Supply chain attacks and OSS sustainability go hand in hand
Mitchell Hashimoto@mitchellhSupply chain attacks and OSS sustainability go hand in hand. I've semi-seriously joked for years that OSS upstreams should periodically purposely inject full vulns into their code and let downstreams fuck around and find out. Downstreams can pay to get the non-FAFO version.
- ▪Mitchell Hashimoto@mitchellhSupply chain attacks and OSS sustainability go hand in hand.
- ▪I've semi-seriously joked for years that OSS upstreams should periodically purposely inject full vulns into their code and let downstreams fuck around and find out.
- ▪Downstreams can pay to get the non-FAFO version.
Hacker News (Newest) files mainly under programming. We currently carry 5,306 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | X (formerly Twitter) |
| Canonical URL | https://twitter.com/mitchellh/status/2057567975826395606 |
| Publication time | Sat, 23 May 2026 09:49:15 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-05-23T10:07:26.306Z |
| Last seen | 2026-05-23T10:07:26.306Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | 2gjKFcU7rFxI |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Mitchell Hashimoto@mitchellhSupply chain attacks and OSS sustainability go hand in hand. I've semi-seriously joked for years that OSS upstreams should periodically purposely inject full vulns into their code and let downstreams fuck around and find out. Downstreams can pay to get the non-FAFO version. The not joke part is simply that OSS maintainers aren't a supply chain. OSS maintainers are not responsible for monitoring CVEs (because, they are not a supply chain). OSS maintainers are not at fault when bad shit happens to downstreams, because basically every OSS license (MIT, Apache, GPL, etc.) literally says: the software is provided "as-is, without warranty." You get what you pay for (that is to say: absolutely nothing!) Now, the joke part is that I do believe there is an ethical…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at X (formerly Twitter).
Discussion
0 commentsMore from X (formerly Twitter)
