Remix.run Logo
▲ andix a day ago

Not losing production data and not getting breached is also something we try to make zero mistakes at.

▲tybit a day ago | parent | next [-]

There’s a limit to how much society can spend on aircraft safety, but it’s quite a lot because it’s so important. Cyber Security teams have to work with large constraints because spending an ever increasing amount of money directly, or losing money indirectly (like not allowing product teams to move quickly) is explicitly not a goal of most companies. So while we try to make zero mistakes, most companies are willing to take a non zero amount of extra risk of these things happening in exchange for other benefits.

▲andix a day ago | parent [-]

Aviation is working with the same constraints. Development of new systems is very slow, that's true. But day-to-day operation is extremely fast paced, and still impressively safe. They are able to change an engine of an aircraft within hours, with a very high probability of not making any relevant mistakes in the process.

▲simonra a day ago | parent [-]

Sure, but at what cost? How quickly improvements are delivered is one thing, but the materials and chosen process also come at a premium. And while it probably is worth it in aviation due to life and health being highly irreplaceable, the value of for instance my chat history or photos is certainly finite and quite low. Should they be corrupted, leaked, or worst case gone, it would somewhat suck. But at the same time I've effectively concluded that safeguards are worth about 0.4% of my monthly take home after tax, and when the yearly bill comes due I'm each time increasingly questioning whether I actually do value them even that highly.

▲Brian_K_White a day ago | parent [-]

"Sure, but at what cost?"

At the appropriate and necessary cost.

A less costly new engine design or less costly engine swap procedure that fails is worse than no airplane at all. If it's cheaper and fails, we don't want it. It wasn't cheaper, it was even worse than expensive.

It's not hyperbolic all or nothing. Sure infinite cost is just as useless as infinite failure, but there is no reason to talk about infinite.

At what cost? Some. At some cost.

▲NegativeK a day ago | parent [-]

> At what cost? Some. At some cost.

This doesn't address how the cost of safety related procedures versus the cost of risks mitigated is calculated (which is way harder than saying "some") so that the buyer can actually know what "some" cost is.

It's also not addressing the parent comment's point: the bad outcomes in aviation tend to be very impactful (both in human safety and financially), so the tolerance for mistakes is way lower.

Compared to cybersecurity for a brochureware website, where it takes a far larger stretch to go from "security incident" to "someone's dead". (Also, people in cybersecurity aren't going to accept "it has some cost, and you might buy it if it's not too expensive".)

▲reverius42 20 hours ago | parent [-]

For the commercial flight industry this is very easy to calculate: zero deaths are acceptable. This is not like car manufacturer recall calculations (famously, referenced in Fight Club: if the lawsuit costs the manufacturer less than the recall, they don't recall). The airline industry is built different thanks to heavy regulation.

You could ask: is it _worth_ making it that safe? But we don't ask that. We just make it that safe.

I think there is a good point to be made that this level of safety (it costs what it costs) is probably not worth it for cybersecurity, in general, even if it's largely considered worth it for commercial aviation.

▲disgruntledphd2 16 hours ago | parent [-]

As software intermediates more and more of the physical world, we're gonna end up at least as regulated as finance, and potentially as much as aviation.

The only real question is how much damage will be caused before that happens.

▲justincormack a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can also reduce blast radius from breaches, and make systems more robust, rather than just trying to make zero mistakes. How bad breaches are and how well you can recover is also part of the outcome, just framing it as zero breaches or nothing is not that helpful, even though reducing breaches is important.

▲jeremyjh a day ago | parent | next [-]

This isn't a different thing - it is just one of techniques used, and it still requires humans to understand the systems they are building. Teams that outsource their systems understanding to AI will fail, no matter how they frame it.

▲andix a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Isn't that the same thing as "not making mistakes"? If you can reduce the blast radius and didn't, wasn't that a major mistake in the first place?

▲charlieyu1 a day ago | parent | next [-]

A lot of code is certainly not written careful enough. Plenty examples of plaintext passwords storage in the wild.

▲phil21 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

No, it's recognizing mistakes will be made and no one is perfect. You will also make mistakes regarding blast radius - sometimes the blast doors don't close or function like you thought they would during an actual explosion.

Defense in depth is the idea. Swiss cheese model of failure.

▲disgruntledphd2 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, but this is bottlenecked by both your ability to observe and understand the system, which is precisely the thing that's being reduced by careless use of AI tools.

▲toomuchtodo a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Those of us who care. Those optimizing for economic returns or out of ideology are not. More carnage will be required for incentives to swing back I think.

"Security is for losers"

> Andy Yen, the CEO of Proton, had a message for an employee in the company’s security Slack channel who urged the company to at least take a few days to pentest newly written code before pushing it live. “That’s bullshit and loser thinking. Of course it’s possible to be fast and secure,” Yen wrote in the channel at the end of August. “Stop thinking always of how to be slower, and focus more on how to be faster.” In a follow-up message, Yen reiterated his point: “only losers think like that.” His ultimate message for the team was to “stop lovingly handcrafting all our code and use AI more.”

Proton CEO Andy Yen: "This will be the last year that we hire engineers." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50295112 - October 2026

Manifestos, Fear, and 'Loser Thinking': Inside Proton's AI Reckoning - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50289692 - October 2026

Good luck.

Edit: There appears to be some consequences for acting like this and those actions being made public.

Proton's CEO Cancels AI 'Re-Interviews' - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50307183 - October 2026

▲thereader12 a day ago | parent | next [-]

That's the sort of thing you really don't want to hear from your encrypted mail company.

▲mcv a day ago | parent | next [-]

I can imagine people are quickly looking for an alternative now. I wouldn't want to hear this from any company I'm a customer of.

▲chrisweekly a day ago | parent [-]

FWIW, Fastmail is awesome.

▲mcv a day ago | parent | next [-]

I've been doing a bit of research, and mailbox.org looks like a winner. It's in Europe and it supports IMAP. Those are pretty much my main requirements, I think.

▲encrypted_bird a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Do they have a free tier?

▲tancop a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Moving faster is good. But only if it means sending more agents (and humans, that part is important) to do the same amount of testing in less time. Dropping critical work is not that.

▲coldtea a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Moving faster is good.

Says who? For what purpose? To whose benefit?

I want my encrypted email company to move slow, deliberately, and very carefully.

I'd like most software in general to move slower. Some, I'd like to not move at all. I hate churn for churn's sake, or piling useless features just so you pretend you did something to justify your subscription pricing, both of which were already the norm before AI and are worse now.

To speak in Apple terms, we don't miss more and faster crap novelties. We miss the Snow Leopard releases.

▲jjav 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Moving faster is good.

No, not necessarily. Sometimes, yes. For anything important, the last thing I want is a company that's moving too fast.

An email company? The base protocol RFC was written in the 70s. It's as mature as computer technology gets. There is zero value in moving fast here, all the value is in building an absolutely rock solid and secure solution.

The very opposite of move fast and break things.

▲linksnapzz a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Oblig. Simpsons:

Homer: “There’s three ways to do things. The right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power way!

Lisa: "Isn’t that also the wrong way?"

Homer: "Yeah, but... faster.”

▲devmor a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Why is moving faster good? I don’t see much benefit to it, unless I am a shareholder.

▲disgruntledphd2 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Even if you're a shareholder, the long term gains of an investment are much higher than the short term ones.

The trouble is that executives are bonused on much shorter time scales, and they run the company.

▲toomuchtodo a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Vote with your feet or prepare for your eventual breach notification and data loss event. You control who you choose to do business with, and who custodians and processes your data, it is a choice. Make good choices.

▲lenerdenator a day ago | parent [-]

The problem is, ultimately, most companies have this mindset. Certainly the ones you've heard of do.

Charlie Munger once said, "Show me the incentives, and I'll show you the outcomes." There are very, very, very few actual incentives to operate a real infosec effort at most companies. Think about it: how many companies have you heard of going out-of-business because of breaches? If you're like most Americans, you've probably received at least one letter from some company you did business with telling you that their systems were compromised and your data may or may not have been stolen as a result. They'll usually close out the letter with an offer of free credit monitoring for some finite length of time. Since that's useless and a lawsuit is a pain in the ass with no guarantee of benefit, the vast majority of people simply sigh and toss the letter in the trash.

There's no real way to pin identity theft or other consequences on a given data breach, so it's hard to make any sort of claim that way.

At the end of the day, the company has saved money by not instituting best InfoSec practices and red-teaming their software on a routine basis. There are no civil or criminal penalties for them not doing so.

So they don't.

▲pjmlp 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Which is why the recent movements for cybersecurity liabilities are so relevant, they are the incentives.

Now in some countries those with data security office role have more to worry about than only losing their job, if they sign off on something that isn't qualified to be out there in first place.

https://germancomplianceinstitute.com/blogs/news/personal-li...

▲jjav 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> That's the sort of thing you really don't want to hear from your encrypted mail company.

Tone deaf award of the decade surely goes to that guy.

If it were some social game app or something, I guess it wouldn't be as tragic, but for a company whose sole reason to exist is to provide security... wow. Goodbye any trust ever again.

▲jerf a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"His ultimate message for the team was to “stop lovingly handcrafting all our code and use AI more.”"

Mmmmm... I think I may have to score this particular point for the CEO. Lovingly handcrafted code has been many things over the past 30 years, but "secure" is not one of the adjectives I'd apply to it. Anyone who thinks that the lovingly handcrafted code has always just been wonderfully secure needs to check the tint on their glasses.

A proper AI setup probably can produce more secure code more quickly than conventional development processes... however one of the keys will be to understand that yes, that will still be slower than writing code that is not rather carefully analyzed for security and a company like Proton had better have a strong commitment to never, ever skipping that step because it's slowing them down or it got expensive. "Proper" in "proper AI setup" is the most important word.

But that's not to say that I'm endorsing everything else he said. Even if it is true that companies will be able to stop hiring engineers, which at the moment I seriously doubt [1], a company like Proton should expect to be one of the last companies who can do that, not be getting publicly excited about it first. Hey we dumped all our engineers because our managers can just prompt our AIs just as well here in October 2026 would definitely be a "instantly cancel any Proton services I had" signal for me.

[1]: One of the things I don't expect to change is that there are plenty of people I would describe my actual day-to-day work to and they would consider it a living hell if they had to do it. I still quite enjoy it overall. And there are plenty of jobs that other people love and I would consider a living hell. Even in 25 years that's going to be the case. There will be people willing to put up with the process of working with the system to create this stuff... but the people who are willing to be professional about this, do the QA, do the work beyond the first fun prompts, is going to be a minority, and an even smaller minority who take the time to get good at it. There will always be people who are better and people who are worse.

▲Yoric a day ago | parent [-]

While I agree that handcrafting code has never been any kind of guarantee of secure code, I'd argue that it remains a condition: if all you have is a set of specs (or even worse, specs written by AI and not read carefully by anyone) and no mean to ensure that the implementation actually matches the spec, you essentially have no understanding of what the code is doing, which is security suicide.

Of course, AI reviewers and security tools will catch some security errors, but this should come as an addition to a proper security design, not instead of it.

▲throwaway270925 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

God am I happy to not have switched to Proton right now!

▲timbaboon a day ago | parent | next [-]

Haha same! Was about to pull the trigger in the next few weeks

▲coldtea a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I kick myself for having adopted part of its paid offerings.

▲boredatoms a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wow this makes me hesitate to renew with them

▲crnkofe a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just learned about his position on security today. Been a Protonmail user for a while now. Initially I switched to detach myself from the US corp monopolies. Its just a matter of time now before I shutdown my Protonmail account. CEOs should understand that company ethics and security are not just black pixels on a white background.

▲Sinidir a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wow. I'm literally reconsidering having any mails at proton anymore. This is beyond abysmal attitude.

▲red_candle_wax a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> "Security is for losers"

Lol, brave words in an age of $6B heists and major CVEs every week.

▲fcarraldo a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The irony here with Yen (and to be clear, fuck him) is that Proton has been _slow as molasses_ since the beginning. It took them literal years to launch a calendar. A calendar!

Either he's been like this the entire time, trying to crack the whip and failing, and thus a bad leader who has repeatedly failed to get results, or he's (as his employees have said) very deep in AI Psychosis and completely abandoned his principles.

It doesn't matter which it is, they're both extremely damning for the company and his leadership.

▲coldtea a day ago | parent | next [-]

>The irony here with Yen (and to be clear, fuck him) is that Proton has been _slow as molasses_ since the beginning. It took them literal years to launch a calendar. A calendar!

As if that's a problem? I want them to be my fucking encrypted email. Not a calendar. Not a backup. Not a VPN. And they've already stretched to all kinds of shit.

▲fcarraldo a day ago | parent [-]

They are that. Is something fundamental missing from Protonmail?

My point is they announced they’d ship a calendar in 2019 and it took 2 years to ship a full release and 3 to ship an iOS app.

It also sort of sucks, and in 2024 (year 5) they announced they’re rebuilding it. The rebuild partially shipped in 2026.

For a guy suddenly obsessed with speed these timelines are even more absurd.

▲Muromec a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I would rather have protonmail without all the stuff they are adding there

▲MDTHLN a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What is it with weirdo tech executives and calling people losers? First DHH, now this guy.

▲jerf a day ago | parent | next [-]

According to my friendly neighborhood AI there is no commonly accepted term for this effect, but when you have a community of people that is heavily selected for a particular characteristic you will end up with people that generally are outliers in some other significant ways too. In this case, caring deeply about email security is weird... unfortunately... and you can expect further weirdness from such people.

You can also read about people talking about this in the super-early computer user communities. When you had to be a bit crazy to even be interested in computers you ended up with people who were outliers in a lot of other ways too. As more people came in to the space it would regress to the mean... this is one of the things that "regression to the mean" can be regressing from.

▲1659447091 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> According to my friendly neighborhood AI there is no commonly accepted term for this effect, but when you have a community of people

Social contagion [0] (not to be confused for memetics [1]) involves behaviour, emotions, or conditions spreading spontaneously through a group or network. [...] Throughout history all social contagions have had a single thing in common: the people who follow them genuinely believe their group is only doing positive effects, and cannot rationalize negative effects from within their group.

Tech executives are a group (and a network), its not some "regression to the mean" its common human social behaviour within group dynamics. It's not just those two there has been a progressive slide of executives joining the 'tech-bro' subgroup.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contagion

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

▲vkou a day ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not weirdness, it's just the combination of being an asshole and nobody in his life being able to tell him 'No.'

▲toomuchtodo a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Weak man's idea of a strong man. Strong leaders protect and support those who work for them, and accept legitimate criticism and being challenged on their ideas, but I digress.

"Any man who must say 'I am the king' is no true king." The measure is not who you can bully and denigrate successfully, but who will follow you to hell.

▲ishouldnotbutk8 a day ago | parent [-]

>Strong leaders protect and support those who work for them, and accept legitimate criticism and being challenged on their ideas

And whose idea of a strong man is this? I don't think many people would follow Putin to hell willingly, or that he accepts any criticism, or accept being challenged on his ideas. But he could be called a "strong man", at least the kind of "strong man" some people aspire to be.

▲ a day ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
▲linksnapzz a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Anybody who is as responsible for popularizing Ruby on Rails & YAML as DHH has, has no standing to call anyone else a loser.

▲mort96 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I mean if a company doesn't care about protecting its users' data then any conversation about improving security is gonna be inapplicable to them.

I'd also suggest that companies being so blasé is a direct result of lacking regulation. If there was no laws about aviation safety I bet we'd have more airlines with lax safety standards and more accidents.

▲imtringued 14 hours ago | parent [-]

This is something I noticed as well.

Because humans were, loosely speaking, careful about not making egregious security mistakes, most security vulnerabilities turned out to be either harmless or the result of a programming language allowing the type of exploit to begin with.

But now we have code from non-people ordered by people who both don't care about security at all.

That means you will get maximally bad security outcomes which in turn will make governments consider regulating the software development industry. They are speed running their own demise.

▲QuiEgo a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Eww. I have now lost all interest in their products.

▲imtringued 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am wondering if these managers and CEOs even understand what their company's product is and that this lack of understanding is what causes them to become obsessed with things only a manager does. Which is ironic in the face of the accusations that developers are against AI because they just want to keep their jobs. It's the managers who want to live out their management fantasy.

▲znpy a day ago | parent | prev [-]

But why stop there? Aim higher!! End of all world’s wars, no more hunger anywhere anymore, free abundant clean electric power for everyone everywhere!

Jokes aside, you can’t get anywhere near zero fault unless to impose strict operating regulations , requirements and procedures and regular checks… just like in aviation.

And even there, boeing manages to fuck it up somehow.