frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Open Source @Github

fp.

The First At-Home Test for Infected Ticks Could Improve Lyme Disease Diagnosis

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/the-first-at-home-test-for-infected-ticks-could-improve...
80•gmays•2h ago•28 comments

The price of a Costco hot dog has gone up

https://sina.bio/posts/costco-hotdog.html
44•sinab•59m ago•22 comments

Auto-research with codex: How I achieved a 232x Faster Kernel

https://sankalp.bearblog.dev/autoresearch/
240•tosh•6h ago•68 comments

Semaglutide linked to 26% lower 5-year predicted dementia risk

https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dad2.70432
9•randycupertino•1h ago•5 comments

RISC-V: They Should Have Known Better

https://dmitry.gr/?r=06.%20Thoughts&proj=12.%20RV
35•dmitrygr•1d ago•196 comments

The other Sean Byrne doesn't exist

https://conic.al/writing/the-other-sean-byrne-doesnt-exist/
313•rdl•12h ago•153 comments

The mathematical beauty of hyperbezier curves

https://linebender.org/blog/hyperbezier/
121•raphlinus•5d ago•14 comments

2D Gaussian Splatting for Bézier Spline Line Art Vectorization

https://studios.disneyresearch.com/2026/07/16/2d-gaussian-splatting-for-bezier-spline-line-art-ve...
12•Jimmc414•16h ago•2 comments

Show HN: Quasicrystals Animation Playground with WebXR

https://hypnagogic-quasicrystals.github.io/
23•r34•3h ago•6 comments

Show HN: Eigendrum - Draw any shape and hear what it sounds like as a drum

https://baselashraf81.github.io/eigendrum/
114•BaselAshraf81•5d ago•77 comments

The Problem

https://intelligence.org/the-problem/
27•Bluestein•4h ago•34 comments

Sea Lion Radio brings Seattle's barks, bleats and yaps to the world

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/sea-lion-radio-brings-seattles-barks-bleats-and-yaps-to...
9•ynac•5d ago•1 comments

Yadda 3.0.0: BDD in the Age of AI Agents

http://www.stephen-cresswell.com/2026/08/15/Yadda-3.0.0-BDD-in-the-Age-of-AI-Agents.html
33•scresswell•3h ago•14 comments

Working with AI Feels More Like Leadership Than Coding

https://allen.bargi.org/notes/working-with-ai-feels-like-leadership/
115•allenb•6h ago•88 comments

Could a computer scientist build a brain?

https://stankerstjens.github.io/could-a-computer-scientist-build-a-brain/
19•ogundipeore•3h ago•9 comments

AI Can Now Design Functional Viruses. Should We Worry?

https://spectrum.ieee.org/ai-designed-virus
47•pseudolus•1h ago•62 comments

A Spectre Is Haunting Unicode

https://www.dampfkraft.com/ghost-characters.html
13•sensanaty•2h ago•1 comments

Going Dark, and the era of law enforcement hacking

https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2026/08/14/everything-is-about-to-go-dark/
417•vslira•20h ago•212 comments

Using GCC's Nested Functions with Wide Pointers and No Trampolines II

https://uecker.codeberg.page/2026-07-14.html
60•uecker•9h ago•33 comments

The Color of White Light

https://ludens.cl/photo/spectra/spectra.html
52•xk3•4d ago•33 comments

In 1962, Egypt's Missile Program Lost Its Key Scientist Without a Trace

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a73358518/nazi-rocket-scientist-disappearance/
92•bookofjoe•3d ago•57 comments

Möbius Strips and Differential Equations

https://hidden-phenomena.com/articles/monodromy
29•mbustamanter•5d ago•5 comments

A controversial Alzheimer's surgery is said to reverse symptoms

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02448-x
7•jeffreyrogers•23m ago•0 comments

Xorshift Generators

https://www.alanzucconi.com/2026/08/15/xorshift-generators/
16•tobr•4h ago•6 comments

Qwen 3.8 27B

https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.8-27B-FP8
1281•erdaltoprak•1d ago•746 comments

Google is making private AI practical with homomorphic encryption

https://blog.google/security/how-google-is-making-private-ai-practical-with-homomorphic-encryption/
459•u1hcw9nx•1d ago•269 comments

Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3212428/firefox-is-now-the-last-major-browser-that-still-supports...
1483•DemiGuru•21h ago•568 comments

A Planet Position Widget

https://leancrew.com/all-this/2026/08/a-planet-position-widget/
9•speckx•2d ago•1 comments

Show HN: ThoughtDAG – An editable context graph for LLM conversations

https://chenxiachan.github.io/thoughtdag/
92•chatchan•12h ago•42 comments

Brain turns listening inward during REM sleep, EEG recordings suggest

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2026-07-brain-rem-eeg.html
38•gmays•3h ago•9 comments
Open in hackernews

AI Can Now Design Functional Viruses. Should We Worry?

https://spectrum.ieee.org/ai-designed-virus
45•pseudolus•1h ago

Comments

colingauvin•53m ago
No, a human could do (and have, many many many times, see like half of molecular biology) this as well. If anything this will help with vaccine development.
estearum•39m ago
Same reason it couldn't be a problem to sell aerosolized anthrax at the hardware store. Humans have (many many times) made aerosolized anthrax. Can't see any conceivable problem with more people having access to it.
dgellow•23m ago
That doesn’t invalidate the point, you’re just saying it’s already a risk
nozzlegear•6m ago
I agree with you. I favor the view that humans are generally morally good when taken on the whole. There already exists the technology for ne'er-do-wells to engineer viruses and unleash them on the world. But I submit that A) there aren't many people who want to do that in the first place; and B) there's a vanishingly small amount of people who want to work with those people to help them achieve it.
wild_pointer•53m ago
Betteridge's law strikes again
falcor84•41m ago
Wait, why are you not worried?
estearum•25m ago
It's super cringe and d e c e l to think technological advancement could have any dangers whatsoever.

Just like in a car, the true demonstration of intelligence is closing your eyes and slamming the pedal to the floor.

timr•47m ago
The design was never the hard part. You still have to make the thing.

Designing a modifcation to an existing virus is perhaps more achievable, but the implementation is still the hard part.

estearum•44m ago
You can literally send an email to one of hundreds of companies that do exactly this. They have no way of knowing whether you're asking them to synthesize a virus or a drug candidate or what.
transcriptase•40m ago
Yes in much the same way you can literally build a rocket and go to the moon.

You may be skipping a few of the involved steps.

estearum•36m ago
What involved steps are those?

You email the RNA strand (a text file) to a lab along with some money. The lab converts that information into a physical object (read: virus) and sends it back to you in the mail.

What step is missing?

smallmancontrov•15m ago
The part where that service doesn't exist and isn't close to existing.
estearum•13m ago
https://www.genewiz.com/public/services/gene-synthesis/custo...

Distance from mailbox to live virus is a few days of bench work from a semi-competent biochemist.

And yes, this service claims to have safeguards. Does every service? Does every future analogous service? Are those safeguards guaranteed to be robust against totally novel pathogens?

Answers: No, no, and no.

acjohnson55•37m ago
Something I've been worried about for years is the proliferation of technologies that give ever smaller numbers of people with smaller amounts resources the ability to impact billions of people, in potentially irreversible ways. Combined with automation, this is a recipe for disaster. We're clearly lacking in the ability to regulate and govern ourselves, and real world market forces (as opposed to the hypothetical free market) encourage reckless aggressiveness at the level of companies and countries.

Although, I must admit, as a doomer, I'm pleasantly surprised things aren't already worse than they are.

andsoitis•35m ago
> proliferation of technologies that give ever smaller numbers of people with smaller amounts resources the ability to impact billions of people

did you mean greater number of people with less resources?

EDIT: thanks to others that point out how you can interpret this differently, which I think is: "it is now easier for smaller teams with fewer resources" rather than my original interpretation of "power is now concentrated so that fewer people can do this than before"

estearum•33m ago
I had the same reaction, but I think they meant fewer as in "requires less consensus-building to wield meaningful power." Used to have to convince lots of people to go to war in order to kill a couple million people. Fast approaching a one- or two-man weekend project.
gtowey•33m ago
No, I think they mean that it used to take a giant lab full of specialists with lots of funding to do lots of damage before.

Now, the worry is a lone nut in a basement with no money could pull off an act of bio terrorism.

hoppp•31m ago
The regulation at the DNA Printer level works I think, as long as nobody invents a good at home DNA printer, but if they do that there is no need for custom viruses, somebody can take an existing one that is known to be deadly and just print it.
idontwantthis•27m ago
That’s what I’m thinking. If we can restrict EUV technology to the West then why can’t we restrict DNA manufacturing? Not to the West in this case but to capable governments like with Nuclear power.
convolvatron•25m ago
its not really a question of will, its a question of difficulty. if it were easy and cheap to build EUV processes, no amount of complaining and posturing would prevent someone from reproducing that.
estearum•20m ago
My understanding is DNA synthesis is now like a 2nd or 3rd year undergrad tier challenge and doesn't even require much specialized equipment.

Versus EUV which one could dump literally unlimited amounts of money into solving and still probably fail for decades.

morkalork•14m ago
I want to say I've already read some articles about hobbyists buying previous generation equipment from labs. The entire supplychain would need to be locked down with used equipment being returned to manufacturers for there to be any security.
sscaryterry
mehraban•28m ago
Yes, we should, but even here distribution is an serious issue.
clickety_clack•26m ago
Were we safer when the viruses were object oriented?
ModernMech•23m ago
Doubly because they’ll also use AI to manage the AI pandemic response.
SubiculumCode•17m ago
AI is an existential threat, full stop. It can also help us solve many of our greatest problems. Let's not let it solve those problems by removing us as the quickest shortcut.
evilelectron•13m ago
Get ready for the next adventure in the saga of 12 Monkeys, with AI starts like Bruce Wills, Madeleine Stowe, Brad Pitt and Christopher Plummer, coming to a bio lab around you. The experience of a life time one you can't miss, it is in the air.
consensus1•38m ago
One of the easiest and most effective AI regulations would be to simply require all these labs to run all incoming requests through a suite of the most advanced models asking if the request is likely to be a pathogenic agent.
estearum•34m ago
Yes probably true. Unfortunately we need only one defector lab to severely degrade the overall effectiveness of this approach (leaving aside the effectiveness of the detection models themselves).
dgellow•26m ago
That’s one interesting way to generate demand for AI vendors if the AI bet doesn’t pay off /s
wat10000•20m ago
Who’s going to simply require that? There are ~200 sovereign nations on the planet, they’re not all going to do it, or have effective enforcement if they do.
ben_w•7m ago
This is the kind of thing that would be relatively easy to convince nations to sign up to*; actually enforcing, I suspect you're right.

* there's not an obvious benefit to being the one nation that says "you know what? We want to be known as 'the nation whose biolab insecurity wrecked the world', because taking blame works out so well for everyone.", though I'm fairly sure a large portion of the world will be totally willing to wargame the impact of hosting a lab as a deadman switch so nobody else attacks them first…

demibabs•30m ago
Would they not be like “hmmm this one looks kinda similar to a known virus”

They really just synthesize anything for you?

estearum•28m ago
I'm sure some of them would, but they're not required by law to do so. And historically the way you'd do this is by actual fragment/substring matches. But these are novel viruses now. So what you really want to do is try to predict whether a novel genome is pathogenic... which is itself obviously a very hard technical problem.
Enginerrrd•5m ago
That’s not too much a concern I think. Most of the real pathogenic qualities result from known genes. Inventing a totally novel virus that is also pathogenic is basically science fiction right now. Splicing together known components that could be bad in combination is closer to current technology.
smallmancontrov•18m ago
No, of course not. In 2010 I went to a guest lecture from a guy who worked on the scanning algorithm for IDT. A few years later, there was a minor scandal when someone in a nearby lab used a personal credit card for a purchase and got a big shared account locked. So not only were they scanning the content of synthesis orders, they were validating payment back to labs. In 2010, when HTTPS was rare and facebook didn't even offer it.
estearum•14m ago
"There are websites where you can just buy prescription drugs online?"

You: "No, of course not. I once went on a website to buy a drug, and they made go to a doctor and get a prescription and send it to them"

smallmancontrov•7m ago
The legit synthesis sites have been scanning and authorizing since before the internet was encrypted. You suggested otherwise, demibabs expressed surprise, and was correct to express surprise because your implication was incorrect.

The black market exists -- but comes with black market problems.

timr•22m ago
No, you literally cannot. Synthesizing a stretch of DNA is trivial, and what you can send away for [1].

Building a functional virus is not even remotely a turn-key operation. Assuming you could get the genome, expressing that genome in a way that results in infectious virus is non-trivial.

[1] Even then, the companies will rarely give you long enough reads to make a full genome scaffold. It looks like there are two companies that will do 50-100kb assemblies as a service today, but I guarantee you they're going to look at what you're trying to make, and who is asking them to do it.

rbliss•21m ago
Yet.
timr•8m ago
No, the sophomoric LLM argument does not apply here. The world is not a big computer.

The point is that the rate-limiting step in producing something infective is a couple million dollars in special lab equipment, skilled practitioners, and incredibly tricky and tedious procedures that take time and repetition to master.

So yeah, you can try to pay someone who has that expertise to make your top-sekret superbug (good luck with that), or you can do what any real threat actor is doing to do, and put in the time and investment. That's the hard part, not asking ChatGPT for a genome sequence.

Let me put it another way: despite the synthesis pathways for many common illegal drugs being widely known and trivial enough that an undergrad O-chem major could do them, in fact doing this is a very good way to get caught and arrested. And that's easy.

estearum•15m ago
https://www.genewiz.com/public/services/gene-synthesis/custo...

There you go!

Steps from your mailbox to an actual virus is a few days of bench work.

timr•6m ago
Yes, that's one of the ones I was talking about.

That's not a service that makes you a virus, and making one from an mRNA transcript is not trivial.

haxiomic•39m ago
There’s YouTubers who do this [0]. I’d argue estimate the risks of a synthetically induced pandemic of massive impact this century are very high

- [0] https://youtu.be/aoczYXJeMY4?is=OqObeGzZB6AKL0Jk

wat10000•18m ago
“There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

But the next one (or the first one, if that one wasn’t manmade) will probably be much worse.

timr•4m ago
Not even close to the same thing. That's taking an existing viral transfection system and swapping in a single gene.
demibabs•27m ago
Fewer as in the size of an individual group, even though the total number of people who could find themselves in such a group is greater.
Eddy_Viscosity2•31m ago
Every person's utopia is someone else's dystopia and vice versa. What you've described is clearly some peoples (ie. already billionaires) version of the best possible world. Not so much for the rest of us though...
bmacho•8m ago
I'm so surprised that HN is this much anti-government. I'm a doomer myself, I fear the rich, I fear the terrorists, and I think the only one that

  - can save my life, 
  - is interested in saving my life
  - i have some control over
is the state.

Yes, they are currently snatching kids of (illegal) immigrant parents and it is horrible, but who else would protect me against lone nuts in a basement, or robor armies of trillionairs?

thatfunkymunki•16m ago
I think you would get a kick out of reading this paper on this exact topic, called the Vulnerable World Hypothesis https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf

However I think the result is disappointing, it concludes the only solution is a massive preventative surveillance state and global governance.

energy123•13m ago
This is what AI safety activist Connor Leahy calls offense-defense asymmetry. Imagine if a nuke could be created with household materials. We got lucky that wasn't the case, but we didn't know that it wasn't the case before studying physics. If we weren't so lucky that physics happened to turn out that way, we already wouldn't exist, because the offense would be so much stronger than defense, we wouldn't stand a chance even with the best surveillance systems.

A profitable prediction markets trader who goes by the alias semiotic rivalry posted this prediction on his X account recently:

> Prediction: in 1-2 years, almost everyone will agree that open sourcing the best AIs is totally crazy as the AIs become capable of autonomous hacking of most humans and institutions, serious terrorism and creation of biological weapons, etc.

And I mostly agree with him. As much as it's awful to have such a concentration of capabilities in the hands of a few governments or corporations, as far as I can tell there are no easy answers here, only a matter of trade offs and different risks.

wat10000•12m ago
I’d say that is almost the definition of technology: that which allows doing ever more with fewer and fewer people and resources.

And technology doesn’t really care what you use it for. It can be constructive or destructive.

It “only” enhanced local destructive potential, until last century. Then it got to the point where a huge effort could produce a truly global catastrophe. And then a bit smaller effort. And technology continues to march on.

•
5m ago
I saw a sweet electron microscope on eBay, for 2000 quid. If I had the space...
Onavo•19m ago
Not sure if you realize it but biology is a lot harder to regulate. Most of the secret sauce in biotech is in the manufacturing process, not the reagents itself.

I will give you a classic example, the Lipid Nanoparticle used for the delivery of mRNA vaccine is the real lynchpin of covid vaccines. The media never talks about it. Any biology student knows how lipid bilayers work (they are the basic building block of cells, it's like asking a programmer what a terminal is). But the process of manufacturing those lipid nano particles at scale was the main bottleneck for delivering mRNA to the target cell. That was the trade secret. It's not sexy or hot like mRNA so the media doesn't talk about it. It's why many developing countries tried to make their own vaccines and failed completely. The mRNA was the easy part but what use is a bunch of mRNA if you can't get them delivered to cells?

Any biology student (even high school ones) can describe how a cell membrane works. But designing a man-made one that can be created at scale and be guaranteed to fuse with mammalian cells is mostly a matter of trial and error. It's a bit like finding viable pseudo linear memory use alternatives to the basic attention architecture in machine learning. Every lab has their own take on it.

With AI nowadays the search space of viable biotech ex nihilo experimentation is much smaller given that you can just prompt it to give you plausible protocols.

ben_w•15m ago
An EUV factory is a moderately sized building in its own right[0]; on the other hand, DNA is manufactured separately inside most of the cells in your body[1], the plant on your windowsill, the mould on your bread…

[0] "43 freight containers and weighing in at 165 tons." - https://www.theregister.com/offbeat/2024/12/03/asml-releases...

[1] not in red blood cells

dotancohen•9m ago
Aren't technological constraints such as these short lived? Even if s home DNA printer won't be available this decade, the technology will come at some point. It's far better to have both legal and social policy in place before then - though the legal policy will probably not matter at all.
HarHarVeryFunny•6m ago
A custom designed virus is potentially far more deadly than something like ebola, because animals/plants will have zero resistance to it.

It'd be like releasing an invasive species into an ecosystem that has not co-evolved to co-exist with it.