutes? Sigh.

Re: Our agent found a bug with WireGuard in Google Kubernetes Engine

#39

Post by therealpygon »

Enginerrrd wrote: post #33
therealpygon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% but it doesn’t benefit an AI company to properly assign credit. Their AI identified a generic problem, not this problem, and then their AI was guided like a child into the correct spot to start searching for a a bug that it eventually traced.

> 100% but it doesn’t benefit an AI company to properly assign credit. Does credibility really mean nothing anymore?

These days that seems to depend on how much that credibility (or lack thereof) nets.

Re: Our agent found a bug with WireGuard in Google Kubernetes Engine

#40

Post by Aachen »

Aachen wrote: post #18

A bug in Wireguard? What did Google change, since it affects only them? Any lessons learned about modifying cryptographic software? ... Skipping past the investigation bit (minimising my daily slop intake), it's a wrong MTU value causing failing connections when Wireguard is disabled: > When we disabled WireGuard, we expected the configuration to change to use the full 1500 bytes. However, some nodes in the cluster h…

Three downvotes but not one comment. Should I just not post informational comments here or what's the message these faceless votes are trying to get across?
Post reply on HN