frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Made with ♥ by @iamnishanth

Open Source @Github

Curved-Crease Sculpture

https://erikdemaine.org/curved/
115•wonger_•5h ago•16 comments

Andrej Karpathy: Software in the era of AI [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCEmiRjPEtQ
953•sandslash•19h ago•540 comments

How OpenElections uses LLMs

https://thescoop.org/archives/2025/06/09/how-openelections-uses-llms/index.html
36•m-hodges•3h ago•6 comments

Juneteenth in Photos

https://texashighways.com/travel-news/the-history-of-juneteenth-in-photos/
83•ohjeez•1h ago•33 comments

Show HN: A DOS-like hobby OS written in Rust and x86 assembly

https://github.com/krustowski/rou2exOS
100•krustowski•6h ago•11 comments

Star Quakes and Monster Shock Waves

https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/star-quakes-and-monster-shock-waves
13•gmays•2d ago•0 comments

Homegrown Closures for Uxn

https://krzysckh.org/b/Homegrown-closures-for-uxn.html
15•todsacerdoti•2h ago•0 comments

Show HN: EnrichMCP – A Python ORM for Agents

https://github.com/featureform/enrichmcp
32•bloppe•2h ago•6 comments

Posit floating point numbers: thin triangles and other tricks (2019)

http://marc-b-reynolds.github.io/math/2019/02/06/Posit1.html
36•fanf2•4h ago•14 comments

Show HN: Claude Code Usage Monitor – real-time tracker to dodge usage cut-offs

https://github.com/Maciek-roboblog/Claude-Code-Usage-Monitor
151•Maciej-roboblog•9h ago•91 comments

Flowspace (YC S17) Is Hiring Software Engineers

https://flowspace.applytojob.com/apply/6oDtY2q6E9/Software-Engineer-II
1•mrjasonh•2h ago

We Can Just Measure Things

https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2025/6/17/measuring/
28•tosh•2d ago•22 comments

Guess I'm a Rationalist Now

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8908
145•nsoonhui•9h ago•418 comments

Show HN: Unregistry – “docker push” directly to servers without a registry

https://github.com/psviderski/unregistry
580•psviderski•20h ago•128 comments

Researchers are now vacuuming DNA from the air

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/06/250603114822.htm
43•karlperera•3d ago•38 comments

From LLM to AI Agent: What's the Real Journey Behind AI System Development?

https://www.codelink.io/blog/post/ai-system-development-llm-rag-ai-workflow-agent
97•codelink•10h ago•31 comments

What would a Kubernetes 2.0 look like

https://matduggan.com/what-would-a-kubernetes-2-0-look-like/
72•Bogdanp•7h ago•107 comments

Geochronology supports LGM age for human tracks at White Sands, New Mexico

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adv4951
21•gametorch•4h ago•8 comments

Public/protected/private is an unnecessary feature

https://catern.com/private.html
26•PaulHoule•2d ago•19 comments

Why do we need DNSSEC?

https://howdnssec.works/why-do-we-need-dnssec/
31•gpi•2h ago•52 comments

Show HN: TrendFi – I built AI trading signals that self-optimize

https://trend.fi
21•wolfman1•3d ago•25 comments

Visual History of the Latin Alphabet

https://uclab.fh-potsdam.de/arete/en
76•speckx•2d ago•52 comments

Munich from a Hamburger's perspective

https://mertbulan.com/2025/06/14/munich-from-a-hamburgers-perspective/
82•toomuchtodo•3d ago•57 comments

In praise of "normal" engineers

https://charity.wtf/2025/06/19/in-praise-of-normal-engineers/
91•zdw•2h ago•65 comments

Getting Started Strudel

https://strudel.cc/workshop/getting-started/
105•rcarmo•3d ago•43 comments

Elliptic Curves as Art

https://elliptic-curves.art/
179•nill0•15h ago•24 comments

Finding Dead Websites

https://www.marginalia.nu/log/a_122_dead_websites/
87•ingve•2d ago•15 comments

The Scheme That Broke the Texas Lottery

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-southwest/the-scheme-that-broke-the-texas-lottery
28•mitchbob•6h ago•14 comments

My iPhone 8 Refuses to Die: Now It's a Solar-Powered Vision OCR Server

https://terminalbytes.com/iphone-8-solar-powered-vision-ocr-server/
410•hemant6488•1d ago•167 comments

End of 10: Upgrade your old Windows 10 computer to Linux

https://endof10.org/
161•doener•6h ago•122 comments
Open in hackernews

Researchers are now vacuuming DNA from the air

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/06/250603114822.htm
43•karlperera•3d ago

Comments

karlperera•3d ago
If this tech becomes widespread and cheap, what are the privacy implications of being able to sequence human DNA floating in the air in any public or private space? It feels like a classic 'can we/should we' problem.
blankx32•4h ago
Exactly my thoughts, but once the cat is out of the bag
fecal_henge•2h ago
..then there is cat DNA left inside the bag?
cypherpunks01•4h ago
Surely the police will start mass collection after the technology is commercialized, to solve theoretical crimes. And then claim that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, since you freely decided to leave the house and knowingly start shedding DNA in public.
arddcootvt178•4h ago
Internet of Smells

The world is wired. Is bathed in wi-fi waves. It is also full of smell.

Eve and Adam meet at a party. Both are good looking, the kind which is so clean that it looks almost puppet like.

When Adam sees Eve and approaches her, Eve is at first welcoming. Her sniffer ring sends her a message. (The sniffer ring is just a ring with a feather moving somehow between a dog tail and a butterfly wing. It is of course connected to the wired/wifi network.)

The message reads: "Adam has a very bad form of cancer. Is not good genetic material to mate with".

As the polite behaviour rules dictate, Eve forwards the notice to Adam, maybe as a visual message, or as a message which appears on his health wristband, then she moves away, looking for other interesting people.

Adam is only mildly concerned. He contacts, privately, his internet+health insurance provider and files a bug request. Then he goes along with the party.

The next scene happens somewhere far, visible from the external conditions (like for example it is day there, while at the party place was night) and from the people in this scene (for example while Adam and Eve might be porcelaine figures, maybe blonds, or maybe japonese, the guys in the new scene are more like indians or pakistani.)

So these are a bunch of Mechanical Turks in a internet cafe like place in India (for example). They receive Adam's bug ticket. We can see one of them, or several doing various stuff on their not so modern computers, but one of them opens on his screen Adam's request.

We can see that the screen has two windows open, one is a REPL Lisp window, the other is a molecular simulation. (This is a hook for a technical audience, important as any hacker movie screenshot.)

On the Lisp REPL there is an error message. The Mechanical Turk fixes it, then runs a molecular simulation. It works.

He then opens a smell convertor. (Variant, he opens "Nozzle", which is just like Google page visually, he searches for a RNA like word, then he hits enter.) Job done.

The third scene is Adam bedroom. He sleeps, not at all concerned, something between a puppet and a child in his bed.

Travelling to a detail in his room, which looks alike the sniffer ring, only that it is a wifi router with a feather. Lights flicker and the feather begins to swosh.

Travelling to the health bracelet of Adam. Shows: "Bug request solved. Status: healty".

The night is quiet and peaceful. The sunrise begins. Adam dreams something nice.

End.

checker659•3h ago
Surely it should be possible to spoof presence as well. Non-repudiation is not possible with this alone.
polishdude20•3h ago
Yeah at what point do we look back at this type of tech and say "the researchers surely knew this was going to be used in a bad way" and then blame them for it?

Like, I get it. The argument that "maybe the tech will be used for good" is an easy one to make. But given how tech is being used more and more for bad these days, surely it's harder to make that moral argument to justify this continued research?

Just because you can come up with one or two good reasons for the tech to exist, doesn't mean you get to ignore the overwhelming amount of reasons it shouldn't.

kjkjadksj•3h ago
About the same as being able to sequence dna left on a doorknob
BurningFrog•2h ago
We're already filmed by several cameras any time we're out in public. We're also tracked by our phones, unless we turn them off.

Privacy of what places you visit is already pretty much dead. We're the last generation who lived like that.

I'm not saying this is good or bad. Just that it is, and we have to adapt.

lazide•2h ago
Most new phones are trackable even if they are off, even.
RunningDroid•2h ago
> Most new phones are trackable even if they are off, even.

For anyone wondering how this works: the cellular modem is a separate general-purpose computer that runs code from the manufacturer and the service provider, the only thing needed to allow tracking a phone that's off is circuitry to allow the modem to draw power independent of the rest of the phone.

SoftTalker•40m ago
Another good reason to prefer phones with physical switches to cut off the radios. Or removable batteries. Or both.

I guess a faraday pouch might be helpful, but I recall reading these aren't really as effective as many people believe.

lazide•14m ago
I’ve had an iPhone receive a call inside a locked steel 50 cal ammo can. No clue how that is possible, but it happened.

I guess the gasket let enough EM through?

Amusingly, crumpled aluminum foil seems to have a better track record.

geysersam•27m ago
What's the purpose of such contraptions?
lazide•15m ago
Find my phone (as a benign example!) doesn’t work very well if you can’t find it if it’s off.
qualeed•2h ago
Even as a big privacy advocate, I don't see much reason to be especially concerned.

The fact that the DNA can be carried off to locations you've never physically been to pretty immediately puts a stop to any use in court and usefulness in any sort of tracking.

Not to mention it seems easily game-able by bad actors. Simply setting up an air filter at work for a few hours, then shaking out the air filter in a park or whatever, would contaminate anything gathered from the park. I would argue this technology is less worrying in the context of privacy than the standard DNA collection we already do.

There are a lot more non-hypothetical attacks on privacy that are succeeding and causing (probably) more damage than this technology theoretically could.

It seems mostly useful as was described in the article, like identifying the presence of an endangered animal within X distance and Y time.

rvnx•2h ago
You can clone fingerprint like here: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30623611

Fingerprints are still used in forensics, because the odds that it is forged are lower than an actual possibility that it is real.

Same for DNA then.

qualeed•2h ago
>Fingerprints are still used in forensics, because the odds that it is forged are lower than an actual possibility that it is real.

>Same for DNA then.

There's a world of difference between cloning a fingerprint/planting DNA (in the traditional sense, like fluids), and this technology.

The air might carry the particulates to areas never traveled to. That... doesn't happen with fingerprints.

Walking around the city with an air filter than traveling to a different city could imply that thousands of people have gone to a city they never went to before. Not happening with fingerprints or traditional DNA.

The noise with this tech is way too high to be useful in privacy-damaging ways. It's useless for tracking, useless for court, and more easily game-able than any other biometric by a lot.

To put it in your terms, this wont be used in forensics because the odds that it is a false positive is higher than the possibility that it is real.

mc32•2h ago
It can. “Door knobs” can be removed from place A and installed in location B. Or a weapon can also be placed somewhere else…
qualeed•2h ago
This requires action by someone else (who also risks leaving behind evidence).

The airborne stuff just spreads by itself. To far more places, far quicker, all the time.

mc32•2h ago
Granted; but concentration would go down at something like inverse of some exponential of the distance from source.
qualeed•2h ago
Sure.

My point isn't that this isn't a biometric or something.

My point is that it is the weakest biometric, full of noise, constantly contaminated, easily forged with no skill set or technology required, with a very high false-positive rate when used for anything privacy-related.

There are so many more things (technology, policy, etc.), literally violating people's right to privacy at this very moment, that trying to spin this as a theoretically privacy-damaging technology strikes me as a bit ridiculous.

amelius•1h ago
Still great for tracking people though.

Also, if with p=0.99 you were at the strip club yesterday evening, then you have something to explain.

qualeed•1h ago
>Still great for tracking people though.

No, no it isn't.

Cameras, license plate readers, air tags, phones, literally just stalking someone, and that sort of thing is great for tracking people.

They are easier, vastly less prone to false positives, etc. Your wife/husband isn't going to use a DNA air sniffer to figure out if you were at the strippers. They'll just follow you from a few car lengths back, or ask one of your friends, etc.

And if your concern is government, there are way easier, scalable, way more accurate ways to invade your privacy that are already proven to work and have the infrastructure already setup.

kjkjadksj•1h ago
Not just that. I touch a door knob and shed some skin cells. You touch the door knob and pick up some of my skin cells. You touch another door knob I’ve never seen and leave my DNA there.
throw83988494•2h ago
Some countries have very strict rules!

For example in France, doing DNA sequencing without consent of all parties, is crimimal offense with up to one year in prison! Similar in Germany.

Those laws are designed to prevent paternity tests, but can be appplied very broadly!

amelius•1h ago
Photos can be faked.

Yet we still fear face recognition based surveillance.

qualeed•1h ago
When the wind blows, a photo doesn't get faked, but these particulates will move to areas you haven't been to.

Faking a photo, convincingly enough to pass forensic scrutiny, requires skill, time, and equipment. Faking the results of this DNA vacuuming requires no skill, significantly less time, and the only equipment is an air filter.

I can go on, but I have a sneaking suspicion you're just trying to be contrarian rather than actually care about privacy.

geysersam•32m ago
The danger depends a lot on the details of the technology. You're assuming the results would be noisy enough that they're more or less useless. But what if they're not that noisy? Maybe it's easy to distinguish if a person passed near the filter or >100 meters away based on the intensity of the collected signal? Maybe you can even approximately distinguish the age of the DNA. Suddenly that sounds quite useful for tracking and for use in courts
qualeed•28m ago
Noise is not the only thing I mention, it's just one of many reasons. The fact that it is so easily gamed by bad actors is another compelling reason why it wouldn't work in the courts and is a poor tracking technique.

Primarily though, there are more accurate ways of tracking people at this very moment, which are less prone to false positives, less prone to faking, cheaper, more easily scalable, and are already widely used and accepted in courts.

This offers basically no improvement over any existing tracking technology, with a handful of downsides that the others don't suffer from.

While I think it's good to ask these sorts of questions, they need to be asked within the context of what is already happening. If there wasn't cameras everywhere, ubiquitous and accurate phone tracking, internet connected cars, GPS trackers the size of a thumbnail, etc. then yes, this technology would be concerning. But that's not reality.

Privacy advocates are already looked at with a sideways glance. The least we can do is be responsible on when we raise the alarm. This is not one of those times.

currymj•2h ago
everyone already leaves DNA everywhere, so it doesn’t seem like a step change.

genetic privacy is a good thing but is utterly artificial, we have to create it if we want it.

deadbabe•2h ago
Life is too short. There is a narrow window in life, if any, when you will probably care about this.

As a child, you won't care.

As an elderly person on their way out, you also won't really care.

Years 20 to 30, you probably don't have anything significant to lose.

50-75, you're probably more focused on being setup for comfortable retirement.

That leaves people in their 30s and 40s, midlife crisis era, you probably have other things on your mind. Kids, hobbies, etc.

If life was may two or three times longer, you might care more since the negative consequences of people sucking DNA out of thin air might affect you for a longer duration, but it isn't. You get maybe 75 good years and that's it. Don't worry about it.

deepfriedchokes•30m ago
Flock Safety but for DNA is inevitable.
kylehotchkiss•2h ago
This sounds like a fun exercise of signal to noise ratio
tekla•2h ago
We used to call them Hoovers 25 years ago. Just call them that again
dboreham•2h ago
Mostly measles virus in red states, presumably.
strangattractor•1h ago
The Farnsworth Smell-O-Scope was based on this technology;)
arjie•1h ago
I suppose you could try and see where I've been since I have my sequence publicly stored here https://my.pgp-hms.org/profile/hu81A8CC

If nothing else, I'll serve as a cautionary tale against this if something happens to me as a result of having my DNA publicly available to all.