CodingJeebus

If she is an asset and was close enough to gain physical access to his phone or main computer, that's pretty much the ballgame. CEOs often don't want their devices being on company MDMs, that's for the underlings.

I'd be somewhat concerned about getting caught up in ALPR surveillance driving a vehicle with Mexican tags in the US, given that locals are getting pulled over for nothing more than "suspicious driving patterns" nowadays[0].

0: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/ai-driven-polic...

I've been delivery-app-free for several years, with the lone exception being when I'm sick and contagious. Restaurant food with delivery basically costs double where I live, and grocery delivery has always been hit-or-miss on the quality of things like produce.

Freak what you feel but delivery apps are just not worth it for me personally outside of those necessary contexts and I don't mind the inconvenience of picking up my own food.

To be fair, food quality standards in the US have lagged places like Europe for many years. This is certainly not a new problem.

I'm pretty excited to be able to test mobile app gestures directly in Xcode on the Mac, should make for a better developer experience.

The concern with this is that it gives any company/government/etc. latitude to plant paid protestors or bot traffic in order to undermine opposition with greater efficacy in the AI era. Intelligence agencies have understood this tactic for many years.

I've had this exact experience a few times now on Reddit where I see a viral video and people point out that it's AI, and I don't always realize it right away. It's just not worth consuming content anymore that I don't feel confident about the provenance of.

So much of the front page was ragebait before AI, but ragebait that could be AI-generated is a hard nope for me.

But how does a true AI ban actually look in practice? The open weight models are out there, the hardware is out there. Spamming is already illegal but so commonplace that it's pretty laughably enforced at this point. Even really heinous stuff in the dark corners of the web still finds its way into the hands of users, I don't see how AI is any different in this regard.

True, but there are some key differences between this and Uber.

One is that an Uber rider is never put on a list of "can't ever ride on other services again", whereas if you try to sell a house that has unlicensed plumbing or electrical work done, it will show up on inspection and any smart buyer will walk (or run) away. Tons of real estate deals fall through because the seller did shoddy work like this and it will demonstrably reduce the value of your property because it's only worth what people are willing to pay.

This is also true for when you want an actual contractor to come work on your house. If a licensed contractor sees that you're trying to fix unlicensed work, they too will run away because they don't want to inherit the liability. I think the very red-tape nature of contracting work will be one of the things that protects it from this idiocy.

Doing unlicensed plumbing or electrical work is a crime where I live. Not that a law necessarily stops everyone (that problem already exists today), but I genuinely have a hard time seeing how companies get states to relax these kinds of laws because they exist for good reason. It doesn't surprise me to see companies try to make inroads here, but it's an uphill battle I think.

When I was a kid, a landlord in my community decided to "fix" a broken heating unit at one of his properties himself to save money, and wound up killing all of his tenants due to CO poisoning. Those are the kinds of situations that we are risking by enabling DIY contract work.

I remember reading this New Yorker piece[0] when it came out 8 years ago about how the proliferation of electronic health records software in hospitals was driving older doctors towards retirement, and it made me ponder how many people hated using the software I've built professionally over the course of my career.

Change comes to every profession, and it's never universally helpful or productive. I'm very much in the middle of the road on the AI booster/skeptic continuum, but I know it's not going away.

And getting to "enjoy" the work was always just a perk. Where in labor law in any country throughout history guarantees enjoyment of the work? Surprisingly few people throughout history have been able to say they enjoyed their work. It's always been a trade of time for money, everything else is table stakes. I'm finding new ways to find enjoyment both in the job and out of it, and if that time-for-money trade stops being worth it, I'll figure out something else.

0: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/12/why-doctors-ha...

This tracks with recent reporting that AI debt issuance fell 50% month over month in September[0]

> Tech companies raised $23 billion in AI-related debt globally in September, less than half the amount raised in August, according to Morgan Stanley data covering public bonds and private placement transactions.

> The decline marks a continued drop from June, when companies raised a record $113 billion for AI infrastructure including data centers and chips. In the US investment-grade market, where blue-chip tech groups borrowed around $306 billion between January and August, AI-related bond issuance stopped completely last month.

0: https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/tech-compan...

It's been wild to watch these guys absolutely butcher the Meetup app experience. The business fundamentals of that company were always very questionable, but the way BS has taken that app and introduced breaking change after breaking change to that platform does not inspire confidence in their other acquisitions.

I'd support a non-profit dating app in a heartbeat.

There are so many dark patterns in for-profit dating apps, it's the app equivalent of a funhouse mirror.

For one, something like 75-90% of the profiles are dormant/inactive, but they're still shown as active profiles to give current users the illusion that there are lots of options in your area. Second, a successful dating app experience (assuming they're looking for something serious), means the user churns, so the app company is financially incentivized NOT to put you in front of people that you would likely connect with, at least without trying to extract as much money from you at first. Finally, the paid accounts have gotten ridiculously expensive, which drives real users away from the platform. And of course, they don't have to be transparent about any of it.

A non-profit app has much less incentive to (frankly steal) from their users because they're able to offer the service at a lower cost, without the need for the funhouse mirror BS, and could even provide meaningful aggregate community data on how many couples they've connected, etc.

In my fairly wealthy and liberal community, the mayor (a Democrat) approved a Flock contract and refused to hold a public hearing on the issue until it became a nationwide story, at which point the contract was ripped up. The community was told to kick dirt until it became a political liability, and that's the point.

Political leadership doesn't want civil discourse until it becomes a self-preservation concern for them, same with data centers.

I disagree, it's important to discuss because it indicates that neither party is capable or interested in deviating from the current trajectory. Say the Republicans are voted out of power this cycle, who's really confident that the trajectory of all of this is going to meaningfully change in the next decade based on what we've seen in the past without a major shakeup in the political system?

It's the same core group of people controlling the centers of power in both parties for many years now, and it's not realistic to expect meaningful change for as long as they remain in power

Stories like these almost always ask for comment from the subject before publishing. If the initial numbers were wrong and OpenAI had a problem with it, they could've responded to the reporters at that time or at publish time, but they didn't. It's highly unlikely the original sourcing wasn't tied to OpenAI.

> I want a predictable LLM inference subscription, not a gacha game.

The only way we get to predictability is by paying what subscriptions are actually worth, and this entire game hinges on the fast that AI companies are not convinced that most people are willing to pay the 3-5x (or however much it is) multiple on what these accounts actually cost to run.

They would never do this because it would allow customers to see how often and to what degree they're shifting account limits. Token transparency costs extra, full API price to be exact.

Yes, but as Patrick Boyle points out, the banks underwriting this IPO are incentivized to make this deal look as big and sexy as possible. What goes up will eventually come down, though.

> Anthropic books the full value of marketplace contracts — sales agreements where customers buy access to Claude through a cloud provider's marketplace — as revenue because it sets prices and delivers the service, while recording the platforms' cut as a marketing cost.

> OpenAI has told investors and employees this approach inflates Anthropic's reported revenue by billions of dollars, Reuters reported in June. Anthropic told Reuters then that it follows established accounting practices, recognizing gross revenue because it is the “principal” in the transaction.

Obviously, OpenAI has a very large financial incentive to criticize their competitor, but it is kind of interesting that they're choosing specifically to attack them on accounting practices because their own IPO prospectus will surely receive the same scrutiny. One might assume that they'd want to avoid the accounting conversation altogether.

This is equally true for US AI

The generous subscriptions are wildly unprofitable and both companies are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, it's that simple.

> I think that’s broadly true when you look at purely client-side applications. I would hate to be in Adobe’s shoes right now. I think Photoshop, Lightroom, Illustrator, Premiere, all of these applications are going to have a million very good open source alternatives that have been vibe coded. So that end of the business, I think, is already gone. We’re just living on borrowed time.

Maybe, but I'm skeptical so far. DHH's core businesses are some of the most at-risk applications in the market IMO. They're really not much more than fairly standard Rails apps, there's very little deep problem-solving in them. And that's what I find so fascinating about his position: he's happy to talk about how at-risk Adobe is, but AI is going to one-shot Basecamp loooooong before it can one-shot Adobe.

Adobe's applications have years of deep expertise in all kinds of technical problems that nothing in Basecamp's arsenal comes close to touching. Just look at the quality of SVGs that LLMs generate today. It's impressive compared to a couple of years ago, but they're nowhere polished enough for something like you'd see a professional generate. And sure, it'll get there one day, but it's still not close today.

The accusation of theft by anyone is really only as strong as their financial capability to enforce it. The leg that the model companies stand on is their bank account, which is increasingly becoming the only force that moves the needle in this economic and political environment.

> Agentic development definitely still has room to improve, but I suspect that there is some future framework (maybe even language) designed to help minimise these types of mistakes.

Maybe there will be one day, but what are the odds that it will meaningfully move the needle for existing platforms such that manual code review is unnecessary? "Blindly trust the output" is not a feasible security posture today.

I literally just patched an AI-generated API endpoint on a new service at work that shipped without any auth whatsoever, because AI was re-implementing the auth token check method individually in each child controller instead of implementing once in a before_action hook. That's Rails 101 stuff and the app is small. It was so obvious that I saw it right away just reading the code, I didn't even set an agent loose to do an initial inspection. It was a real "yeah I still got it" moment for me.

I'm on board with the idea that agents are going to write most of the code, but not checking it is just insane to me, based on some of the things I've seen committed in commercial codebases recently.

Omarchy exists because there's a real demand for a power user OS that's not controlled by Apple and Microsoft. Windows sucks and MacOS now occupies an extra 18GB or something crazy for their internal models that's not an opt-out.

Hard pass on the always-on microphone. I wonder if this is going to backfire spectacularly, as in Apple watches will be banned in offices or at least socially rejected like Google glass back in the day.

I was really on the fence about replacing my Ultra 1 watch, even though it's no longer supported in WatchOS 27. The updates to the Ultra line have been so incremental ever since it released, but watching this has solidly shut the door for me.

Also, help for alcohol abuse is more accessible and socially accepted than ever before. Sober movements overall are having a moment in the US, even though some traditional recovery membership like AA is slightly declining.